What would a Ron Paul 2012 campaign look like?
That’s the title of this post from the website Political Lore. Given all the attention Paul has received since Election Day of 2008, from cable news networks to Lindsay Graham, given the fact he faces a primary challenge for re-election next year in Texas and now with his son Rand Paul poised to enter the U.S. Senate race in Kentucky, Paul faces a summer where choices will need to be made about his political future.
Where I disagree with the Political Lore article is the fact that Rep. Paul needs to start much earlier than 2011 to build a nationwide political infrastructure, especially among Republican activists. For that reason I believe he needs to decide by Labor Day this year whether he wants to run or not. If he doesn’t that will give Gary Johnson and Mark Sanford the time they need to build their own White House bids. But if he does decide to run I believe he needs to give up his House seat and run full time.
In 2010 he can camapaign for Rand or Ron Paul Republicans or Paul-like Republicans or for any kind of endorsed candidates nationwide. This will introduce him to many Republican activists and they can see for themselves that he’s worthy to carry the party’s banner for 2012. Hopefully some of those candidates will win and increase Paul’s prowess even more.
By the start of 2011, the infrastructure of a campaign should already be in place and Paul can spend the year campaigning for the nomination in the important early states he MUST win: New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina along with big states like California, New Yorkand his home state of Texas. As modern primary politics goes, winning the early builds the momentum to winning the big states, especially all those on Super Tuesday.
And more importantly, by starting early and campaigning on a set of ideas gives Rep. Paul a powerful advantage in a party right now where there is a vacumn of ideas. He can also exploit what is now a gap between Obama and his more liberal supporters over the war, torture, the war crimes of the Bush Administration and civil liberties that will only grow over time as Obama’s pragamtic nature becomes evident and disappoints his more idealistic followers.
The only problem with Ron Paul giving up his seat is then he loses his podium, and we as Americans lose bills like his HR 1207 to audit the Federal Reserve. It would be his decision, of course, but while I absolutely hope to see him run, if he could keep up the grueling schedule of his campaign plus votes that he (but none of McCain, Obama or Clinton) managed during the last campaign, that is what I would prefer to see.
If Rand Paul makes it to the Senate, there would still be someone to bring these sorts of bills, but we wouldn’t know that until after the 2010 election.
In addition, I note that Ron Paul’s bill HR 1207 has 165 cosponsors now, whereas Sanders’s complimentary Senate bill had none last time I checked.
However, I hope he will run in 2012, however he handles his House seat.
I sincerely hope that he doesn’t run again in 2012.
He’s my favorite living politician, and has been for nearly a decade, but it just isn’t responsible for him to run for a Presidential term that would end after his eightieth birthday. His speech is already slowing, and even the healthiest 75-year-old would risk doing serious damage to his health if he campaigned vigorously.
Also, his influence in the House is already growing. If 2010 brings in several likeminded Reps, and I think it will, he’ll be at the head of a small caucus.
I don’t think he even wanted to be President. He just wanted to mobilize libertarians, adherents of Austrian Economics, and traditional conservatives. He realized that a Presidential run, even a doomed one, was the best way to do that.
Hopefully he gives way to Sanford.
If RP doesn’t run in 2012 Mark S. has my vote.
In addition to the podium, he loses the position to put forth legislative initiatives like Audit the Fed. http://tinyurl.com/cbor7h He should try to keep his seat.
It wont be much different then the last election. He wont even make it past the primary.
You can’t win elections anymore with lies and fearmongering.
His economic views don’t hold water. Notice no country uses austrian economics? Now why is that?
I mean alot of you idiots think that spending doesn’t create jobs……. ROFL……. I guess you all skipped “the great depression” during history class? If any of you even finished.
Wrong. The only states that matter are Ohio and South Carolina. Whoever wins South Carolina wins the Republican nomination and no Republican can win the presidency without taking Ohio. While I appreciate Ron Paul’s sticking it out in the past election and his supporter’s hopes and dreams of a runaway political caucus getting him the election, he should have gone all out to win South Carolina and his supporters should have done the same. Send the blimp to the south next time, guys.
As to the issue of Ron Paul’s age, he is as healthy as ever outwalks his staffers, very articulate and Doug Wead wrote about very good reasons why he should run in 2012, also citing not only the age of Reagan, but also Adenauer and De Gaulle, who were both the most successfull european leaders. It should also be noted that last year 84 year old sen. Wolf was reelected in NJ, thus he would be 90 when he retire. If he can run a successful campaign at an age more than ten years older than Paul, so can Paul. Paul acts much younger than his age, unlike McCain, who already seemed to be damaged goods last year. If personally think though there is a not of good about Mark Sanford, one does not know how he will be on foreign policy…he might resort to advice from Newt Gingrich, and then we have made no progress from the disastrous neocon. policy at all. It may also be easier to paint the GOP as a “southern party only”, with Sanford being from SC. SC is as a state also not doing very well. If Paul would not run in 2012, Gary Johnson would be much more interesting, not only would his views be closer to Paul’s than Sanford’s (also in foreign policy), but being from western state where he won twice in a blue state and managed to turn the NM state economy from red to black, and with implementing innovative ideas and a very attractive also physique (for the non-intellectual voters), he would also for the whole GOP be the strongest candidate. Johnson would also be a very good VP choice for Paul. He has stated he will make a decision in about two year’s time. Paul has the name recognition now he lacked before. If he manages to get at least hr 1207 approved, he would have gained a lot of legitimacy as a leader with the whole GOP, e.g. being able to get a bipartisan bill where the GOP is in the minority and he needs to continue further. I earlier thought he could persue a senate bid as the successor to Kay Hutchison, but then he has to campaign almost full time now…and as a junior TX senator he may not have as much power than now.
Just like the war-issue was the defining reason that lead him to run for the 2008 race last year, so the Afghanistan, Pakistan etc? wars as well as the economy may be the driving reason to run again. Face it, Sanford and others do not have the rock star status (or potential). No other politician is as articulate in Austrian economics and various other issues. The fact that his run was never about himself, has actually been very active reason to propel him to “rock star” status. In 2012 he can and will of course run to win the primary and presidency, not only to “deliver a message”. Strategically Paul is also the best option for the GOP: No GOP candidate will match the Reagan-like rhetorical abilities of Obama, but people also loved the “thoughtful and kind” way of Obama, which Paul possess even more. Also: charismatic speakers are often NOT good debaters, and debate in Paul’s strength (or one of it), so he will beat Obama in debate rather easily. Paul is also more articulate than Obama, and can deliver a good speech (without any teleprompter). Only Paul would be able to hold his unique “left-right” coalition together and expand it. Paul’s appeal is much wider than Buchanan’s, also on the positions. He should concentrate on the Christian vote (no pander, Chrisntians simply need to realize how in line his message is with the Christian doctrine, on pre-emptive war etc.) and get some military people to endorse him to fight the (false) perception that he is “weak on defense”. His message needs to be communicated better by his team than in 2008: this may make all the difference in the primaries. Practically, he should also get a good big campaign bus, to which he can invite journalists as well and campaign all over in Iowa and New Hampshire. The Free State Project is also important, so if Ron Paul supporters in say CA, NY, MA etc. can move to NH in the next few years, they can help to ensure Paul wins the decisive NH primary, which could catapult him as the leader in the race.
I don’t think Paul’s strength was debating. He just happened to be right a lot. That’s a different thing.
Sarah Palin is the answer.
Unfortunately, I concur with others who have said that Ron Paul doesn’t really want to be president. Ron loves educating, but he has not exhibited any personal passion in wanting to become President. Without that passion he will not have the tenacity to win.
All things being equal between Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, on the issues, I think Gary Johnson would be the best GOP candidate for 2012, because he has within him the passion that would be required.
I hope he runs! Lew Rockwell would make an excellent VP (he probably wouldn’t take it- it’s a do nothing job)
Peter Schiff- Sec. Treasury
Adam Kokesh- Sec. Defense
All other depts- abolished!
Having said that- O’Bama will only get 1 term as he will be humbled by the market he’s trying to control and his supposed withdrawal of the troops from Iraq on March 31 of this year (per his campaign promise) is taking longer than expected. Torture is still going on- you just don’t hear about it.
Time for real change- Ron Paul 2012.
Save the Republic!
Back to the Constitution!
I agree that it might not be the best idea for Ron Paul to run, but I will certainly vote for, and support any Ron Paul/Campaign for Liberty-endorsed candidate. Other than Mark Sanford, of course, who I learned attended the 2008 Bilderberg Group meeting.
See the full lists here: http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/bilderberg_list_2008.html
It looks like Adam Kokesh.
If Paul didn’t run I would lean towards Gary Johnson as his replacement. Johnson is more libertarian than Mark Sanford, but he’s also more able to gather in Paul’s diverse flock of supporters than Sanford is.
Plus, Sanford’s ability to win his home state is in doubt. That’s not good for any serious candidate.
Ron Paul should run for re-election as a Congressman in 2010 and then turn his sights on the White House. Age will be the issue for him, but if he’s still healthy, he can overcome that.
Sanford’s ability to win his home state really isn’t in doubt.
Still I prefer Johnson, and I’m from SC.
Paul’s mild, thoughtful, mild approach is IMHO the ideal personality to combine with his radical constitutional approach, which implies profound changes. Imagine yourself a more bombastic, hard-nosed, campaigner saying the same things: I think the result would have been much elss successful.
Yes, to win the presidency was not his main expectation, as he had no personal ambition to rule over others, but now he has laid the foundation for a strong movement. He has managed to basically move from 0,5 % or less in the polls to up to 25% in later GOP state primaries where he did not even campaign. Since the campaign, I am sure his support has grown stronger and he has also been receiving more media coverage and with his economic forecasts being realized, he is taken seriously.
One of his strengths lies in strategy, as well as articulation (improved tremendously). I do believe he is a good debater. He has perhaps not managed to convince some of the other presidential candidates directly,
but he has managed to convince the people and the followers of other candidates, and then also people not easy to convince. Huckabee got many of the “easy” votes with his populism, Paul received thoughtful votes. he has managed to convince pro-choice voters to become pro-life and anti-war but also big govt. Democrats to become small govt. constitutionalist Republicans. As example, In have read the following:
“Sam Says: May 19th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I used to vote for Democrats all my life until I heard Ron Paul speak during the 2008 presidential debates.
He opened up my eyes to the reality of how all government intervention has negative unintended consequences.
I am now convinced that we would be much better off with a limited and Constitutional form of government.
Freedom definitely brings people together!”
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/19/ron-paul-states-rights-to-legalize-marijuana/
Paul’s strength also remains in his ideas. He addressed so many issues
though he has been treated falsely) as a fringe candidate. Fringe candidates like fringe parties often address only single issue like Tancredo with illegal immigration. Paul also has a very balanced understanding of every issue. Of course his honesty and consistency is really the attractive thing.
Sean: it is interesting that you note Sanford’s ability to even win his home state is in question. SC is an early primary and important. If Paul runs, Johnson can and should campaign with him and be the VP candidate. He should also get a few key endorsements, from governors, senators and congressmen. I do believe he would get more congressman than in 2008 to endorse, but he may also receive a few senators (like Tom Coburn) and governors (like Butch Otter).
IMHO his position within the GOP will be strengthened if he manage to pass 1207 as well as one or two more, for instance about industrial hemp. In 2010 he will be sufficiently “angry” and frustrated with the economic situation and the foreign wars that he may decide to run again. He will not be the anti-war candidate in a pro-war party like in 2007/2008, but could be more seen as a uniter of the GOP and with his anti-war position and credibility on the bailouts that it would give him enough ammo and as a “maverick” also attract the soft Democrat and Indy vote that the GOP would need to win.
Also, if Rand Paul could win his primary in KY and also the senate race, it will prove that Paul would be able to win the GOP primary, also those where he say received only 3% or 5% of the vote in 2008.
I hope Ron Paul runs for president in 2012, I will vote for him if he makes it onto the ballot.
The thing about Dr Paul that worked against his election in 2008 and will again in 2012 is his tendency to get emotional on emotional topics, whereupon he starts to ‘squeak” and sound like a psycho.
He needs to get some public speaking therapy but his ideals are correct.
The public is not yet ready to elect Ron Paul, because they are still too dumb. That isn’t to say that not supporting him is dumb. He campaigns on ideas, and the majority of the voting base is still happy eating up the shallow, near-contentless, analysis presented by CNN and all the rest. The thing that I like most about Paul (and I certainly don’t agree with all of his answers) is that he is capable of carrying out an intellectual discussion about an idea. Every other politician seems to be a bottomless pit of diatribe, rhetoric, and political double-speak. Obama is an incredibly intelligent person, but never goes into depth on anything in front of the camera because he knows it will instantly go over the head of 90% of the people listening. Nerds don’t earn many votes.
I think Paul is aware of this problem, which is why he so often says something like: I ran for the Republican party to build awareness, it’s not about ME, it’s about educating people. He will never look as good as someone like Obama in the media because no one in the media has the intellectual integrity to engage him in serious debate. Stewart got halfway there (http://www.viddler.com/explore/AwakeAndAriseOr/videos/36/), but I would like to see him back on the show now that Paul is a bit more widely known.
Even if you are one of the anti-Paul trolls out there on the interweb, you have to concede one point: Paul supporters do read much more often than your average pleb. Until in-depth, meaningful discussion replaces this circus of sound bites that we call news coverage, thinkers like Paul will remain on the political fringe.
In 2008, Ron put little effort into the race. He spent few days in NH and Iowa. States that if you want to win, you must be there early and often. Ron may or may not have wanted to be President, he had supporters who put in 100% for him, yet he failed to do so himself. Maybe he could not because of health concerns. Right now if Paul wants to run in 2012, he should announce now and get all of the media exposure he can as a GOP contnder to Obama. To win in polictics is a full time job, all of the time. It isnever too early to start. I gave some of money to Ron in 2008 expecting ‘some’ effort from him, i was disappointed that a real effort was never really made by him to win.
I will not give to him in the future unless he is 100% in it, and i don’t see that he is. He has to want it as much as his supporters want it too. Sadly, i don’t think he wants it. It is best to look for a younger more aggressive freedom leader, maybe his son Rand if he make good in his KY primary.
Even though his son Rand is being coy himself saying if he will run or not.
Don’t ask for my money if the person asking is not 100% in it themselves
What I would like to see on the 2012 ballot is Ron Paul for President and Michelle Bachman as Vice President.
Sanford will never win because of the racial comment he made when Strom Thurmond’s daughter Essie Mae-Williams Washington (whose Mother was a black servant in his family) announced she was his daughter. Essie kept the secret for years and announced it only after Strom died. Strom never denied she was his child and supported her and paid her way through college and even had her and her children(his granchildren) visit him in his office in D.C. many times.
Sanford blasted her for it. Said it was a “smear” on Thurmond. I knew about Sanford stating this before his famous,”You lie”. Now the whole world knows it. Essie was a very considerate daughter. Research it and your heart breaks as she tells the story. She kept quiet to keep from damaging her father.
Lindsey Graham is another loser this next election. He’s backed Obama on everything.
Sincerely,
Karen
No one who likes Ron Paul would sabotage him like this, its clearly a smear campaign by the MSM and The Complex