Please don't bash my head into the wall but I think it's pretty clear that the US won't see a Ron Paul GOP candidacy for the 2008 elections.

It will be most likely (unless something unexpected and spectacular happens, of course) a Clinton II-McCain show off with the former First Lady winning quite easily. I don't think that we'll see such close results as the last two ones. Personally I also believe that the GOP will be quite happy with results: first the Clintons' programs is amazingly similar to the most mainstream Republican candidates. Second if a recession hits hard (generated by eight years of Big Government, Big Spending Republicans) it will be quite easy to blame overgenerous Democrats. Third a progressive woman in the White House will surely be a huge PR hit for the US after quite a few years of "Let's-bomb-the-ragheads-back-to-the-Stone-Age" angry men (and women, of course: Mrs Rice will not forgotten). If Mrs Clinton will order Khartoum or Teheran to be bombed it will be in the name of democracy, human rights etc and the press will march compact behind her.

Did Ron Paul fail by not winning a GOP candidacy? No, absolutely. The most intelligent observers knew from minute one that such a radical candidate could not possibly win in the long run. But that he could accomplish so much with so little resources available was nothing short of a miracle. Or, if you prefer, a sign of times. The American political DNA, despite many many years of Big Deals, Big Societies, Worlds Safe for Democracy etc is litterally soaked in the ideals of liberty, personal responsability and limited government. After many years of lying dormant the sleeping gene is finally awakening, thanks in no small part to the Internet. While the traditional medias obscured Ron Paul and his strict Constitutional ideals the Internet brought them to millions of households.

People read what the Good Doctor had to say, his views on limited government, solid money, foreign policy and began to say "this chap isn't such a crackpot as Fox News said". I am pretty sure that if more people spent less time watching people playing Guitar Hero on Youtube and a bit more reading Dr Paul's speeches at the House of Representives Mrs Clinton and her kin will be in for a bit of rough time.

The fact that a growing percentage of the US population is demanding a return to the ideals embodied by George Washington and the other Founding Fathers or, at very least, "less government in our lives, please!" is something that Mrs Clinton will have to take into account. Of course it will be easy to just pretend that the Ron Paul movement never happened and hide it under the carpet: in Europe it worked wonders. Livable Netherlands, for example, practically ceased to exist the moment its charismatic leader, Pim Fortuyn was murdered (thanks in small part to the execrable hate campaign ingenerated by mainstream politicians and media), because it was litterally buried alive. Before the assasination polls gave Livable Netherlands as the most likely winner in the forthcoming political elections.

But I trust the US people, much more than i trust the European people, my own kin. Perhaps it will take quite a few years and lots of effort but I am sure the seed planted by Dr Paul will flourish.

Sounds more like an obituary...

You are disrepecting the hardworking Ron Paul supporters. Fred Thompson, the most conservative, dropped out today. Thompson supporters would rush to Ron Paul. Giuliani would drop out in Florida, next comes Huckabee. McCain, Romney and Paul will be the only candidates in the GOP race.

Or perhaps the hardworking Ron Paul supporters are wasting their time, energy and resources in the name of a goal that will not be realized even if all of us libertarian nay-sayers threw our arms in the air and joined your ranks in political advocacy. And your predictions strike me as rather naively optimistic. Just admit that the man is not going to get elected. It's that simple. Don't delude yourself into living in a fantasy world where Paul will magically get in the white house by some miracle, in the face of evidence to the contrary.

It's all about getting the message out. The Ron Paul campaign can effect change even if he doesn't win.

 Ron Paul hasn't even touched his fundraising money for the big push yet. Pretty early to call an aftermath.

Brainpolice:

Or perhaps the hardworking Ron Paul supporters are wasting their time

Aren't you being overly-pessimistic?  I don't think it's a waste of time.  People are definitely waking up.  I agree with you though that Dr. Paul won't win, but who cares?  His campaign is doing good and who knows, we may be able to turn this country around yet...or it will just continue its demise until it goes the way of Rome (which is probably more likely...okay now I'm the pessimist).  

One good thing is that Hillary will have to deal with a larger anti-government movement than Bill ever did.  I would expect militia type groups to rise in popularity under Hillary.

 

Unfortunately, there will be a lot of folks coming back from Iraq who are messed up in the head more than Timothy McVeigh was.  They will be angry at the government for lying to them and also believe that collateral damage is OK.  

 

There is always the possibility that McCain or Romney could scare the public into voting for them.  We also could see a brokered convention where the GOP candidate isn't someone who is in the race right now. 

 

I still plan to canvass precincts before Super Tuesday.  I want Paul to be in this as long as possible.

Brainpolice:

Or perhaps the hardworking Ron Paul supporters are wasting their time, energy and resources in the name of a goal that will not be realized even if all of us libertarian nay-sayers threw our arms in the air and joined your ranks in political advocacy. [...]

 

But it's how he won't get elected which makes his candidacy such a force for liberty. The attacks directed toward him are getting sillier, more desperate, and more maladroit by the moment. I have no intention of voting, but I sent Ron Paul money. They have no clue how to deal with an honest and honorable politician. I sometimes fear for his safety, but other than that, I'm truly enjoying the show. (I stopped sending Cato money around, oh, March 2003.)

 Although you may think most Americans have embedded in their DNA the ideals of liberty, personal responsibility and limited government. The reality is that they don't. They are being fleeced by big government and big business, who delude them into thinking their living free while their pockets are picks and lives are destroyed. Let's make a list of this:

• Are they financially free? No. Most are so deep in debt, they are losing their homes and their pensions. Why because when credit is easy being dumb can make you think you're rich (i.e. bigger house, bigger car, etc all by taking non existent equity out of your house). When the credit crunch hits (i.e asset prices fall, inflation goes up) it pays to be smart (i.e. save and invest). When you're financially free you're assets generate enough passive income that you don't need to work. That's definitely not the case for most Americans.
• Are the personally free (i.e. do they have control over their body and choose how they want to live)? No. People are given no real health options and if they tried to exercise health freedom for their kids, the child protection agency comes and takes your kids from you!!! They are controlled by the media who tell them what to think and create wants for them (i.e. I got to have a new iPod!, etc). This is especially so if you or your child use any public service.
• Do they exercise personal responsibility? No. They look to the government to solve the problem for them. And what is really interesting in the present crisis is that the problem is being solved for them, but for the super rich. (i.e. The financial industry is being bailed out by the Fed - which is privately owned by the top US banks - destroying the value of the currency. So even the corporate world doesn't assume responsibility for its acts. Otherwise you would get guys like Stan O'Neil who can destroy a venerable financial institution like Merrill, saddle it with mega billions in losses, and walk off with $160 million!
•  Do they believe in limited government? No. In fact their is almost no aspect of life in America where the government is not involved either taxing it citizens, dictating to its citizens what it can and cannot do, eavesdropping on its citizens and generally increasing the government bloat. It's been getting bigger especially since the beginning of the 20th century yet little protest from the public since they keep voting for the same idiots who keep expanding the government and only when their is a total collapse of the society will it end

 You are right there a growing number of Americans who have woken up and want a return to its founding ideals. Because at present it is so far from it with core aspects of it that are illegal (i.e. The Federal Reserve and the IRS) that the country is practically unrecognizable to the founding fathers. It is the only thing that could save a more modest US from destroying itself. For the rest, they are so alienated, confused and lost they only hang on to clichés about what America was when it was founded. Those clichés are what you perceive to be its political DNA when in fact it is something different. Ron Paul represents that more than any person seen in the public eye a desire for American to return to its roots. Let's hope that more will wake up to help America achieve a return its roots.

hjmaiere:

I sent Ron Paul money

Senting him money is no use if no one voted. Only 17% of Ron Paul supporters voted in Iowa but probably a greater proportion donated. Ron Paul nationally has 10% support so only 1.7% of all supporters voted.

If Ron Paul has an average of 10,000 votes in each state then each vote costs at least $100. (if his campaign spend 1 million in each state)

It's 100% sure that if Giuliani does not win Florida, he would withdraw. Huckabee is broke. He does not have money anymore, and his compaign said that they are focusing in Florida. If he does not win Florida, then he would withdraw. All news sources mention this.

When they withdraw from the presidential compaign, then the only contestants are Romney, Paul, and McCain. Romney and McCain are both pro-choice. The reason that Huckabee went from 5% support to 23% support nationally because he is pro-life. The reason that Giuliani decended from 23% support nationally to 10% support is because of his pro-choice. Paul is the only pro-life candidate of these three. Jane Roe endorses Ron Paul. Therefore, he would stand out from Romney and McCain and get a significant number of votes from Christian evangelists.

The money is lavishly spent on crappy ads. These include the racist anti-immigration ads and poor quality ads such as the Iowa straw poll and aesthetically disgusting ads. Ron Paul has written several books but the book covers are aesthetically disgusting and unprofessional. The "Foreign Policy of Freedom" and "Pillars of Prosperity" covers are designed by unprofessional artists such as Ron Paul. Ron Paul, like some elderly people, has bad spatial intelligence and spatial navigation capabilities because he has bad hippocampi. Therefore, ads are not designed spatially pleasing. Canvassing is 100 times economically better.

Brainpolice:

Or perhaps the hardworking Ron Paul supporters are wasting their time, energy and resources in the name of a goal that will not be realized even if all of us libertarian nay-sayers threw our arms in the air and joined your ranks in political advocacy. And your predictions strike me as rather naively optimistic. Just admit that the man is not going to get elected. It's that simple. Don't delude yourself into living in a fantasy world where Paul will magically get in the white house by some miracle, in the face of evidence to the contrary.

What is the point of being 'libertarian' without making an attempt to act on your principles?  Is there a point to being a 'libertarian' who does nothing about his situation?

I don't disagree that things aren't looking so good, but they aren't impossible either, especially once a third party run happens.  Ron will be pulling support away from both parties, not just one.  Although, the debate-barring monopoly and the 'sore loser' laws of some states certainly further douse prospects.  In any event, how does it hurt to create and expand upon a network of people looking to shrink the size of government?  I don't see how any of this is a waste of time. 

 I am rarely "with the flow" I will be writing him in if not listed. And how is a write in's for Dr' Paul sect going to affect the Libertarian convention?

I feel he makes a nice open door, when people mention their political apathy to me.

I strongly adore that he has brought to day the opposition to nationalism, and pro individual-soveriegnty.

I'm stayin' optimistic about the affair. Maybe, some day I'll meet someone here, that I know in the real world.

 

Things worth havin' are darn worth workin' at. So to all'y'all nay-sayers:

        Find a value scale and find optimal utilities, which create harmonies. Or, start doin' somthin' about your felt uneasiness. As opposed to bein' whiners.

         It may be that y'all non voters are just to lazy, perhaps even "not willed to fight for liberty, thereby not deserving of it".

"The time is right to FIGHT! "

reidbump:

I don't think it's a waste of time.  People are definitely waking up.

I have to agree; I'm a case-in-point.  Paul's campaign is the reason I'm here at all.  His comments on the fed and the gold standard started it, for me, and that led to deeper digging in all sorts of areas.  It's why I've recently been reading Bastiat, Mises, Di Lorenzo, Hazlitt, Hoppe, et cetera.

I've sent Paul's campaign money, and I'll be voting for him in my state's primary, and if he makes a third-party run in the election, I'll vote for him, there, too -- if only to make some noise and try to wake up others and maybe influence the platforms of the major parties.  I don't expect an overnight anarcho-capitalist revolution, or even a minarchist/classical liberal revolution, but I'll do what I can and take what I can get in that direction.  If I can possibly limit the leviathan by participating in an election, I will.

 

What is the point of being 'libertarian' without making an attempt to act on your principles?  Is there a point to being a 'libertarian' who does nothing about his situation?

I reject the false dychotomy that says that the only alternative to voting for a politician is "doing nothing". Voting and contributing your money to political campaigns is hardly the only possibility for "acting". Surely we can be more creative then to adopt such a mentality. Furthermore, at least according to my principles, I would not be acting on my principles by involving myself so enthusiastically and directly in the political process. In fact I would be eggregiously contradicting them.

I am grateful that so many persons responded to my post. I am sorry I couldn't come back and check the replies earlier but I've been quite busy of lately.

John Delano, I cannot bu agree with you: Mrs Clinton will have a large anti-Big Government movement to deal with let's just hope she won't deal with it as she and her husband dealt with the Branch Davidians. My bet is that she will simply try and ignore it or try to buy out a few of the groups making up this movement with small gifts (for example reducing penalties for marijuana possession).

Jotobo: that's the same situation all around the world, not just the US. There will always be an idiot who, after the neighbours' son falls off his bicycle, will ask for compulsory bicycle training. There will be always greedy persons looking to get a "free" (ie paid by others) lunch. There will always be completely amoral or just plain evil persons trying to treat the rest of the populace as toy soldiers for their petty ambitions by using the "public good" as a battering ram.

That they have been so succesful in the last century speaks volumes about the widespread appeal of Socialism and related doctrines.

I personally have nothing but the highest praises for Dr Paul and his supporters, though sometimes they tend to err on the overenthusiastic side. But having persons who don't believe cohercing others into their way of thinking at the point of a gun or robbing them blind in the name of "helping the needy" is a refreshing start. That the "smear campaigns" directed against him all failed so miseraby speak volumes about his personal integrity and his supporters' honesty.

 

I expect that we will find many people for the rest of out lives who will tell us that they were first introduced to libertarianism in 2007 / 2008 when Ron Paul ran for president.  There are quite a few people who have been libertarians for years now who first learned of the ideas because of a Libertarian Party presidential candidate. 

 

I decided last year when I started getting involved in his campaign that him winning the election wasn't the only goal.  And regardless of what happens with the election, I will still think it was worth my efforts.  If Ron Paul announced that he is quitting tomorrow, I would still be glad I did what I did for many reasons.

 

If Ron Paul not being elected would make you feel that your efforts or money were wasted, you should probably put your efforts and money elsewhere. 

 

I have thought over the years that if we could get a decent number of people to simply not co-operate, we could have a lot of success.  5% of the population would be plenty.  I think we could do it with far less.  I would also like to get more people to be willing to put their efforts into hanging juries.

He has started a revolution. This revolution is more powerful than any president could be. I never imagined that I would be this passionate not only about a candidate, but what he stands for, true liberty, the constitution, and limited government. No other candidate out there comes close. Ron Paul has already won.

 I see oportunity, nay-sayers may be fatalistic determinists.

Challange the system!

Do any of all'yall see a more electable libertarian. Look Dr. Block for prez  'nall, taint jiving. So will the liberwhackian party offer someone who can compete on a level with the Representative Paul. Geeee, a chance for all the other third partiers too. 

If a dead guy could win out, truth will win out. 

i've never heard of mark lawson before, but he was doing an interview with mitt romney, and halfway through had an epiphany and dropped his support of mitt and declared at the end he'd vote for ron paul. he cites mises a few times in the actual interview, and mitt brushes it off and says he laughs at paul's ideas of smaller government.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6lAFfLy05_Y

 

We may have won Florida but these pessimistic skeptics (the Grassroots are included) decided to not "focus" on FL but still got comparable votes with top-tier candidates and more votes than any other state. I was for a head start and momentum, but everyone was disinclined, and focused on funding stupid fundraisers that the campaign did not even spend, only on crappy commercials. A waste of money. Unlike other candidates, the Ron Paul message is permanent! Once they hear the freedom message, they would not even think of researching others. This compaign is different: we need to convert as early as possible, as many as possible.

I don't care about Ron Paul anymore. There are only three candidates left in the race: Mike Huckabee, John McCain and Paul. See -- I am not optimistic

I agree with this. Win or Lose, Ron Paul has got the message out. I'm probably one of the 10 libertarians in Canada, and I used to watch Ron Paul before he was in the race, watching his speeches and they were great. The problem was no one ever got to hear them. The media never touched him.

Now they have to listen. People get to hear his message during the debates and people have liked them. Though I do find him sort of bumbly with his words, he's pushing out the real messages of limited small government, individual liberty and a humble foreign policy.

 His campaign is bigger then himself. Win or Lose, there will be even more "Ron Paul's" running in all walks of government.

Byzantine:

I'm going to start sending money to John McCain. 

John McCain cannot win against the Democrats.

Seriously. Most republicans I know would rather vote for Hillary before voting for John McCain. The republican would go to Hillary or Obama.

Fellows, fellows, try to calm down.

I've started this topic to see what good the Paul campaign has left in its wake and if this good will have any positive impact not in only in the US but all over the world (I am sure there's plenty of "Johnny Foreigners" watching his Youtube videos and approving).

As I've already said everybody knew he wasn't going to win, we were just hoping for a good result. And came a good result. No, scratch that, an excellent result.

Most Libertarians, Austrians or whatsover fail to completely understand how deeply ingrained is "Red State Fascism". People is told from the cradle to the grave to "support the troops, trust the police, obey without questioning, it's for your own good, we'll take care of you etc". It's such an unrelenting stream of propaganda and social taboos that it's incredible that someone even manage to break free of the circle. The Ron Paul movement brought many of these persons together, showed them they are not alone and that, surprise, their numbers are larger than expected. If something good will come out of it, it's too early to know.

Let me spend a few words about the failed "smear campaign". Most persons believed that there's either a conspiracy at work or some hireling wishing to please his master. There's not: most of the smear comes from persons with very little to do or from those who lost all faith in mankind and hence have nothing better to do than simply moan and complain ("all politicians are the same", "nothing will ever change", "why do you fight? It's useless!" etc) since it's so much easier and less tiring than rolling up your sleeves and get to work to improve the situation just a little bit.

To Byzantine:

 It's an interesting approach, however with your short-sightedness you may give others hope in his ideals and may foster people taking heed in his words (rantings). Yes it will bring it down, but can it be rebuilt?  Don't you agree that education is the cure for this malaise we have on our hands here?  Educate those around you about the ideals that you hold dear; hopefully you can use Dr. Paul (and Mises and other great thinkers) as a tool in that teaching.   It's small steps that will bring about the greatest of changes.

 Just passing this along since it is sooooooooo optimistic and feeds my desire for such right now.