Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
Why did Ron Paul lose? A calm analysis of the reasons -- and lessons that should be taken away from it , but probably won't.by Logical Premise
(statist)
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Why did Ron Paul lose?
Let me clarifiy that statement. It is theoretically possible that the superdelegates could vote for Ron Paul in the convention. It is theoretically possible that all of Huckabee's and Romney's delegates, being free to vote how they like, could also vote for Ron Paul in the convention.
But the ugly reality is that even if he wins in such a convoluted manner, he really lost. He got, on average, between 2% and 10% of the vote in most states. The people clearly are not "behind him", and if the delegates at the convention acted in a manner that went against the wishes of the electorate, most of them will have a price to pay.
But why did he lose? If you listen to Libertarians, Ron Paul is conservative, Christian, honest, dedicated, and a strict constitutionalist. He's against big government, seemingly a Republican virtue. He dislikes taxation, seemingly a Republican virtue. He is , on some issues, very close to being a paleoconservative of the oldest school.
Why did they all vote for someone else? Let's examine the reasons:
No name recognition: The main reason there was a lot of "buzz" about some canidates is that they were well known. Huckabee and Romney were governors, Guilliani was all over the news in 9/11 and since then, the mayor of one of the most influential cities in the world. Fred Thompson was an actor. John McCain had already run for president and had his name floated around. Against this, you have Ron Paul. He doesn't have the suavely presidential look of Romney, and he doesn't have the stupidly macho-hero image of McCain, and he doesn't have the charismatic "good ol boy" power of Huckabee. He is straightforward and clear and honest ... but not that exciting to most people. And he's not "big". When most people think of him, unfortunately, they link him not to Republicans, but Libertarians.
No organization: the campaign he ran was a completely disorganized mess, a shambolic fuck-up of such monumental proportions I'm frankly astounded you Libertarians haven't lynched his campaign staff for treason. I've seen better efforts by my city councilmen. The only real traction ever made in the campaign was by the grass-roots element. Fundraising? Grassroots. Internet viral message? Grassroots. Precinct level organization? Grassroots. Certainly, the grassroots deserves a commendation for one of the best efforts in history ... but the grassroots cannot get your canidate ACCESS. That's the campaign's job, and they failed, leading to...
Locked out of the Media: As a result of the campaign's ignorance of how to handle the media, Ron Paul started out crippled. When the money bombs brought in millions, the campaign did not take out nationwide ads, it didn't take out a flood of interviews, it didn't agitate to get him on as many places as possible. Even some writers on this website tried to get him on radioshows and the like and were ignored. And that you cannot do. If you ignore the MSM, it locks you out. Dennis Kunich felt that people should judge him on how he spoke, not the media spin, and he was locked out even more totally than Ron Paul.
Hindered by public perception: The presentation of Ron Paul's proposals was another disastrophe. I won't comment on the viability of his proposals -- abolishing the IRS and 50 to 70% of the government departments, slashing spending, cutting pork, withdrawing our military from all over the world. The problem is that it was presented as one gigantic package. Over and over, I heard the same thing from people talking about Ron Paul -- "That guy wants to cut stuff we need". Talking with a mechanic for Lockheed, he said "I like some of the guy's ideas, but he'd put me out of work cutting the military like that." When I pointed out that Ron Paul didn't say he wanted to cut the military, the mechanic said that "he had heard that" and felt more comfortable voting for McCain. To me this implies...
Lack of Control of the Message: People were hearing all kinds of crap that was attributed to Ron Paul. That he was racist. That he was going to ban abortion. That he has no problems with abortion. He would abolish the military. He would withdraw us from the UN and all trade agreements. That he didn't trust any medicine except alternative medicine. That he planned to let the poor starve. And on, and on, and on. And no one in his campaign, and he himself, fought this. His site is full of doubletalk -- his page on Racism is so vague and missing the point that most people saw it as code for "We won't stop racism, it's not our job, so if you're racist go right ahead".
The attitude: I've mentioned this before. But when you've got no name recognition, people don't understand your position, you can't get on TV , your campaign is paralyzed, and people link you to "fringe groups" , the last thing that's going to help is hearing some nut screaming at the top of his lungs that Ron Paul is the greatest man since Jesus. It makes your canidate look like Lyndon LaRouche. People go with what they see, and for every time I had a calm, logical discussion with a RP supporter, I had five times I had to listen to a disjointed diatribe about liberty that told me nothing about how RP would deal with my problems, or the problems I thought that this country needed to address, and everything about things I didn't care about. Perhaps that's me...the votes suggest otherwise.
Pie-in-the-sky thinking: After the first few contests when he got beaten badly, someone -- either the grassroots or the campaign -- should have done some rethinking and new strategizing. Instead, the grassroots complained it was due to the MSM bias and the stupidity of voters, and the campaign did nothing. And so it happened again, and again, and then Super Tuesday came along and that was a trainwreck, and Super Tuesday II killed the popular vote aspect of winning. The answer? "Well, we can still win on delegates".
Winning on delegates isn't winning. Even if you win (unlikely, but still within the bounds of possibility), you haven't won over the American people. In fact, if you win that way, there is no possible way you could win the presidential election -- no neo-con will vote for Ron Paul, and that's the majority of McCain's base. That's the base that has propelled him to where he is now. Social conservatives wont' be very happy that Ron Paul won't use the power of government to enforce their beliefs, and will probably simply not vote. And so you'll get maybe 15%, maybe 25% of the popular vote -- and either Hillary or Obama will crush you.
And the outcome? The GOP would be so divided and demoralized that it would take years to recover , and they would never ever trust Libertarians or their values again.
If you want to win, you need three things:
A platform that doesn't scare the shit out of people: If you're really determined to roll back the changes in government, you are going up against literally everyone else. So sweeping changes are probably going to turn people away. Remember -- just becuase everything is wrong and horrid to you doesn't mean everyone else sees it that way. Most people see government as needing to be adjusted slightly , with "better people" in power -- not "renovated". If you move your platform slowly over time so people can see the results, then you can prove you were right. (Or, if your platform actually makes things worse, well, you have time to correct. That gold standard thing is not going to go well at first).
A canidate that people besides Libertarians can get excited about: I certainly don't mean to insult anybody, but only a small fraction of the population gives a shit about Ron Paul. You need someone younger, a charismatic speaker, someone handsome, married to a goodlooking woman, someone very Christian, a veteran, and who has a track record slightly less extreme than Dr. Paul. He has to be able to compromise. If you insist on playing it with guys like Ron Paul, the slick criminals like McCain and the messianic pretenders like Obama will beat you and keep beating you.
A campaign that can at least find it's own ass if it put it's hands in it's back pockets: C'mon, folks. I wouldn't trust those people to lead starving wolves to fresh meat, much less leading the electorate to unite behind a canidate. If the people you've got running this mess are the best you can do, HIRE someone. Pay that evil demon that's running Obama's campaign, or hell, hire an ad agency. Anything. The grassroots element is already working perfectly, but you need a national level to coordinate it, to be the contact point for media inquries, and to leverage the money into something useful.
I've pretty much decided that, whatever happens, my vote is going to McCain, if for no other reason than to infurate friends of mine who believe statism should equal socialism, which I do not agree with. But what I choose has very little to do with the mistakes above. What you have to decide now is are you going to do things the same way in 2012? Or will you change, and try to make a more successful run?
Either way, the Forces of Statism will be there with sarcastic commentary.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 124 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Logical Premise only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Logical Premise is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
As a hardcore, die-hard, dyed-in-the-wool, fanatical Ron Paul supporter, I must say that I agree with the vast majority of what was said here regarding why Ron Paul did not do better at the polls. Still, 8% - 15% is unprecedented over the past few decades for a libertarian-minded candidate. I still see it as an overall victory. We're not going to jump from the less than one half of one percent that Libertarian Party candidates get in the presidential race to the oval office in one election cycle. The numbers are not so bad when you take them in the context of the past century. Goldwater didn't win the presidency either, but unfortunately he wasn't followed up by like-minded candidates over the next 4-6 presidential election cycles. Our focus should be on making sure that we have Ron Paul-esque candidates in every presidential election for the next few decades and learn from the mistakes, spread the message, and bring in new supporters every time. That's the way we'll eventually find presidential victory. Whether the revolution is capable of continuing on in a professional manner remains to be seen - I hope so. We're shedding the fair-weathers and the majority of the whack-jobs at this point, so hopefully we can move forward successfully with the hardcore base and let the fair-weathers join back up in 4 years when we have our next candidacy bid on the block.
Posted By: Kevin Houston
Date: 2008-03-09 15:08:04
The reason Dr. Paul lost the republican primary is that he is against the war on "Radical Islamic Jihadism"
Polls showing 57% of Republicans disapproving of the war are really showing disapproval for the way the current bunch of yahoos are running it.
Just as some socialists think socialism would work if we had the "right" people in charge, some conservatives think we could win the war if the "right" people were running it.
Both are wrong, of course.
It doesn't matter that Dr. Paul is correct about the war. That correctness flies in the face of the cherished belief, and is therefore to be ignored at all costs. I think Huckabee summed it up best when he said "It doesn't matter if we lose the election, so long as we stay in Iraq until our 'honor' is satisfied."
It is an unfortunate fact of human psychology that when a closely held, and strongly believed position is challenged, the person often digs in and rationalizes away, or outright ignores any evidence that is contrary to the belief.
For the vast majority of Republicans (80 - 90 %, based on the number that didn't vote for Ron Paul in various primaries) the "war on terror" is just such a belief.
I don't mean to imply that Dr. Paul should have toed that particular GOP line, only that if he had, then he would have won the GOP nomination in a landslide. (and promptly lost the general election, but that is another story)
The belief will be maintained so long as there is a glimmer of hope in being proved right. Just as an addict will continue to indulge his addiction until he hits rock bottom, so the republican party faithful will continue to believe in the correctness of the Iraq war until the dollar collapses and the military is unpaid and only foriegn soldiers will sign up (hoping for a short path to citizenship)
BTW, you left out one other possible scenario: McCain has a heart attack or a major scandal a week to 10 days before the convention.
The reason Dr. Paul lost the republican primary is that he is against the war on "Radical Islamic Jihadism"
Polls showing 57% of Republicans disapproving of the war are really showing disapproval for the way the current bunch of yahoos are running it.
Dr. Paul said........Declare War first then Fight it to Win......this is not what the Bush administration did.
Just as some socialists think socialism would work if we had the "right" people in charge, some conservatives think we could win the war if the "right" people were running it.
Nation Building is not war in a sense but it it a form of terrorism..........believe and act like us or we will take your country over. This war can never be won for obvious reasons.
I don't mean to imply that Dr. Paul should have toed that particular GOP line, only that if he had, then he would have won the GOP nomination in a landslide. (and promptly lost the general election, but that is another story
This is not actually true either. Ron Paul just won by a landslide in his home district where people know him and trust him.
Susan Estrich on Fox News told the people to their face.
Ron Paul will not win because we CAN FIX it! Period
In 7 weeks Paul got 0 (documented) media coverage.
And what he did get was biased and misinformed the people.
Don't blame Paul when WE allow the Media to CONTROL our elections by their biased or failure to report. If they can get away with this with Ron Paul what other candidates or issues are being swept under the rug of the NOT so free press?
NOT true .. Dr Paul Wrote a Bill to go after the Terrorist.
The Republican Party decided they would rather bomb innocents instead. Radical jihadist and nation building are too different things.
We definitely need to communicate our issues in sound bites that people can understand and agree with. Ron Paul was more of a college professor and he spoke over a lot of the voters heads.
This article seems to me, although gentler than others, is quite a mish-mash. It's all over the place and, I think, it clearly shows us how most of us don't really comprehend the complexity of our election cycles. Each state is so different, the primaries are all different, etc. It takes me back to Dr. Steve Parent, who says, in part, the fact is Dr. Paul is a genius (I ditto that one) in his strategy and we are further ahead in delegates than you think and WE CAN WIN THE NOMINATION". This is good stuff, www.dailypaul.com/node/36650
He overcame the tactics of the Republican Party that was against him in 1997 in Texas big time, and he will be able to do it again in our sad state of affairs in 2008! RonPaul2008
Sometimes I wonder if the NOlanchart is pro liberty of just a buch of bitch moan and wine writers.
Paul's efforts have been huge as a long term GOP member I must confirm that with Paul's district challange we won second place just behind McCain by only 1%. In the district of my girlfriend Paul won by 2%.... This placement was with no media coverage at all.
In my view Paul lost becuase of three main reasons.
1) Paul is 100% anti-war and my party has been corrupted with a pro-war plateform. With that said the members of my party have lost there minds and support endless wars which will end our nation. Becuase of his strong stand many voted for a pro-war opition.
2) If you look at MSM they ignored Paul starting 2-3 days before Iowa and ever since then have not even informed the public. Paul has had many 2nd place winnings yet the MSM will not even report the facts.
3) paul sought 180,000 leaders in every district location. I must confirm this idea came to late in the game. Had this been offered this summer I predict he would have had 180,000 people who signed up in just over a month. The bottom line is this we did well where we had boots on the ground the outcome would have been better had you folks singed up and took action instead of bitching about the results. I know i see your type all the time. You will write long posts on dig or other articles and never take the step out the front door to even make it really happen.
There are many states left and if you live in a state where the primary is yet to be counted then sign up and hit your district.
So far we have seen the actual primary votes and we know just how large we are... I also doubt the results from vote fraud.
the results help us to define our just cause and may we support other Ron Paul Republicans, oppose unjust laws, etc.
One political expert suggests teh Ron Paul vote began to decline and suggests teh Paul vote is more twice as large as the vote indicates.
Also, ask youself how did McCain Texas when in Paul's distrct he won his seat back at a 70% vote?
Posted By: Kevin Houston
Date: 2008-03-09 17:45:17
Flo,
You are correct about Dr. Paul winning his home district. Good point. I had not thought about it from that perspective.
Partly I think Dr. Paul won his congressional primary because Chris Peden? - Penden? -(whatever his name is) was relatively unknown and what people did find out about him proved to them that he was a liar and a distorter of Dr. Paul's record. The war didn't come into it as much because as a Congressman, Dr. Paul is only one vote. On the national scene, it was Ron Paul that was realtively unknown, and his positions were easier to distort with impunity.
Please don't misunderstand me. I don't mean to blame Ron Paul for not supporting the war (and yes, I understand your point about war and nation building not being the same thing) I praise Dr. Paul for not supporting the war. I am glad he didn't compromise his principles just to earn a few votes.
I meant to blame the GOP electorate (and the vast right-wing punditry) for refusing to admit that this war (military action, conflict, nation building exercise, whatever you want to call it) was a mistake.
The media played their role too, for sure - but my point (after talking to many rank-and-file Republicans) is that they were never receptive to the anti-war message. The vast majority of Republican voters like the war just fine. They want it to be run their way but by and large, they like that it exists, and it doesn't bother them in the least that it wasn't declared, or any of that. For them, the end justifies the means any day of the week.
Most GOP faithful are not conservatives in the traditional sense, but authoritarians through and through.
There is another path to the white house that allows Dr. Paul to keep his promise not to run 3rd party. That is to register as a write-in candidate in all 50 states.
Premise, your post mortem is pretty much spot on. I personally think the campaign was arrogant and not willing to listen. This includes the Austrian cheerleaders that seem to talk a lot and do nothing.
I think the message is fine, but presented improperly. I suggested that they reduce it to slogans that would sell, but was ignored.
However, I would not have spent a dime on the MSM and instead used the $ to work on organization. You know, the old Gillete theory of one man tells another. When I asked people what they thought of Dr. Ron Paul at least 90% never heard of him. Once we talked they were on board. Where there was a strong effort on the ground Dr. Paul did well.
Question, are you a Statist because you believe that form of governing is best or because you just believe it to be inevitable? Thx.
Thanks for writing this, Logical, someone had to say it.
The problem with the Paul campaign is pretty much my complaint about the Libertarian Party as well ... and I've been a card carrying Libertarian practically since the party was founded. Like Paul's campaign, the Libertarians lack the structure and professional guidance that any modern contest will require if it has any hope of competing. The notion that the "ideas" will sway the nation is nonsense. Just like a candidate, these ideas must be sold and it isn't going to happen over night.
For example, the proportion of people in this country who understand what the Federal Reserve does is vanishingly small. The same is true for monetary policy in general. I can tell you from personal experience that even in the profession of economics, the Austrian business cycle theory of macroeconomics is not widely subscribed. These are the ideas that MSM can safely label "crackpot." They are not, but one cannot realistically blame anyone for having that reaction.
In my experience, voters vote for the best slogan and the prettiest face. Candidates are chosen in way better suited to "American Idol." That's a sobering thought, but I belive this is reality in our media driven culture. The public is not well educated nor does it think in any depth. To shift people's thinking in any significant way is going to be heavy slogging and take time. People will not change their beliefs until destabilized by trauma. That trauma may be coming sooner than any of us would like. Past monetary policy, the outcome of which is already baked in the cake, may well be the set up for real financial trauma and could be felt at all levels of society. We must prepare for that event.
Those are all valid points about Ron Paul's campaign. But as a true blue supporter I can say he was never going to win. His campaign could have done things better, he could have done more stump campaigning in Iowa and NH (Paul did quite a bit less that the other candidates) but that would never have made him the nominee. The GOP is simply too pro war, and the country at large is simply not ready to hear about dollar collapse, Fed driven inflation and the Gold standard. Those are all fantastic ideas. If Paul ha abandoned them, the grass roots wouldn't rally behing him.
And Paul simply doesn't have the smooth talk and telegenicity of the other candidates. I had hoped that wouldn't be important, but it is.
There are many things that should have been changed about the Paul campaign. But his message most certainly was not one of them. They should have been explained and repeated as often as possible. He should have hired people whi could work the media for him...not because he would have won, but because the whole idea was the message and getting it our more would persuade more people.
In the end, Ron Paul has opened the way for future Libertarian candidates. He has created a narrative that, when the whole GWOT and the debt driven economy collapses, will explain what went wrong. His movement, having forewarned, will be more crdeible next time.
I think this article is largely true. The points about the campaign staff in particular had never occured to me; this explanation makes quite a bit more sense than the other explanations I've been hearing regarding the 'MSM' and the perception of his message.
Pretty much the only part of that that I disagree with the allegation that Ron Paul had an initially unelectable image. While a younger, more charismatic person would probably be preferable, I think Ron Paul's credentials as an honest, grandfatherly, Christian obstetrician could push a platform based around conservative values, increased federalization, and an economic guilt trip (decreasing the deficit to help our children). His Libertarian presidential run was so long ago and his newsletters had been hashed over so many times that they wouldn't have been much of a detriment. I thought that the biggest problem with his image (not the MSM's portrayal of it mind you) was his conduct during debates. During the debates, he had a tendency to rant and ramble; I rather saw him make his point quickly and efficiently. In addition, his voice and his conduct were a bit too involved and emotional, which makes him look like an alarmist. Not to mention the fact that he often would try to cover his entire platform of issues whenever he was addressed during a debate - though his low amount of debate time has a bit to do with that. Of course, now he's been throughly cast as a nutjob, so we do need to find somebody new. I'll come back to that later.
The suggestion to improve his platform is of particular interest to me. I definitely agree that his platform overreached on many issues, as my most effective argument for Ron Paul proved to be the point I made about his powers as President - if Ron Paul is elected, he would find it impossible to get any of his crazy ideas done without abusing executive privilege, which would be the last thing Ron Paul would ever do. Frankly, voters don't like that degree of change. So, that begs the question of what platform a Ron Paul Republican campaign should address.
Balanced Budget
Bringing Troops Home
Strengthen the $
Increased Federalism with Social Issues
The Balanced Budget is one of the best points on there. In particular, it should argue for a balanced budget through decreased spending to contrast the Democrat's approach through increased taxes. There are several ways it could be framed to the public: cutting pork, cutting welfare, and cutting the military. All of them are problematic; cutting pork is a popular move, but it's extremely hard to enforce and won't have a big impact if it suceeds. Cutting welfare can be political suicide as the AARP is probably the most powerful lobby in the US and no one loves to vote more than the elderly. Cutting the military gets in the way of many Republican values. Keeping that in mind, I still think the platform should address all of those.
The pork spending is by nature a vague promise which should be mentioned fairly often, but rarely focused on. However, with the welfare and military components, specifics are needed. With welfare, a guilt trip is the best way to go about it. Push for a gradual decrease in welfare spending, especially for the elderly (more accurately, the elderly in 10~ years). Emphasize the fact that they're shunting this deficit onto their children and grandchildren. It especially has potential for some very effective campaign ads.
As for the military scaleback, associate it with the illegal immigration issue and the Bringing the Troops Home. Tell voters the truth about where many soldiers are posted (Germany, South Korea, Japan, etc.) and tell where soldiers will be posted - along Mexican border fence. This creates a direct associate with defending America that will be appealing to much of the public. There could also be a push to make the Deptartment of Defense pratice some much-needed fiscal responsibility, but that's alot less popular. As for whether "Bringing the Troops Home" will include the Iraq troops is up for debate. I'm ambhivalent on the issue. On principle, I think that it would be a good alternative to have in the GOP, but it's also not likely to be popular.
Strengthening the Dollar. This goes hand in hand with Balancing the Budget. Associate a strong Dollar with a strong economy and emphasize that a low deficit = a strong Dollar. A particularly good point to drive home is the fact that China controls many of our treasury bonds and could potentially crash the American economy if it sold all of them. That should be a particularly good bone to throw to the neocons. However, do not advocate for the removal of the Federal Reserve Board or the fiat standard. As nice as these ideas are, it's very hard to prove that the fiat standard is inherently worse than the gold standard even when you're dealing with the pure economics. In the meantime, talking about the gold standard reminds people of 1900 - not a good comparison to draw. In addition, a Federal Reserve Board that keeps money supply constricted could essentially act much like a gold standard economy.
Federalism! Lots of Republicans love this. Don't call it federalism, just tell people that they'll be voting on the legality of abortion, gay rights and suchlike in their states or localities. That's very appealing to many of conservatives, especially with regards to education and things of the sort. It can even be cast as a concession to gay's rights, guarenteeing that their progress in the states won't be stopped by the national government.
I'd also like to point out that I am not saying there is anything "wrong" with the platform -- people should run on what they believe.
He didn't lose because he was "fringe" -- it was just a series of factors that added up.
Kevin Houston: yeah, the whole "not into imperalistic killing" probably turned the neocons off. But there are republicans who weren't for the war -- and you've got to find what about your message didn't resonate with them to get them voting for your guy.
If McCain dies? The delegates can support ANYONE. They do not have to support Ron Paul, they can throw their support to anyone who was on the ballots. That includes Paul, Romney, Huckabee and even *snicker* Ghouliani.
Joan: how is my analysis all over the place? I'm not a RP supporter and I'm not one of these people who thinks that shouting something loudly and denying reality is going to make things better. Try Googling "reading comprehension" and "rules of argument", goodbye.
Aez: If he'd run on that he would have done a fuck of a lot better than he did. The problem is reversed in the way you do it though -- it pisses the more dense of the Grassroots off that don't understand the need for subtlety.
Ah, well. I can spend the next five months ripping apart OBAM and Hellary.
One thing was left out - the main thing: Ron Paul did not campaign!
I tried to communicate with national on several occasions on this basic point - go to the other GOP candidates' websites and look at their appearance schedule - then go to Ron Paul's an look at his. John McCain went to nearly one hundred townhall meetings in New Hampshire. Ron Paul only went to one that I know of - surely there were a few others.
So, as the time went on, I came to believe exactly what Mike posted, Ron Paul did not want to be President!
Oh! And secondly, despite his poor showings, I will still continue to vote for him. Why, you ask? Well, a vote is personal. I don't intend to vote differently because a large majority do vote differently. I am no sheep! I will vote for who I want to win, no matter the odds.
Riz: So, in other words -- you think most people actually voted for Ron Paul, but that the voting was rigged. Even in areas where they have paper ballots.
Right. People like you are why people like me and most of voting America can't take people like Ron Paul seriously. Vote for who you like! Shit, write his name in in the final elections. But if you can't see that there's more to this than you're the victim, join the LONG line of victims already in front of you.
I agree whole heartedly with the statements here. I don't think he wanted to win. I am the author of the Ron Paul is a quitter article. I wish some of you would come over and contribute to the comment section because these people think I'm the only one who thinks this.
Logical Premise: Heck, I don't feel like a victim at all. I feel like we've made some impact. A vote is basically giving support to a candidate. I support Ron Paul, so I vote for him. Its as simple as that.
I might vote for McCain if he is an alternative to Paul. But he isn't an alternative. In fact, he wants to stay in Iraq for a 100 years. He sings 'bomb Iran' songs. He is the least conservative candidate of them all. Therefore, I will NOT vote McCain.
As for election rigging, This is not a new thing, and we should not be so shallow as to dismiss it as impossible. Paul's pollings have been higher in many instances than what have turned out so I'm quite sure some numbers were pulled around.
I have been saying all the same stuff on RPforums for a long time and have basically been called a statist, a spy, and a traitor to the movement... none of which are true. I am so sick of the talk of taking over the convention that I wish Ron would just withdraw from the race and get everyone focused on congressional candidates. Form a PAC and fund other like minded people in the congressional race. Create a website to bring awareness to issues and candidates... SOMETHING that would be productive, rather than have everyone obsess about storming the convention floor. Get a speaking spot at the convention, say your peace and watch McCain lose in November (its going to happen), then at least you can say I told you so and start changing the party.
But to leave the fringe within the fringe to plot on how to takeover the party at the convention is just irresponsible.
The truth is that aside from bringing a lot of motivated people into the party, this campaign was never pointed at actually winning the presidency, it was about planting a seed within the party, and that seed was definately planted.
I will probably vote 3rd party, because the one upside of having McCain in there, Supreme Court justices, is not even certain. McCain would probably not put a concervative justice on the court because doing so would overturn the major accomplishment of his career, campaign finance... think about that. Why would he put a person on there that would undo the things he actually believes in? He wouldn't, because he doesnt share their view, if he even bothers to have a view about the constitution at all. I don't think I've even ever heard McCain say the word "constitution" at all... again, not a good sign...
Posted By: Christopher (Fipher) D. Osborn
Date: 2008-03-10 23:12:18
I agree entirely, and hope in 2012 we can can have Dr. Paul, or at least a Paulite, run for president with a more professional central campaign to go along with the tramendouse grassroots efforts we've seen this year.
I'm also hoping that the liberty march and book bomb can do some good.
I don't think it would be a disaster if the delegates went against the wishes of the electoral. I also don't think the current voting percentages are accurate, even though I'm sure McCain still beats Ron Paul... there just too many people still asleep. We have accomplished a lot in the name of freedom and the movement will continue. Americans are waking up, but they're slow.... painfully slow.
I do hope you're able to come to terms with your vote when McCain starts wreaking havoc. Having said that, I think our next pres. was chosen long ago, and although we've made progress, I'm doubtful there is any strategy to see it materialize this time. Let's pray we have another chance.
I'm still hoping to become a delegate....
I said I was doubtful about the outcome, but not hopeless.
Yep, this campaign had no plan. If it weren't for the internet warriors, the campaign would have been ignored and broke.
I'm not wishing anything bad on McCain, but if he were to get sick or if that cancer came back, then I might have to put my yard sign back out. Until then, start planning to do this all over again for 2012.
Posted By: Kevin Houston
Date: 2008-03-11 18:44:01
Logical premise,
You are 100% correct, The delegates (and no one else) will determine who will be nominated in St. Paul. That is why I am working my tail off to become one of those delegates. I am already a county delegate, and I hope to make it to national delegate at the regional caucuses this Saturday. Actually, we delegates could decide to vote for ANYONE even if McCain doesn't die or get embroiled in a huge scandal. The delegates can vote to suspend the rules, and do whatever the heck they want.
Shows how many of the 1120 McCain delegates (you read that right, it's really only 1120 at this point - not 1191, and that's counting unpledged as well as pledged) have actually been assigned to live human beings. That number is only 324. Many states have yet to hold their conventions. There is still time to pull this out of the fire, but it won't happen automatically - we all have a lot of hard work to do. Even when the delegates have been confirmed to live human beings, that is not the end of it.
Just because you are sitting in a "McCain" seat, doesn't mean you can't vote to suspend the rules and unbind the delegates. Just because Romney or Huckabee or even Hunter won some paper straw poll, doesn't mean a Ron Paul supporter can't get himself/herself elected to sit in that seat.
The race for public votes may be winding down, but the race for delegates is just beginning. We have the advantage in numbers, and we have the advantage in determination and initiative. Most McCain supporters are thinking "Cool - It's all sewn up. I don't have to do anything more, some anonymous delegate will do my bidding for me in St. Paul."
Politics belongs to those who show up. Let's start showing up.
This campaign was never really much about Ron Paul anyway. This campaign was always about "we the people" waking up and claiming what is rightfully ours - our Liberty.
WAKE UP! IT'S NOT OVER YET!
Did Ron Paul "reach out" to the internet? Or did we reach in?
Did Ron Paul raise 20 million dollars (10 million of it in 2 single day events?) Or did we?
Did Ron Paul create a bunch really cool videos and upload them to youtube? Or did we?
Did Ron Paul organize a for-profit company to do an end-run around McCain-Feingold financing laws and put a blimp in the air? Or did we?
Did Ron Paul organize people from around the country to show up in NH? Or did we?
Then why in the world can't we see that WE have to get Ron Paul nominated, he can't do it by himself anymore.
And for any who suggest that it is immoral to "Tharwt the will of the voters", I would ask you 2 questions.
#1) Who initiated this fraud of an election?
#2) Do you doubt that if Ron Paul were sitting on 1191 delegate seats that the neocons would not be pulling out all the stops to see that non-Ron Paul people were sitting in those seats, and would use every under-handed parlimentary trick to see that he wasn't the nominee?
Why can't we do the same?
Did the founding fathers "play fair" and line up in neat rows to fight the British? No! They hid behind rocks and trees and picked the redcoats off one by one.
We have given our treasure to money bombs, it is now time to give our sacred honor over to politics. If we fail it is our lives which will perish. Not in the physical sense; we will not be rounded up and shot as traitors as the founding fathers would have been. But in the metaphorical sense of losing a life free from interference from an omnipotent and callous state - that will die if we fail.
You know, I wrote a very angry reponse to the above, and then deleted it.
If you people honestly, truly think that when your canidate has 4% of the vote, that if you somehow massively rig the delegate voting so that he wins that it's a good thing, fine.
You shouldn't say anything else about "republican democracy" or "representative government", because that's basically fraud and electioneering straight out of the Fasist Playbook.
You should never talk again about "the people", because you would have just spit on the people, saying in effect your wishes are more important. Again, straight fascism.
You should never again talk about liberty, or that people should have the rights to chose what they like, because you would basically take that from them in the BELIEF that what would follow would give them liberty -- and ironically, saying that they don't have the common sense or intellegence to decide for themselves. I'm not sure if that's fascist, socialist, or both.
It's up to you to decide what you want to do. I've written why your canidate lost. Some of you see the problems and will probably work hard to fix it. Some have given up. And some, like Mr. Houston, have decided that the laws and rules and common sense don't matter.
If he does get the Republican nod that way, I can guarantee you the voters will react -- and not in a way you would like. But, whatever. If you actually think that's the best thing for this country -- well, you're a Paultard, the first one I've seen on this site.
Hey logical premise, let's reverse a few things here and speak hypothetically. Let's just pretend for a moment that it's McCain we're talking about here, and the reasons why HE "lost." (I know this will be difficult because you're voting for him, but let's just try, shall we?)
Here would be the list:
1. It was his outrageous singing of "Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran" that made him appear callous and insane.
2. It was his response to an economic question posed to him during a debate that proved he was clueless about economics and would continue using Bush's failed advisors because they were his cronies. We're in a recession and this guy will only make things worse!
3. It was his absurd remark that we should spend 100 more years in the Iraq War -- especially ridiculous when over 73% of Americans want our soldiers to come home now.
4. He just couldn't control his temper, blowing up one too many times. The last thing we need in the White House is a hothead who may possibly have some instability and mood swing problems.
5. It was his indiscreet affair with a lobbyist that ruined him; he just couldn't be trusted.
What's that you say? McCain is still running for President and he's....winning???
Wow. With all those reasons, I hardly have to even wonder who the real "loser" is. Good to see you'll be voting with your conscience, though.
And BTW, you're not fooling anyone -- no real supporter of Ron Paul would ever even think of voting for McCain, for whatever reason.
....are you on drugs, Blakmira? I have NEVER been a Ron Paul supporter. Did you not notice the affiliation of STATIST below my name?
If McCain loses the national election to Obama or Hillary, it will be due to dumb ass mistakes HE made. I can readily conceed that. What Libertarians won't listen to for the most part, is that your party and your idealistic platform and campaign organization is what defeats you AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN.
So, by all means! Polish your guns! Make your Youtube vidoes! Write long, poorly composed diatribes against the tyranny of the "guvmint". Declare your love for the RP Revolution.
*yawns* When you get tired and someone besides RP is president, try coming back and reading the article and actually absorbing what it says. Half of Libertarians listened and see the issue, the other half simply react violently to any criticism at all.
And hey! Still no response from Mr. Houston? How's that fascist, jackbooted attempt to rig the election going, guy?
Dammit! I do believe you're right, on both points. First, the RP campaign died under its own lack of leadership skills. The campaign could well have been better organized and managed by some ad agency. Period. Second, it really is reprehensible that RP supporters would consider trying to "hijack" an election by using the same dirty tricks that we could expect if the tables were turned. The idea that we know better than the American people what is right for us is a misnomer. Now, get out of the way, St. Paul awaits my arrival and vote (for Ron Paul, of course). See ya in economic heaven.
Not a bad analysis, but a few points bear correcting:
He got, on average, between 2% and 10% of the vote in most states.
His lowest showing was 3%, not 2%. His best showing was 25%, in Montana. He was in double digits in Washington (22%), North Dakota (21%), Maine (19%), Alaska (17%), Minnesota (16%), Nevada (14%), Kansas (11%), West Virginia (10%), and Iowa (10%). Unfortunately, he didn't win any states, but he did a lot better than the media wanted to give him credit for.
You need someone younger, a charismatic speaker, someone handsome, married to a goodlooking woman, someone very Christian, a veteran, and who has a track record slightly less extreme than Dr. Paul.
Holy smokes. You don't get much more Christian than Ron Paul, and you'd be hard pressed to find a candidate with a more beautiful family. A veteran? He was a captain in the Air Force, doesn't that count?
Logical Premise you are showing your true colors in your comments. Are you not arguing like one of those angry RP supporter you don't like?
Most of the analysis is true and it all boils down to this. Ron Paul could never have one this election and probably didn't even really want to be president even if he could. That is all too obvious so why spend so much time discussing it (even though pretty much all points made above are true).
One thing that has not been mentioned and the one thing that is more important than anything is this. Ron Paul (or anyone else with a similar message) cannot win until the economy tanks (yes it is in terrible shape but most people don't yet know how bad it is going to be).
It is hard for an average American to know how bad the situation is in Iraq but everybody will know the US is in trouble when they loose their job or their home.
Ron Paul has helped open our eyes and while the majority is not ready yet, when the economy hits rock bottom over the coming years a large number of people will now know why this happened.
This all plays out nicely for a libertarian win in 2012 (which by the way I believe has been Ron Paul's strategy all along).
Thank you Ron Paul for an amazing campaign and thanks to all the supporters who made it happen.
If anyone is interested in what exactly the media said and is saying about Ron Paul check out. www.WhatTheySayAboutRonPaul.com.
This was the most poorly written article I can think of. All your problems with his campaign are things he had no control over. The MSM controlled all those things.
If you could not see the bias in the media, then you can't find your back end with your hands in your pants. For the florida debate, there were 5 guys in the debate. For the advertisements for the debate, they only showed 4. Guess which one was excluded? Ron Paul. When they were doing coverage for primaries after Florida, they were showing what Rudy was doing, even tho he had already dropped out, but never showed RP. When New Hamp debate happened, thompson and Rudy were invited, but not RP. Even tho RP had outdone them in both in either fundraising or previous caucus.
You can't force the MSM to give you time. The grass roots is all that was left. And other than McCain, all the people that actually did the things you think RP should have done, are out of the race.
Huckabee did not do well because he had charisma. He did well because the MSM said all the Christians were going to vote for him, and so they did. His surge was fabricated to take away votes from Romney.
Start living in the real world. If you give up your principles to win elections, then you might as not even run, we have plenty of McCains already running.
Ron Paul offered freedom, strict adherence to the constitution and a quick end to a pointless war.
About 3% of the population liked that message. The other 97% are roughly divided into two groups:
One group said we wouldn't know the constitution if it bit us on the ***. Besides we don't want freedom. We want free stuff. Give us free health-care.
The other group said we don't want freedom either. We want security. We want the military to go beat the hell out of somebody. It doesn't matter who or why just so long as they are beating the stuffing out of someone.
A campaign that doesnt scare the shit out of people? The only people who would be scared of Paul's message are those who dont have a damn clue what's going on in the world. And those are precisely the people who need to wake up. Once they do, they begin to live in the real world and cease being frightened of it. People are going to be a hell of a lot more scared when this ponzi scheme is allowed to run the country into the ground. So go and vote for McCain if you want to see some really scary shit. At least you'll be able to take comfort in knowing that you wont see it coming.
The article makes some good points, but in the end it all comes down to the media! The media could have Gomer Pyle elected if they played him up enough and tore his competition down. Dr. Paul was mistreated in what little media coverage he received. Had I been running FOX News, Romney and Huckabee would be totally unknown, Rudy might ring a bell, any mention of McCain would prompt an "Is he still alive?" question, and Ron Paul would be polling with 85% against Obama RIGHT NOW!
Very good argument. Your writing style is tops. I hope that you aren't entirely right though. Mr. Paul's message is so pure and honest that I would like to think that it can cross all boundries that most other messages could never cross. There has been people in history who have been able to communicate such messages that have been able to cross boundries which most others could not. What if Mr. Paul is one of those people who does have a message so strong that no boundries can hold it back for very long. What if he is one of the greats of the human race who will be remembered for centuries to come? I believe that he is one the greats of the human race. I believe that his message cannot be stopped. I believe that no matter what the results of the presidential race Mr. Paul's message will be heard and will be remembered. Mr. Paul doesn't have to win the presidency, he has won the hearts and minds of millions for as long as they shall live. He has made a positive impact upon his species which shall have a lasting affect.
Re: Second paragraph in the article, "The people clearly are not "behind him".................
This statment is not accurate. Many people would have been behind him if the media did not brainwash the people, with their assinine propagandic cleches, such as, "He can't win concluding nearly all news coverage. If Ron Paul would have gotten just fair media treatment, he would have take everything by a landslide.
This otherwise fine post contains the only sentence I've seen in my life that has the same grammatical error three times. It should be "A campaign that can at least find its own ass if it put its hands in its back pockets:" I am shocked that such a thoughtful writer would make such an illiterate mistake.
Posted By: unlynched former staffer
Date: 2008-05-30 18:52:08
It strikes me that we can analyze this to death, so let me clarify a couple of things from an insider perspective. Did the campaign make all of the right moves? No. Was the media department as on top of things as many of us would like? No. Was the money all spent in the most efficient manner possible? No.
That does not mean that good people weren't running things. It means that, in life, you make the best decisions you can with the information and resources you have. We all worked our tails off and always sought to get Ron elected.
The constraints we were working under often weren't visible from the sidelines. Yes, hundreds of people scored media without talking to the media team. Well, when the candidate has a full time day job and needed to be in his home district most weekends, you can only book media in the small blocks that we had. Same thing with travel; we were screaming to get Ron into Iowa and New Hampshire more, but we could only schedule what the candidate could give us.
In no way do I write this to disparage Ron, whom I would gladly take a bullet for. Rather I want to point out that even if we had run a truly perfect campaign, with the perfect staff, the perfect candidate and complete utilization of the amazing grassroots, we still would have lost.
Surveys indicate that 15-20% of Americans have "generally libertarian" views. Subtract out those that you lose on the war and this campaign soaked up most of the votes we were likely to get.
Libertarianism has never been a majority view either within the Republican Party or this country generally.Add a message that is first and foremost anti-war within a pro-war party and you have the makings of a first rate butt kicking.
But that didn’t happen either.We made a respectable show of it and wildly outperformed most other candidates and the expectations of those who professionally expect things.
So, if you still think that the staff (myself included) needs to be strung up, then so be it.I regret neither my efforts, nor my motives and neither should any of you.At the end of the day our values and beliefs have currency again and are going to help shape the political future.That’s not a bad legacy and I think it is the one that Ron would cherish most of all.
Now if I can just slip this post passed the grammar police.
As a Ron Paul supporter, I couldnt agree more with everything you've written. But I need to add one more element that was crippling: the inability of Ron Paul to use the correct issues. Here is a Doctor, with government experience, who could use his experience and background to offer health care solutions in a time when health care issues are on the front burner.
Instead, he hammered away, long and hard, on the Federal Reserve System. Somewhere along the line, libertarians have become smitten (I'd say drunk) on the notion of returning to a gold standard. Driven by college-aged kids who can whip out you-tube presentations and conspiracy theories at a moments notice, this issue was allowed to drive his rallies and campaign stops. Even I, a supporter, got bored to tears at his speech the night of the NH Primary,
The public doesnt give a rats ass about the Federal Reserve System, and doesnt know a hell of a lot about it anyway (many Paulites don't either, actually, even though its the new litmus test), and in the end they dont care about it. And if the public doesnt understand it, they wont discuss it in the warehouses and ballgames and coffee shops and offices, because they dont want to appear to be 'dumb.'
I also am no Ron Paul supporter. That said, this dialogue shows the attitudes fo his supporters that have made his election an impossible task. Indeed, the most amusing critique of your analysis was that you were all over the map. I suggest that the Paul supporters view Lew Rockwell's site, where there are articles on what Paul can do for libertarians, statists, socialists, democrats, republicans, homosexuals, christians and many more, and it goes without saying, that these several groups are in opposition--indeed, as Lew Rockwell was one of Paul's key supporters, it shows how the Paul message was made to be all over the map. There's also this: Lew Rockwell's site has also posts on the virtue of anarchy and the virtue of not voting and the virtue of not participating in the evil government system. It's no wonder that the Paul campaign had mixed messages, with supporters like these. Then there's the attitude problem, as you noted. It is possible to get something done by an acclaimation to acquiesence, to use Madison's phrase when some people pushed into the Constitution at the last minute the prohibition against the direct tax, but it requires, as you note, a trickery that is hardly anything more than a method of tyranny where respect for another's position goes out the window. Indeed, it is this very disrespect among some Paul supporters, those who would try to steal the election (thankfully, the Paul supporters are having their own convention, they'll not be in the Republlican convention, and their attempts to steal the delegates in the several States have been defeated) or indeed, hack into the electronic voting machines, are not libertarians, by their own definition of justice, to do no harm. ( A note here: the Republicans do not have super-delegates, to my understanding, so the tactic of this kind of delegate theft is not possible or as possible as it would be in the Democratic party)
This brings up one other reason why Paul lost. His supporters are an amalgamation of many opposing interests united by his opposition to the war and his personality-not unlike the collection that were united under Perot. Now when Perot's presence was minimised in that Reform Party, schisms appeared, culminating in the final destruction of the Reform party with the tyrannical actions by Buchanan to throw out of the party his opponenets. They too went down the road to hold a counter-convention. As Paul's personality recedes, meaning that he withdraws from politics, either by concentrating on his Texas district or even retiring, and as the war recedes, by our withdrawal or other, the schisms in the Paul Campaign for Liberty will appear, and these schisms or sects will finish it off. This would fit the historical model of American third parties, that in many cases were personality driven, such as George Wallace's or Robert LaFollette's or indeed, LaRouche's.(In the last case, I suspect the LaRouche followers will insist that he is still alive, not unlike the Saturday Night Live jokles about Franco, but to be taken seriously) And this points to the last and most difficult problem for third parties or personalities--the lack of any presence in Congress or the State houses. Jesse Ventura;s example should be studied. With little or no support in Congress, a President Paul would get nothing done, to include the elimination of the several government agencies or programs he dislikes. The third parties must not only get a chief executive into office, but also legislators and judges, otherwise, the lone executive will be isolated. Harry Truman made the point by saying that if he pushed all the buttons on his desk and made phone calls, but no one came, he'd get nothing done.
what the media did was wrong, they took his words about why terrorist would want to attack us on 911 and turned it into its the gov fault or crap like that when in fact our foreign policy pisses everyone off . if i was in a country under the influence of us foreign policy i would be mad too but the average american only knows what the media tells them, they are too lazy to do their own research
I must confess. I didn't read this whole article. I skimmed through, saw the four letter words. Concluded the writer lacked the ability to use the English language and had to resort to trashy street talk. If they can't use the language, how can I think their opinion is carefully thought out?
However, I did pick up on these sentences: He got, on average, between 2% and 10% of the vote in most states. The people clearly are not "behind him"
Did you know the American Revolution was waged, fought, and won with about 10 percent of the colonial population? The rest were probably about as apathetic as much of the American population today.
Then I looked at the date of this article and realized a whole lot of things have happened with the Ron Paul campaign since then. I'll excuse the writer on ignorance, but please check out the Campaign for Liberty. Things are happening, many of which have nothing to do with this election, and the effects will continue long after this election passes. In the long run, those activities may have more lasting effect than the election.
Posted By: U.S. NAVY representative
Date: 2009-11-06 01:30:03
You backwards lying motherfucker, no facts are involved in this shit for brains opinionated paragraph. On top of that, your propaganda is so far off that it's like a comedy central spoof, just not funny. Ron Paul is an M.D. and morons have no grounds speaking his name. Stop spreading volatile disinformation cock breathe.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
