-12 votes

Replace Failed Strategy Now!

Comment viewing options

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


Are you a delegate? Ron Paul is doing a great job of obtaining delegates, stop watching CNN, Foxnews, and MSNBC, their delegate count is soooooo...wrong, in fact it makes me laugh when I see it on their stupid screens, the media is a hoax. Delegates is what wins the nomination. Do some homework on our caucas process, and learn what really counts during the nomination process.

Are you familiar with Karl Popper

He's the philosopher of science who posited that a scientific truth requires that it be falsifiable. So what would prove me wrong is that this delegate strategy actually gets Paul the nomination. and what would prove you wrong is that this delegate strategy does not get Paul the nomination.

Too bad you don't have more people on your side...

It looks like people are giving you a hard time about this coalition. I think it deserves attention - so thanks for bringing it up.

Over time, hopefully it will resonate with more people. I haven't reviewed the specifics, but at a high-level, it is worth a serious discussion to have with those that are running for office. This could be what a third party needs to be successful, versus being only ideological and not getting anywhere in terms of governing.



and that is exactly what I am getting at here...neither libertarians nor progressives have enough support to get a majority (we really need a ultra super majority to get 60 Senators) so our only option is go with the coalitions that are screwing us now or dump them and get together a new coalition to kick them out for good.

And thanks for the rare word of encouragement. I am willing to talk with and listen to anyone...if by chance I got a phone call or an email from someone up the ranks, i would be grateful....been going at it one year as of Feb 18...thinking about quitting on the 19th.

Really thanks again lib... does my heart good.

Seriously... no one is going

Seriously... no one is going to adopt your strategy.

Maybe not...

but the current one gets Ron Paul the retirement he wants in 2013 and his followers, none of the goals he wants to achieve.

The framework of the deal i have outlined is the only way to get Ron Paul elected. It's a deal that violates nobody's principles, reduces taxes, reduces the size of government, reduces national debt, ends endless wars and occupations, restores civil liberties, and possible shuts down the fed as well after it has been thoroughly audited.

And did I mention?... it gets Ron Paul elected.

Why on earth would you turn down a deal like that?!!!... unless you are a clandestine neocon.

I too have proposed a coalition strategy with the LP, CP, and GP

It may not be like yours (I haven't checked) but if the Libertarian, Constitution, and Green parties all declare their intention to offer Ron the choice of running under their banner or otherwise getting their official endorsement, the effect would be HUGE.

I like that idea

but what do Greens get in the bargain? Does Jill Stein get on the ballot or a major domestic cabinet spot?

What happened with your proposition?

Any takers? Or did LP and others just ignore you?


I have yet

to receive any positive or negative feedback from anyone on Ron Paul's campaign staff. At this point i am beginning to think about voting for Romney in the general election so that we can try this with a progressive candidate running in the Democratic primary in 2016 and hope that all of Ron Paul's supporters will embrace her or him the way i have tried to get progressives to embrace Ron Paul (Yes indeed... I get kicked around by progressives as much as I do by libertarians... maybe I am insane.)

Everything you have suggested

except for the "coalition cabinet" has already been said by Ron Paul or his spokesmen or is included in his printed material.

This includes the block grants to States from savings on overseas spending which is part of his Plan to Restore America and his intention to end the War on Drugs and pardon (not merely commute the sentences of) non-violent drug offenders. He has comprehensively debunked the racist charges in many venues.

So everything you are suggesting he do he is already doing. Maybe you are just not happy with the way he is doing it? This gets back to the complaints I read here about how Dr. Paul says things or how he should explain better how his policies will work.

As others have proposed on many posts the way to get the message across is by every individual supporter communicating it to their immediate circle in the way that makes sense to these people and addresses their concerns. Dr. Paul has his role to play and he does it well. The rest is up to the People and we are the ones who have to carry the day or we shall not win.

Looking to the government to do things for us or to the leader to implement our thinking and speak for us is the mindset Dr. Paul is trying to deliver us from. If we have ideas we have to carry them out ourselves or find others to work with as a group to do them. Some will fail and some will be successful but we won't know unless we try. The campaign and Dr. Paul will play their part and we have to play ours. That is how we win.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

Block Grants

As I have read these are restricted block grants to cover medicaid. Can you point me to info stating that he will move half of the money saved from reductions in spending into block grants to be used by the states as they please? as I understand this money will go mainly to shore up entitlements so that an opt out plan can be started. Am I misreading something? I will be thrilled to know that he has planned to move half of the money into unconditional block grants for the states based solely on each state's population. If that is part of his plan, he needs to make it more widely known.

Here are the numbers

You will see from the detail and the numbers in Dr. Paul's Restore America Plan that the block grants cover far more than Medicaid. The total spending allocated to these grants is $1.085 trillion in the first year which I believe is far more than half the total savings from cutting war spending and other foreign policy costs like foreign aid. The money will then be used at the discretion of the States for the purposes described. These amounts increase each year.

This does not count the other entitlement programmes like Medicare, Social Security, and Veterans' Benefits which will be maintained at the Federal level and amount in the first year to about $1.7 trillion net $1.5 trillion. Here is a link to the plan which is well worth reading in detail if you have an interest in this subject:


"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

I'm still studying...but how about this?

I see the items you refer to but what I am saying is that those are safety net programs that were going to be funded anyway. He's moving the responsibility to the states. I would be amenable to that plan for four years to see how the states handled it.

If you let the funding levels for these programs remain in place there is no real savings or loss. The loss comes in from revenue reductions through tax cuts and the implementation of his opt out program.

Let's be real for a moment. I know you do not like this but there is no way on earth that an opt out is going through without some major deal making. Ron Paul would have to allow for a public option in order to get his opt out and I don't think your side is going to go for that. All these block grants have to be funded, so the choice becomes do we keep funding them and not make tax reductions that cause a net loss in revenue or do we do tax reform that keeps revenues at the current level or higher. The latter deal is the more politically tenable, like it or not.

What needs to be done is work out a revenue neutral tax reform package which lowers taxes or keeps them the basically the same for 99% of the population. Cut spending on the things we agree to cut. Any further cuts in domestic programs that we liberals like comes with the price of putting us in charge of those cabinet posts. For example consolidate Labor, Commerce and Education and reduce the total budget by 10% and then freeze it for 4 years and put Bernie Sanders in charge of it.

Conversely, any domestic program that doesn't get cut... we put a libertarian in charge of it.

Let's just say that the net of all these deals is that we gain 2 trillion through a combination of tax reform and spending cuts. (Just to make it more palatable we specify that 1.75 trillion has to come from reductions in spending....a ridiculous idea if 99% of the population is paying the same or less in taxes and the revenue gains are from creating a better and more just tax system...Robert Frank's progressive consumption tax comes to mind)

From that 2 trillion we use 1 trillion to pay down debt and the other trillion we use to fund block grants to the states to do whatever they want...single payer health care, tax cuts for billionaires, high speed rail, tax cuts for millionaires, solar panels on all public buildings and all new business and residential construction, tax cuts for people making over 250K, wind farms, zero taxes for everybody, etc. ... Sorry I couldn't think of any of your side's other ideas besides tax cuts... but you get the point.

So to sum up the block grants specified in Paul's current plan are merely shifts of programs from federal to state level (which I would not object to as a 4 year experiment). Keep revenue levels neutral but reform the tax system in a way that reduces taxes for most people and increases taxes for a few people only enough to meet the revenue goal. Use all spending reductions in the following manner: half for debt reduction and half to fund unconditional block grants to the states based solely on the states' populations.

The result: We substantially reduce the size of the federal government. We substantially reduce government debt. We delegate more authority to the states and let them prove which policy is the wisest. We put progressives in charge of programs with reduced funding and libertarians in charge of any programs which see an increase in spending.

This is a reasonable deal with equal burdens and equal benefits to both coalition partners except that you guys get to have your man in the White House. Not ideal for either progressives or libertarians but the end result would be smaller federal government, less tax burden, and a growing economy with increased jobs. At the end of 4 years we get to argue over who is to be credited while the corporatists weep on the sidelines.

This is the only deal that gets your man in the White House and half of your goals achieved...wait a minute it's much more than half since we already agree on war, civil liberties, etc.

If you want utopia instead, you can dream about it another 4 years from the sidelines, where the corporatists have us now.

Not to critize you, but are

Not to critize you, but are you failing to understand the significance of the participation in the state/precint/distrinct/county conventions for selecting delegates and how well ron paul is faring in those conventions? The result everyone sees are indeed disappointing, but they are empty results. They don't get people to Tampa. Delegates do. With the latest press release from the campaign about their number in that respect as well as the messages here reporting from the ground you will start seeing those delegates. Why?

Because you are the fervent supporters that stay in till the end ;)

Dutch Ron Paul blog: http://www.paulitiek.nl | Paul Campaign Google Maps: share the victories with your Friends! http://g.co/maps/rcw2y

What part of "principled" do

What part of "principled" do you not understand?

I would be sickened if RP compromised any of his principles. Some of you still don't get it. This "liberty thing" is about much more than a presidential campaign. This "liberty thing" is about much more than Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a great voice and a great vehicle for the message but the uphill battle to live in a free society is a constant one.

The only agreement I'd support with a progressive type would be some type of society where you can have your collectivist haven and we can have our libertarian haven with an agreement that both agree to leave each other alone to run our lives. That would be just one benefit of a free society and for the life of me I can't figure why so many oppose it.

If you want socialized medicine, government schooling, centralized economic planning, govt. safety nets, etc., knock yourself out but don't try and force me to buy into it.


I have never asked that RP compromise principles. Perhaps you were confusing my blog with something else. Please point it out for me where I have suggested in any way that RP compromise his principles. I want to know it so i can apologize and correct it.

You are a collectivist. You

You are a collectivist. You aren't looking to form a coalition without getting something in return. Obviously you do see the ever increasing popularity of the doc or you wouldn't be wasting your time. Have you made any similar offers to the folks in the Libertarian Party? Of course not.

Here's a few compromises the doc would have to make taken from your home page:

2. Agree to a public option available to all who are eligible to opt out of entitlements.

3. Agree to select a progressive running mate such as Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Rocky Anderson, or Jill Stein.

4. Agree to appoint progressives to head domestic cabinet posts which are consolidated or have their budgets reduced.

6. Agree to phase in a progressive consumption tax to replace the income tax.

7. Agree to auction off interstate highways in states which approve of it by referendum and use the funds to match state funding of public transportation.

8. Agree to a tariff structure based on environmental impact and human, civil, religious and labor rights.

9. Agree to permanently reduce payroll tax rates to not more than 5% each for both employers and employees in exchange for removing the cap completely.

Bonus 11. Agree that all new revenues raised through changes in tax law be designated half for debt reduction and and half for state block grants as in number 1.


What about my idea to work together to remove govt from our lives as much as possible and if/when this is accomplished you can live in your collectivist community and I can live in my libertarian community? Of course, there would need to be an understanding that we won't force our values onto each other for this to work but I would be just fine if collectivist types would form their own communities and leave me out of it.

Isn't that exactly what you want? You can have collectivist communities in a free society... Others can have their nudist communities in a free society... The seasteaders can have their community in a free society... This is all a thought experiment but why aren't you focusing your energies in this direction? Why do you have to drag me and others along who disagree with your views on how society should function? Let us live our lives and you live your lives. It's that simple.


I'm a communalist, not a collectivist, but that's a whole other discussion....

The list you take from this post: http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2012/02/11-coalit...

These are not required for a coalition except for number 1 which you left out. You also left out numbers 5 and 10 which like all the others except number 1 are suggestions to woo more progressives. Is it wishful thinking infer you are amenable to these 3 items?

Your goal of separating us into two groups, if it were totally or, more realistically, partly achievable, requires a process. All 11 of these would move us in that direction. Do you expect it to happen by fiat?

While I appreciate that you

While I appreciate that you sincerely want to help people, I think you are misguided.

Do you believe that the government is actually able to take in all that money that would be required for the programs you support and then actually use it for those programs, without corruption continually eating up more and more of it and requiring more and more money to be taken in, with less and less coming out? Every program has shown conclusively that this is what always happens, yet people still want to think that somehow, this time, it will be different.

The problem with liberal (aka progressive) politicians as opposed to most liberal citizens: They say they want to help people, yet what they really want is to guarantee themselves a voting block of people who are enslaved to the system, have no chance of getting out of it, and who are so afraid, that they feel their only hope is to keep the system going.

Interesting thing happened a few years back... for the first time in our history, the average black person's income was the exact same as the average white person's income. What did this mean to the politicians? Time to get a new minority.

So they tried to put in new laws that would make it easier for poor Hispanics to come to our country, become citizens, and vote, so they could be the next group to be exploited. Last election, both McCain and Obama highly supported these laws, McCain was actually the one to introduce the biggest one.

For every person you force into paying to care for somebody else, you create another person who hates the group getting the proceeds. By taking all the money away from the typical citizen, you are preventing those typical citizens from ever having enough money to pay for their own well being, let alone to help out their fellow citizen.

The liberal / progressive ideology creates a massive paradox which completely undermines it's credibility:
They say that the government must force it's citizens to pay money to it so that it can care for the needy because apparently nobody would do it voluntarily. Yet it expects those same citizens to vote in support of this philosophy. How can you say that the people wouldn't do this voluntarily when it's obvious that if they are willing to vote for these programs, then they would also be willing to give their own money towards the same goals? Of course in order to do that they would first need to have that money. By heavily taxing citizen's money that they need themselves, the government makes sure that very few have enough to be able to give some away. This forces everybody into self-preservation mode, and is the biggest creator of hate in the country.

I believe that all humans are inherently good and charitable. Some become corrupted by the thought that humans are inherently evil and selfish. These humans believe that they must force the other, evil humans into doing what is good and righteous. In order for this to work, they must have power over those other humans. What they don't seem to understand, is that by doing this, they are creating the conditions to promote the same things they are trying to prevent. It's self-fulfilling prophesy, and it's very sad.


I'm not sure what blog you are reading. I have called for tax cuts beyond the current Bush rates for the vast majority of Americans.

Are you really a libertarian and oppose freedom of movement?

What programs are you referring to? I am opposed to a lot of government programs.

I will be happy to discuss specific problems you have with what I have proposed on my blog but I am afraid you're addressing pre-conceived ideas about what progressives advocate. Please read the blog first so you can know what it is that I have advocated before you criticize something that I have not advocated.

2 major shortcomings of the Paul campaing strategy

1. They do not enlist the help of near enough celebrity surrogates. They leave Paul out there all alone, firming the belief in people's minds that he truely is, all alone.
There have been plenty of well known people openly state that they were for Ron Paul, yet the campaign doesn't put this to work.

2. The campaign should have known well in advance of media biases, and GOP slack treatment. Vote fraud should have been adressed in advance with threat of legal recourse by a slick law firm. If the media won't cover "just Ron Paul" at events, throw them some red meat and have (even if you have to hire) well known celebrities to appear with him. Make the media come to YOU.

alan laney

I have noticed

that you have a constant drip drip of comments on how the campaign is not doing things the way you think they should.

My suggestion to you is that you stop airing your complaints here where they can have no other influence than to stir up discontent and contact the campaign directly to make these suggestions and offer to help them in carrying them out.

Otherwise employ your energies to create a comprehensive programme to enlist celebrities if you believe that is necessary and recruit others to help you do it. There are activists especially with Revpac who could help you in doing this.

Dr. Paul has said that the issue of voter fraud if it exists should be dealt with at the local level. You should be involved with your local GOP and make sure that your particular precinct/county/State does not have that problem. Then share your experiences with other local activists and get together with them to put your plans into action. Again I believe that the Revpac has already started a programme to accomplish this. Perhaps you could help them in some way.

I see you have been a member here for four years and I know I have seen several of your posts criticising the campaign. You generally have a few votes up for your complaints so you are gathering a following who feel the same way. You should all get together and try to work out ways to respond to your own complaints.

You should be creative in solving problems that you have detected rather than indulging in endless criticism which does no one any good and can only achieve the opposite of what everyone is working towards.

Pointing out flaws may be emotionally satisfying in the short run but in the long run it will damage not only the hearers/readers of the criticisms but eventually destroy even your own creative powers and those of the people you are criticising if you are doing this to others in your life.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

I'll call again Monday

Obviously, I have informed Ron Paul's offices of the existence of my blog. I am sure they have someone on staff also reading the posts on this site. They probably stumbled onto one or two of my comments and if they were interested, they would have contacted me by now....

Hopefully, when the campaign fails to secure the nomination or get any real libertarian commitments out of Mitt Romney, they might want to consider whether they want to deploy this strategy in a third party campaign. Maybe you can get me the ear of someone way up the ranks so I can shut up trying to convince my fellow nobodies here. Hit me with a pm if u have some suggestions and/or connections.

GO to where media is, it won't specially come to you.

Go to where the media is:

- CPAC 2012 speech
- Campaigning in primary states where other candidates are
- Huckabee debate in SC


Hear hear

Hear hear

I would hire you...

...if I could. Good points.

Goes to prove a point I made on a different thread

awhile back, that I know critical thinkers who are either libertarians or progressives, with a mere smattering of CT's in between. Genetic twins separated by ideologies.
I enjoyed reading you blog, and while I'm reticent in joining hands with anyone who holds " Marx, Trotsky, Engels, Alinsky" in high esteem I did concur with your premise.
Beyond a shadow of a doubt, progressives and libertarians do meet eye to eye upon the foundation of Freedom from Big Brother concerning the UnPatriot Act, NDAA, and wars without purpose nor end.
I'd even agree to Transitioning to clear energy, wave generators, solar, not wind though, it's fragile and a health hazard to millions of birds ( gotcha ! ). But can you Please quit railroading it down our gullets in such an all fired hurry? Really, leave that nasty oil spigot on until these fine alternatives provide more than the mere 3% of total energy on grid they now provide, say 85% then cut the oil. Oil is not Just a power source it's an economic engine, without adequet energy supplies the American economy will stumble and falter, and as the American consumer goes, so goes the world economy.
Another issue I take umbridge upon progressive with, is they talk a great game, but most don't walk the walk. For example, I'm a poor libertarian I grow my own heirloom gardens in my own greenhouses. I hand craft hardwood furnishings, my home is 95-98% energy efficient rated, my total carbon foot print is .00001% of Al Gores Gulfstream V, I give far more than 10% of my income to needy local people, my car is 12 years old and I filled it's tank SIX times last year because I used it when I really had too. Then umbrage I feel is when progressives act like they are GOD's gift to stewardship, it's really irritating. I'm fairly certain that I'm not nearly the only libertarian who is very conscensis of his/ her environs, it goes hand in hand with freedoms, as in the freedom to do right.
In conclusion, I wouldn't expect for any long term relationship to flourish, as the difference of progressive VS libertarian fundamentals diverge at some very poignant issues. Issues juxtaposed don't cleave.

Drew, by the very grace of GOD through the blood of Christ Jesus.
"there shall come after us men whom shall garner great wealth using our system, and having done so shall seek to slam the door of prosperity behind them." George Washington

Amen Steadfast

You are right to point out liberal hypocrisy on issues of stewardship (as pastor I love that word).

Personally, I don't hold the names you mention in high esteem.

Obviously we cannot make the transition to clean energy overnight and i am a bit skeptical of environmentalists who just say no to all things petro. My guess is get us out of the middle east as most progressives and libertarians both want and oil prices will plunge, leaving us room to to tax it more steeply and subsidize(privately and/or publicly) the development green infrastructure and products.

Your example is a great testimony to what could be done with some determination and commitment.