Why Support Ron Paul If He Can't Win?

Some will be offended by the title and may disagree with a few statements within. But this is an important, informed perspective and merits a larger audience; I think it is fitting for The Daily Paul. Before judging, a full read is recommended.

“…our real purpose in fighting a strategic battle (with losing odds) is to use the existing and ongoing crisis to help others see the evils of false conservative causes, and false leaders (wolves in sheep's clothing) and the hijacking of true principles for evil purposes.”

The article below is reprinted with permission, from the September 8 , 2007 edition Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief.

Why Support Ron Paul If He Can’t Win?

This is the most common question I receive among the minority of subscribers who are reluctant to "waste time" on a Don Quixote political candidacy. Most of you know that I don't think we are going to win back our freedoms politically--though it is certain that even the PTB are still concerned enough about American's waking up to their "awful situation" that they continue to pour huge resources into manipulating public opinion.

I also harbor no hopeful illusions about controlling the corrupt Republican party which has been taken over by globalists (as have the Democrats). That is why I have been more inclined toward principled third parties like the Constitution Party or Libertarian Party. However, it is my experienced opinion that barely 2% of the nation is capable of coming to a fully principled understanding of the issues, under optimal conditions. That just the nature of soft good people who are too spread out or lack the intellectual vigor to really think through the issues. Any larger movement of good people has to be driven by a combination of feel-good sound bites and bandwagon patriotism--not substance.

Why then support the candidacy of Ron Paul? It's simply because Ron's candidacy is capable of building the liberty movement like no other person or organization presently can, and it will probably be his last effort due to increasing age. It may be our last big chance to boost the numbers of people who will form the core of those determined to someday say to the government and New World Order, "Don't Tread on Me."

You have to have numbers of people to make an effective stand against tyranny and right now Ron Paul is the most articulate and visible champion we have. Ron is gathering people from all across the political spectrum. I've been interviewed by radio stations on the Left who are fed up with the Democratic go-along party, and are talking about supporting Ron Paul. For the first time in history we have a person capable of uniting libertarians, constitutional conservatives and honest Liberal/leftists who oppose the New World Order. The political pundits have never before seen this kind of persistent "internet effect" despite repeated efforts to downplay Ron Paul's popularity.

We have never had this kind of opportunity before, and may not again, so it is worth supporting--for the movement's sake. True, he isn't going to win the nomination. The PTB would never let him win. If he ever gained the presidency they would eliminate him. But winning the nomination or even the presidency isn't really the main issue at this late stage in the battle, because we aren't going to win --and not just because of an evil conspiracy at the top. The majority of the electorate would probably not vote for Ron Paul even if they understood the issues because they have become corrupted by evils of democracy: welfare benefits, jobs, government subsides and the "benefits" of public schooling paid for at the expense of those of us who don't want it nor use it. Despite the evils of fiat money, most would NOT vote to dismantle the Federal Reserve bank because of fear of what would happen as the economy deflated back to reality--and they would be right (in the short-term). The results would be horrendous.

The only issue that would bring the common person to turn on the establishment is a widespread understanding of conspiracy isuues, and that isn't going to happen either. No other topic is so taboo in the media except conspiracy--unless you are in the business of debunking conspiracy. That is permitted and encouraged.

If you watched the New Hampshire debate on Wednesday you saw several examples of the clear and refreshing contrast between Ron Paul and the rest of the statists: The "top" candidates kept spouting the virtues of the Iraq intervention and were countered effectively by Paul.

"(AP) 'The surge is apparently working,' said Romney, referring to the increase in troops. That brought an instant rebuke from McCain, who said, 'The surge is working, sir, no, not apparently. It's working.' Alone among the contenders, Paul, a veteran Texas congressman with a libertarian streak, made the case for withdrawing troops. That drew a sharp challenge from Chris Wallace, one of the debate questioners, who asked whether the United States should take its marching orders from al-Qaida. 'No! We should take our marching orders from our Constitution,'' Paul shouted back, pointing his pen at Wallace for emphasis. ' We should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it's an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We've committed the invasion of this war. And it's illegal under international law. That's where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy.

"Occasionally interrupted by applause, Paul doggedly stuck to his point. 'We have lost over 5,000 Americans over there in Afghanistan, in Iraq and plus the civilians killed,' he said during his exchange with Huckabee [who claimed we can't leave Iraq till it is fixed]. 'We bought it because we broke it. We've got a responsibility to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has served in Iraq and ever served in our military to not leave them with anything less than the honor that they deserve.

PAUL: 'The American people didn't go in. A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservatives hijacked our foreign policy. They're responsible, not the American people. They're not responsible. We shouldn't punish them.'

HUCKABEE: 'Congressman, we are one nation. We can't be divided. We have to be one nation, under god. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country: the United States of America, not the divided states of America.'

PAUL: No, when we make a mistake -- when we make a mistake, it is the obligation of the people, through their representatives, to correct the mistake, not to continue the mistake.... we've dug a hole for ourselves and we've dug a hole for our party. We're losing elections and we're going down next year if we don't change it, and it has all to do with foreign policy and we have to wake up to this fact. How long - what do we have to pay to save face? That's all we're doing, is saving face. It's time we came home,' Paul said.

Bravo. The distinction between Paul and rest of the establishment candidates was even more clear on the issue of liberty.

Mitt Romney has fallen into the mental trap of anything is justified in war: "Use the law to follow people who are teaching doctrines of terror and hate, and make sure that if they're doing that in a mosque, in a school, in a playground, wherever it's being done, we know what's going on. ... And if it means we have to go into a mosque to wiretap or a church, then that's exactly where we're going to go. Because we're going to do whatever it takes to protect the American people. And I hear from time to time people say, hey, wait a second. We have civil liberties we have to worry about. But don't forget, the most important civil liberty I expect from my government is my right to be kept alive, and that's what we're going to have to do."

Tom Tancredo, despite being great on the immigration issue, continues to scare me on the core fundamentals of liberty: "we have captured people who have information that could lead us to the next one that's going to go off and it's the big one. That was the question that I responded to, and I told you, yes, I would do -- certainly, waterboarding -- I don't believe that that is, quote, 'torture.'" I'd like to see him try it and see if he doesn't think it is torture.

Here's Ron's response: "But you know, just going for increasing presidential powers, as has been discussed, is rather disturbing to me. This whole idea that we're supposed to sacrifice liberty for security, we're advised against that. Don't we remember that when you sacrifice liberty for security, you lose both? That's what's happening in this country today. We have -- we have a national ID card on our doorsteps, it is being implemented right now. We have FISA courts. We have warrantless searches. We've lost habeas corpus. We've had secret prisons around the world and we have torture going on. That's un-American, and we need to use the power of the presidency to get it back in order, in order to take care of us and protect this country and our liberties."

Author Melinda Pillsbury-Foster writing in opednews.com summed it up well, reflecting the points I just made: "In the debate this evening in Durham, New Hampshire, Congressman Ron Paul again spoke the truth that all Americans, but especially Republicans, need to hear. No longer gasping at the single-hearted courage that propels Paul to speak truth despite the continued efforts of the NeoCon corporate field to maintain the myths promulgated by the Bush Administration, the corporate CFR candidates, lead by Huckabee, attacked the only real Republican on the stage. The audience applauded loudly [for the anti-Paul forces, which is telling]. Many of us cheered.

"The Ron Paul Campaign is reshaping politics in America by raising the inconvenient facts that underly the whole of American government. We have a Constitution; we need to return to it and to the original framing intended by the Founders. That means an end to the Federal government as we know it today. Left and right, Americans from all political viewpoints are beginning to see the propaganda campaign to which they have been subjected and to understand just how far from freedom the ugly alliance of government and corporations have taken us.

"When the debate ended Fox was left holding polling results that showed Paul the clear winner [Ron Paul 33%, Huckabee- 18%, Giuliani- 15%, McCain- 14%, Romney- 12%, Hunter- 2%, Tancredo- 2%, Brownback- 1%] Naturally, the media will ignore the results, claiming that Paul supporters 'spammed' the poll. But they know perfectly well that is not the case. If it were so the present technologies make proving that a simple matter. The IP addresses do not lie.

"Ron Paul is compelling the respect of ordinary Americans, the kind of people who had given up on politics. He is creating a movement more profound, deeper, and more expressive of the real spirit of America than we have ever seen."

The entrance (finally!) of Fred Thompson into the crowded Republican field reflects the establishment's nervousness about Giuliani's (the anointed one) ability to convince the core of mainstream Republicans that this cross-dresser is "one of them." He isn't, and if core Republicans don't go along with the manipulated polls showing Giuliani the perennial winner, then they have another phony conservative to take his place: Fred Thompson. They are also looking to Thompson's candidacy to derail Ron Paul's steady inroads he is making into the conservative Republican base.

In summary, we're all busy, but as we try to decide if supporting a political "lost cause" is worth it, consider that our real purpose in fighting a strategic battle (with losing odds) is to use the existing and ongoing crisis to help others see the evils of false conservative causes, and false leaders (wolves in sheep's clothing) and the hijacking of true principles for evil purposes. All of this helps us to prepare a "remmant" as Gary North calls them--people willing to see what's real and resist vigorously when the time is ripe. One of the first steps in converting good but partly blind people is to point them to something new and exciting that is happening in the truth movement. Right now that excitement is pointing to Ron Paul.

In comparison, all the other conservative movements, even the tried and true ones harkening back to "constitutional principles" appear old and stale in many people's minds. Only the Ron Paul movement has the capability of gaining large numbers of converts to the cause as Paul makes clear the contrast between real constitutional conservatism and Republicrat socialism. He's put a fresh face to old arguments and people are responding. That's why this is the best cause to support right now. We can and will revert to the old standards when we have to, but I do think this is a unique opportunity to double or triple the number of principled resisters to the globalist agenda. The more the media tries to distort Ron's popularity and evade his candidacy, the more it riles up his growing band of supporters. This is good. We haven't seen this kind of fervor in the movement for years. Keep it up.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More than this election is at stake

The ship of state is a big boat to turn, and it takes more than one election cycle. The dominant parties nominate candidates they think can win, using all the same logic voters use, including choosing the lesser of evils.

How can we signal them that the tide is turning unless we increase the votes for liberty, integrity and loyalty to the Constitution? This is how we tell them what they have to do next time to get our votes.

Voting for the lesser evil is how we, with the help of disgusted non-voters, made this mess.

I've been voting for Libertarian candidates for several years. They didn't stand a chance, but I sleep better knowing I'm showing what I want with my actions. It works better than not voting, because once in a while we get credit for costing somebody the election, and they know that if they want to earn our 2% of the vote they'll have to defend freedom.

Whether you vote for Ron Paul because he's our best chance of a freedom defender who can win, or in spite of the fact you think he can't win, or just to avoid voting for evil, or because you admire him, or to tell Congress that a significant number of people will not vote for pro-war candidates, it doesn't matter. The main thing is to support the freedom candidate.

Most people aren't even interested until their sample ballots arrive in the mail, so it's way too early to concede. The trajectory of his campaign is headed in the right direction; Go, Ron Paul!


What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

Ron Paul

Ronald Reagan was given a small chance to win the republican nomination in 1980.. what happened?? Ron Paul was given no chance to be elected in his congressional district in Texas.. what happened?/ Folks everyday I see more and more people Talking about Ron Paul. Whole families even if they are splintered politically are coming together to support this man! He has a great chance to win it ALL! All of us need to pull our weight tho! WE NEED REPUBLICAN DELEGATES IN MINNESOTA NEXT SEPTEMBER.. FIND OUT FROM YOUR LOCAL GOP WHAT IT TAKES TO BECOME A DELEGATE.. DON'T TELL THEM YOU ARE VOTING FOR Ron Paul.. If you do the establishment neocons will blackball your chances of becoming a delegate! BECOME A DELEGATE NOW.. THIS MAN RON PAUL IS VERY ELECTIBLE! THE PEOPLE ARE WAKING UP AND FAST! RON PAUL IN 08!!!!!!!!

I Still Must Disagree

This question (the title of your article) has been posed to me many times. My best friend, while he agrees with practically everything that Dr. Paul stands for, is planning to vote for Obama because, in his words, "he stands a chance against Giuliani". While I agree with you that the questions and awareness being raised by Dr. Paul's campaign are important - perhaps even more important than actually winning the presidency, I have to disagree with you that Dr. Paul has no chance.

Lately, I have been reading some American history from a book entitled The Making of America by W. Cleon Skousen - a veritable encyclopedia of Constitutional knowledge. In reading about the role that George Washington played in the creation of this country, certain similarities struck me between his military campaign and the political campaign of Ron Paul:

  • Both received little support from Congress.
  • Both fought their campaigns with very little funding.
  • Both relied heavily on their fellow man's fervent desires for liberty.
  • Both fought unwinnable campaigns against seemingly unbeatable foes.
  • Both were faced with an apparent lack of public support.
  • Both had to deal with unfair acts of Congress which made their campaigns more difficult.
  • Both had the conviction that they were right in the face of every one telling them that they were wrong.
  • Both men had people trying to undermine their competency.

In addition, Washington had additional disadvantages - desertion, disease and traitors. Yet, George Washington won that war. He practically won it single handedly! He turned apparent obstacles to his advantage, just as Dr. Paul does.

The same voices that proclaimed to General Washington: "Give up - it's hopeless" yell the same thing to Dr. Paul - the voice of defeatism is ever in the ears of those who struggle for a righteous cause. As Thomas Paine said:
"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman".

The real crux of the situation lies in what each one of us is willing to sacrifice for the cause of liberty.

This campaign will be won by those who believe it can be won. It cannot be won by anyone else.

Evils of democracy?

"evils of democracy: welfare benefits, jobs, government subsides and the "benefits" of public schooling paid for at the expense of those of us who don't want it nor use it."

Those aren't evils of democracy, those are evils of socialism.

No, He's Got it Right

In a purely democratic society, as soon as the public figures out that they can enrich themselves from the public till, they do so. That's why "Soak the Rich" policies are so popular. The policies mentioned are more from an interventionist mindset than a socialist one (See The Anti-Capitalist Mentality by Mises). None of the policies cited require government control of production, as it would be in a socialist economy.


Ron Paul can WIN if we choose to have him win.

The People have more power than you realize and we are taking control.

You're still part of the everyday non-thinking model of an American. There are those of us who have already put our Names and Phone numbers out into the Public arena and are already in immediate danger!

This is OUR Country and we fully intend to have Ron Paul as our President regardless of what anyone else has in mind. Get used to it! We're not going away without a fight!

Jim Palmisano

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." James Madison

I am reminded of the American Revolutionary War...

I am reminded of one thing. During the Revolutionary war “Americans” were made fun of because we didn’t have uniforms, we didn’t have “nice” weapons, we had no “formal” Army. When the “Red Coats” came to our land, Americans were at a sever disadvantage. But we had one thing that the British could not take away from us and that was heart and a CAUSE. We had more on the line than the British Army. Although the Ron Paul campaign is not big and fancy like all the other candidates we have something that the other candidates don’t have, and that is HEART! We are fighting for what we believe, just because we don’t have fancy equipment or flashy uniforms we are UNITED for a common goal. We may be the underdogs, and people are laughing at us, but it only makes me want to hand out MORE flyers and hang MORE signs.

"Can't Win?"

They said Appalachian State "couldn't win" against Michigan. "They" were wrong.

They said the US Hockey team was "couldn't win" against the invincible Soviet team. "They" were wrong.

They said George Washington couldn't beat the most powerful military in the world. "They" were wrong.

The only time you "can't win" is when you don't try!


Not a very helpful article.

The article says, "The majority of the electorate would probably not vote for Ron Paul even if they understood the issues because..."

Majority? Why a majority? We already have 33~35% of Fox viewers... and won the debate by a landslide! Just KEEP PUTTING SIGNS BY BUSY FREEWAYS!! Already, some people I've talked to (that didn't even know Ron Paul) have commented that they "have been seeing Ron Paul signs all over" (that was in SC). It's building at a phenomenal rate!
On the other hand, the other side CAN'T GROW for 2 reasons:

1. They have no message
2. They've already reached saturation - by the incessant barrage of "news" about them on the boob tube.

So I think articles that include the words "can't win" are more or less worthless, especially if written by "experts." They lose all credibility with me from that point on.

Here is what other "experts" have said:

"As far as sinking a ship with a bomb is concerned, it just can’t be done." – Rear Admiral Clark Woodward, 1939, US Navy.

"I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation (flight) other than ballooning." – Lord Kelvin, 1870.

"The energy produced by the breaking down of atoms is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine." – Ernest Rutherford, circa 1930 (Nobel Prize Laureate 1908)

"Fooling around with alternating currents is just a waste of time. Nobody will use it." – Thomas Edison, 1880.

"X-rays are a hoax." – Lord Kelvin, circa 1880.

"That is the biggest fool thing we have ever done… The atomic bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives." – Admiral William Leahy, US Navy, to President Truman, 1945.

"Space travel is utter bilge." – Sir Richard van der Riet Wooly, Astronomer Royal, 1956.

[Sources Augustine, 1983; Meher-Homji 2000]

So never listen to people who say something can’t be done, ESPECIALLY THE "EXPERTS," who have already had their day! THEY HAVE THE MOST TAINTED VIEWPOINT OF ALL!! … or, as in the case of Edison, ulterior motives.

I have an idea. Let’s boycott (not repost) any article or text that spews out “can’t.” It’s a waste of electrons.

We must bring along those who “follow the pack.”

What is our responsibility?

We know the odds are great that Ron Paul will not be elected - in part because the next President may have already been "selected." You and I are just led to believe that our votes actually count.

But we are a part of a constitutional republic, which includes a belief in a Supreme Creator. Certain rights are granted only by Him. And He is ultimately in control.

If we keep in mind John Quincy Adams' quote, "Duty is ours; results are God's," we'll remember not to concern ourselves with the outcome (of which we have no control of anyway) - only about what we do as individuals.

Individual responsibility - now there's a Ron Paul message!

Remember this always

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams

Libetarian & Constitutional Candidates

Anyone now thinking to run for Congress? Its time for Libertarian and Constitutional Candidates to ride on the tail winds of the Ron Paul campaign. President Ron Paul will need as many pro liberty Congressmen as he can get. And if it should be President someone else, they need to be dealing with Paulie Congressmen.

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Good article

There is no one like Dr. Paul and I doubt there will ever be again.
Dr. Paul's courage and unwavering commitment to the Constitution reminds us all that we have taken the wrong path. We must stick together because our strength is in numbers. Exposing their tricks and how they manipulate the masses through fear and intimidation shall set us free. I will never listen to the government or the press the same way and I will alway question events that seem to be timed to sway people to behave in a particular way. Dr. Paul has shown us the way now we must have the courage to take it.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

Plan A Win it all! It is possible!

Plan to win , do not plan for failure, but have a backup plan.

Plan B build the political will and organization to continue the revolution.

But while we are working on plan A Live as we want to live, Like the New Hampshire State Motto
Live Free or Die.
Live as free men and women as if the republic was restored and it will be.

I was inspired by Karen Kwiatkowski's address to the Future of Freedom convention the video is on their web site under commentary, and is linked over on Lew Rockwell.

As she says Paraphrasing:
Do the right thing,
Speak out tell the truth,
Live free, live by no one's leave

Why Vote for Ron Paul? because he can win

Very easy to beat those nay sayers.

The reason to vote for Ron Paul is no Republican candidate other than Ron Paul can be the Democrats. You are wasting your vote, if you vote for a Pro War Republican - they can't win.

Ron Paul has the higher moral ground on the war, simply because he voted against it in the first place. He did not flip flop like Hillary or Edwards, and he is not like the nutty Obama that wants to invade Pakistan.

Problem solved thats the answer you give them

NeoCons are obessed with losing

NeoCons must want Hillary for President, cause they should know from 06, that they can't win on pro-war & pro big gov. platform.

If Ron Paul doesn't get nomination, true conservatives will vote third party or not vote at all.

I myself will write in Ron Paul's name if I have to, before I vote for anyone who is a member of the CFR.

Good argument for Republicans

Doesn't work for Democrats.

I'm partial to the libertarian argument: do you trust the voters to decide your life choices for you? Or would you rather shrink government and keep choices for yourself?

We have some good Libertarian presidential candidates, but Ron Paul's odds are better.


What do you think? http://consequeries.com/