9 Responses to “A Bar-B-Q too far”

1. Daniel McCarthy, on June 9th, 2009 at 11:10 pm Said:

   Never say never, but Dr. Paul will probably not mount another presidential bid in 2012. He is not possessed of a burning desire to be president — thank God — and the logic of movement-building is not necessarily on the side of another run. Although I’m glad Pat Buchanan was on my ballot in 2000 (he gave me someone to vote for), his run that year exhausted the political capital he had built with his 1992 and 1996 campaigns. In 2012, every Republican is going to try to sound a little like Ron Paul, and voters will be reacting against a budget-busting, war-widening Democratic president instead of a Republican one. Ironically, the success of Dr. Paul’s message and the failure of Bush Republicanism will actually make the 2012 primaries more difficult than those of 2008. There will be a lot of counterfeit goods in circulation.

   Mark Sanford and Gary Johnson are not waiting on Dr. Paul’s blessing before considering their own prospects for 2012. For his part, Paul is doing the right thing by concentrating on education and building up the grassroots rather than running a perpetual presidential campaign. Political capital is best invested at the local level: the revolution has to be won precinct by precinct.

2. stefan, on June 10th, 2009 at 1:07 am Said:

   Good article again Sean. IMHO Paul is 100% right in going for re-election. He probably does not have to campaign too hard in the primary against two
   candidates and as you indicate should focus on campaigning for Liberty Caucus incumbents – like Michele Bachmann and Tom McClintock – as well as especially (possibly) Rand Paul, Peter Schiff, Adam Kokesh and other candidates that he support. I am not sure if he would campaign against GOP incumbents for people he endorses, he he can – at best – campaign for those running against Democratic incumbents. If especially Rand Paul and/or Peter Schiff can win their primaries, as well as in the 2010 election against the D opponents, it will prove to the GOP that Paul’s principles are not only highly popular, but can indeed win an election, and superior to the Bush-Cheney/neocon GOP campaign. KY is a swing state for senators (both GOP senators won with slim margins)
   and Connecticut is a traditional D state and in New England, where the GOP has no representation in congress. Paul should perhaps concentrate on campaigning for a few strategic races in New England (New Hampshire etc.). Lindsay Graham has suggested only a “moderate” can win in strategic races, but as Peter Schiff has indicated to the LP in Connecticut recently a “Democratic lite” candidate can impossibly win, just as the “traditional right” wing also cannot win, and the libertarian right can win.

   Ron Paul should wait until about November next year, or thereafter, to announce a formally entry into the presidential race. The focus on the 2012 race will only be after the results of the mid-term elections. In a sense Paul’s campaigning for others in the 2010 mid-term will essentially also help him and the Liberty movement for 2011/2012. He should also see that he can address universities, also in Ohio, Iowa, NH, Maine, Vermont etc. between now and 2010 especially also after that) as well as some think tanks. A 2012 should be planned very professionally, weeks or months before a formal announcement, e.g. he could even decide whether he wants to run later this year, but keep this decision mainly to himself. When he announces formally, it must be at a national TV show or so.
   As you suggest, he needs to have an experienced campaign manager with success like Bill Hillsman and then later also an established GOP person. Hillsman could target the Independents and soft Democrats especially and the established GOP (perhaps someone like Doug Wead, Scott Reed?) could target the established Republicans. He needs to have an adviser team in place much sooner, on economy, foreign policy, but also on military/security. He could streamline his message and make it more targeted for a specific audience. He could also make more use of incrementalism with radical change, instead of radical change in all aspects at once. (IMHO he should NOT for instance call for a total pullout of the UN all at once, but rather suggest ways to reform it, e.g. like an incremental approach to eventually dissolve it, but keep it as a diplomatic and humanitarian forum. The UN in its charter actually does support the sovereignty of each country and prohibits the entanglement into the internal affairs of its members. Paul mentions the issue to go to war war on UN command: well that clause was brought about by the USA faction, and he should remember France and Germany were strictly AGAINST attacking Iraq). On security he should say the same but in part in different words with a bit different approach, that would appeal more to Republicans, exactly as Rand Paul is doing. He should go into more detail about the difference between a non-interventionist foreign policy and isolationism and demonstrate that the neocon philosophy actually lead to more isolationism. He should position himself – as he has already done – as the wise third option in foreign policy, that is not a hawkish attack stance but also no naive “appeasement”, but rather a dialogue based on military but also moral strength. He should go the step by step approach, instead of overnight just abolishing many agencies. He should say if he wants to abolish the federal department of education, he wants to give the power for public school to the state board of education, or reduce the Federal Dept of Education drastically (instead of eliminating it) with the role of simply coordinating – or regulating – the state education boards in a certain sense. In Germany education are also mainly handles by the different states (Bundeslaender) and there curricula can differ from state to state. This competition is healthy.
   His books The Revolution: a Manifesto as well as End the Fed should help a lot, along with his previous books. Perhaps he should blog a few articles, also at Huffingtonpost, Human Events (not sure that National review may give him a platform) to spread his ideas further than Capign for Liberty. If HR 1207 can be adopted, it will also be a huge success to his role in DC and demonstrate his bipartisan appeal on an important issue, especially where Republicans are in the minority and most GOP bills would probably never be passed. If he can then also get one or two of his bills, say like about hemp etc. passed, it would also help even more. I think his diplomatic approach is going to show fruits. Also: for a 2012 run apart from Barry Goldwater Jr., he needs people like Gary Johnson also actively campaigning with him, also with the endorsement of a few GOP senators and governors. On the economic front, James Grant is a very good person to have as well. On foreign policy, maybe he can also get say principled left wing Democrats disillusioned with Obama on civil liberties, spreading of the wars, special powers of the president etc. to act as advisers as well (Glenn Greenwald, Katrina van den Heuvel etc.). Ann Coulter, who has said not only this year, but also last year that he agrees with everything with him on domestic and economic policy, and probably also partly foreign policy (critical of the UN etc.) could also help to convince many. If Paul can make more inroads into established GOP radio hosts. He should be more on supporters like Brian Wilson’s show. Some of Paul’s senior staff should contact her eventually. Yes, she makes at time outrageous statements, but she is still well respected within the conservative wing of the GOP. Among the moderate wing of the GOP, Paul’s diplomacy and kind way of handling, as well as positions with regard to civil liberties, medical marjiuana etc., closing of Gitmo etc. should also be attractive. Paul basically offers something for literally everybody. Not all with agree with everything, but even many critics will say they can live with a lot that he is saying. The message should just be communicated more effectively and there should be a highly alert “debunking squad”, that can fight the smears. I feel Paul has improved a lot in his speeches and ways to communicate and he is very articulate. He just needs to talk slower at times, and lets his ideas and arguments sink in and make more use of space between sentences and say a few things with a bit more emotion. I think he can debate very well in detail and there are so many issues he can roll over an opponent like Obama. Paul definitely has more confidence than before. It is good that he is and will never be arrogant and overconfident.

3. stefan, on June 10th, 2009 at 1:41 am Said:

   Daniel: I am afraid while Mark Sanford is good on domestic issues, on foreign policy he is not experienced and very knowledgeable and may select – just like Sarah Palin – Newt Gingrich as his foreign policy adviser. And with that we have not made any real progress. Obama was a community organizer, which also has to do with education at a local level.
   Yes, Paul has no burning desire to dominate others, but I think the situation with the war AND the economy could and should inspire him to run in 2012. If you do not pull out military overseas eventually, then you will not make the drastic cuts and savings needed, and Democrats are NOT going to accept a drastic smaller govt. with NO cut in foreign entanglements and military and with no change in foreign policy, the US will be an even stronger target for blowback. If you think that the Afghans are going to accept another 4 plus years of occupation then you are highly mistaken, as Michael Scheuer has pointed out. And another attack is unfortunately going to strengthen the interventionist/neocon side of the GOP. Well, Johnson has recently indicated he will not be thinking about a presidential run for another 1 to 1,5 years. It would be IMHO also strategically futile to announce anything within the next year or so. Yes, I do not think Sanford – if he wants to run – would wait for Paul, but he would not make such a decision soon in any case and I read somewhere he indicated he is not interested to run. I do think in case he decides to run, he would know that the Ron Paul revolution could be his base to work from, and therefore he would wait to see what Paul decides, not that he would necessarily be waiting. He would in any case do some polling. I think Paul and Johnson may have a closer relationship and may discuss these sort of strategies and decisions eventually.
   Obama is has too much still of a teflon-image, not only with the media, so it will not be easy for critics of him, from the right or left currently. I think only after almost 2 years into his administration, when the failures can be seen, he will be more vulnerable. Obama is still more popular than his policies. So strategically you wait till this play out, rather than to attack him full-out. Only Paul really has a moral basis within the GOP to attack Obama on the important issues. I believe eventually pro-Bush-Paulson bailout people like Romney, Crist etc. will have a hard time among conservatives. Independents and certain Republicans are skeptical of people who want to sound like Paul, but do not see such action or voting record in the past. I think Paul has and would have a strong burning desire to change the course of the country and the party, and that should be his desire to run for president. The fact that he does not have a strong personal desire, has enabled a successful organizing of his ideas beyond his person and also is very attractive to most voters, in any case more experienced and savvy voters who know politicians all to well. Paul Mulshine has also stated he hopes Paul run again in 2012, and he can then criticize those who try to sound like him, but has a very different voting record. As Peter Schiff has also said, now, and in 2012, other than during Paul’s presidential run, the economic collapse, that many in the GOP mocked him for and considered him as crazy, has already happened (or started to happen), so on this basis, he has a lot of traction also within the GOP. I actually wish Johnson had run for senate late year (was a difficult run for Republicans, so maybe he may not have won against Udall?) or for congress in 2010, so that he has some basis in DC and name recognition.

   On a practical note, Sean. I think if Paul runs in 2010, he should rent a house in say NH and make that his basis: it is also much closer to DC and thus cheaper and faster and he can work on getting acquainted. He should also get a big campaign bus, where journalists can hop on and off for interviews and market the campaign much better in this way. i only saw him in a minivan in 2007/2008, not in a big comfortable campaign bus. (Correct me if I am wrong). And this time, he should have the money to afford such a bus from the very beginning.

4. Patrick, on June 10th, 2009 at 9:41 am Said:

   I agree with Dan on Paul hopefully NOT running again in 2012 (it would be a waste of energy) but I also agree with Sean on the C4L’s lack of pushing RP Republicans in Congress. When is there going to be a PAC that supports paleos in primaries? Holding conferences is all good and fun but we need more traditional conservatives/libertarians like Dr. Paul in Congress. The man is in his seventies. We need some new constitutionalists for the next generation. Who is working on that?

5. Ron Moss, on June 10th, 2009 at 9:44 am Said:

   Maybe we can adopt Sarah Palin for the next run, After all she is a hockey mom, remember the lipstick and all.

6. Sean Scallon, on June 10th, 2009 at 3:01 pm Said:

   I’m on the record favoring another a Paul run in 2012 because he will now what he didn’t have at the start of 2007 i.e. media credibility, a organized network of support and more experience in the nuts and bolts of a presidential campaign. As I said, if he doesn’t not run that’s fine but I think saying so formally would help messrs. Johnson and Sanford in terms of organization because many of the activists who would work a Paul presidential campaign are waiting on the fence to see what he does. And I said, Johnson and or Sanford need to start earlier than a Romney or Huckabee or Palin because of their lack of name recognition.

   It would be too bad thought if he doesn’t run because Rep. Paul did attract a diverse coalition of support around him and I feel he is the glue holding it together. As we saw in the fall of 2008, without him as the central force, everyone goes into their own camps. Nor do I think its given that the rest of the field will try to co-opt Paul’s issues. Maybe on some, but certainly not on foreign policy and that’s where the debate needs to focus. That can only happen if Rep. Paul or Gov. Johnson is in the race (There would no foreign policy debate if Gov. Sanford is in the race, not when he’s saying “I defer to you Newt.”).

   While many Republicans would like to put Bush II out of sight and out of mind, it’s not clear to me that they completly reject his policies or that of the neocons. It’s too easy to say “Yeah, I’m against big government and too much spending” when you’re not running anything and all I hear from a lot of Republicans (like Pat Toomey) on Iraq is “Mistakes were made but in the end we needed to invade.” Wonderful, and President Obama gets to clean up your mess. I agree things need to advance precinct to precinct, buut I feel you still need someone out there in front leading the way, otherwise it will all peter out or be co-opted.

7. Dennis, on June 11th, 2009 at 2:04 pm Said:

   I hope that Ron Paul runs for president in 2012. To my thinking, there is no other probable candidate in either major party that maintains a strictly limited government message on both domestic and foreign policy issues. As far as Congress is concerned, he has been its voice of reason and conscience for many years.

8. William Morris, on June 13th, 2009 at 9:41 pm Said:

   Dr. Paul is older than McCain, who if had won would have been the oldest President ever! Ann Coulter!!O, Please God!! She is beyond a Fascist. She is a hater and bigot par excellence, and quite proud of it. Gary Johnson would be fine, but he remains unknow and does not seem to have the stuff to catch on. Sanford? A South Carolina racist?? I have lived in South Carolina and believe me getting behind one of that kind would destroy the whole moveme nt! Dr. Paul got four percent of the vote in their primary. I am afraid Dr. Paul is quite irreplaceable and too long in the tooth for another credible race.

9. Michael Bertocchi, on June 16th, 2009 at 6:31 am Said:

   I truly admire Congressman Ron Paul’s wisdom and honesty. He speaks the truth about our financial institutions, the economy, foreign policy, etc. and says needs to be done to get our country back on the right track.

   I’m glad I voted for Ron Paul in the 2008 Maryland primary election.

   Ron Paul endorsed Constitution Party Presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin in the general election so I voted for Baldwin because I agreed with him & most of the Constitution Party platform.

   I’m now the State Vice Chairman of the Constitution Party of Maryland.

   Michael Bertocchi
   Rockville, Maryland
   http://www.constitutionpartyofmaryland.com

Leave a Reply