What really matters is that all of us try to be ‘good republicans’ and participate in our local election processes and become delegates. You have to be elected to a delegate postion, although in some sparsely populated areas this isn’t too hard. We have to tow the party line, work for our local republican candidates too, and be good boys and girls. THEN when we are delegates and go to the convention we can generate a landslide that will be heard around the world.

The keys to the kingdom rely on playing the game their way, then turning the tables at the last crucial moment

I agree with what many are saying about some of the faults that his campaign has. However, I do not believe that these are insurmountable nor do I think that anyone knows who will be elected.

get RP on Saturday Night Live!!!

seriously..

Running a top notch campaign obviousoly is difficult, and doing it on shoestring mode is probably proving to be a growing challenge.

Am I totally crazy to be thinking this when Paul is the only anti-war candidate in the field? If not, how do we communicate to the campaign that this is what needs to be done? I’m sure they feel that they’re the professionals, and that they know what they’re doing. But I’m not seeing much that looks very promising coming out of the RP campaign so far.

The first problem is that he doesn’t do anything to help people take him seriously. There are plenty of Republicans who would be sympathetic to his ideas. He wants to get rid of the Department of Education (for example). Great. Lots and lots of Republicans are for that, especially TX Republicans. How does he think, as president, he will go about accomplishing such a feat? He can’t credibly talk about accomplishing anything because he simply votes against everything that comes to the floor in the house, and so he has nothing to offer people who disagree with him. His consistency to principle is admirable – but there’s a way to be consistent and true to principle while offering potential gains to political and ideological opponents in order to accomplish your own priorities. Paul has no sense of that (or it’s not apparent), so people have no incentive to work with him. He’s a boat-rocker; people don’t necessarily oppose a boat-rocker unless he’s boat-rocking for it’s own sake, which in effect is what Paul does. His past history and the way he (doesn’t)accomplish anything in Congress.

Secondly, his foreign policy is simply a pipe dream. His priorities of preserving liberty are commendable and sympathetic to many, many Republicans and conservatives. But how does he think he’s going to preserve those liberties? What he argues for, in effect, would be to surrender all of America’s influence in the world. Isolationism as a serious foreign policy ideal died long ago. It’s simply not possible. That being the case, RP would need to have some sense of a cohesive foreign policy that based on principle, but is practical and rational. His isn’t – and he attracts supporters that *really* turn off everyone else (which brings me to problem #3).

Thirdly, people judge you by your supporters. That’s just how it is, regardless of how fair or unfair you think that is. RP’s supporters come across (and the ones at the TX straw poll were archetypal) as obnoxious, unreasonable, incoherent nut-jobs. That doesn’t speak will for RP.

I think he has more problems than this, but these are pretty big problems.

Finally, the straw poll results were an indication more of who Texans *don’t* like, rather than a measure of who the *do* like. Lots of people genuinely like Duncan Hunter. He is a fine candidate. He has no chance of winning. I think many delegates simply approached the straw poll as answering the question “in your dream world, which of these candidates would you want to win the presidency”?. Duncan Hunter seemed to be the closest to that ideal with respect to the other candidates. That Thompson finished second means that people aren’t put off by him like they are the others, and would support him if given reasons. RP finished third because he bussed in supporters. He and Hunter are the only candidates that even tried to win. There is no RP movement in the Republican party. There is a cabal of fanatical Paul supporters that will go to extra lengths to support him and make it appear that he has more support than he really does. It’s fine that they do that – but it doesn’t fool anyone, particularly people who aren’t internet junkies. More interesting than the top three, I think, is that Romney, Giuliani, and McCain garnered so few votes. Texas Republicans simply don’t like Giuliani and McCain, and they’re having trouble warming up to Romney because of his apparent political expediency (I don’t think his Mormonism is as big an issue as it’s made out to be). They really, really don’t like McCain. Ray McKinney beat Sen. McCain by a 2-1 margin.

I am not losing faith in his campaign. In Arizona – there are signs everywhere, marches, meetings, events we have been going to… ASU is filled with volunteers and we are having another march in OCT down Mill Ave in Tempe.

I just donated some more of my “Starbucks” fund to Ron Paul.

I think Mrs Paul needed a pace maker because she is so excited about the progress the revolution is making.

Don’t discount the RP supporters and the campaign just yet. I do agree however that the RP campaign needs to kick it up a gear pretty quick. I was hoping before Fred entered.

Peace -

And this: he already said in print and multiple radio intoviews that he would NOT run 3rd party if he doesn’t get it. But he’s going to be holding too much freaking money to not try until the nominee is selected. And that must be a real downer to him, because he and his wife are literally dying trying to run: she had a pacemaker installed during Iowa for instance.

And all those people who literally are the poorest economically who drove cross country, exhausting themselves by the end of this ultra-911-creepy Straw Poll. Everyone is exhausted, the Pauls, the supporters, everyone. It’s dark days I think for the campaign, and they know all the money in the world isn’t going to let them have the nomination.

Ron should have thought this out more extensively before he tried this grand experiment.

As the only only Republican candidate who opposes the Iraq War, Ron Paul should be able to scrape up a large percentage of the 38% of Republicans who oppose the war. And yet, he refuses to make that the centerpiece of this campaign and refuses to focus his campaign on a few small states where he could have an impact early on. He spent only one week campaigning in Iowa and ran radio and TV for only a few days. A majority of Iowa Republicans oppose the Iraq War but Ron Paul finished behind Tom Tancredo who wants to bomb Mecca!

I don’t know what the strategy of Ron Paul’s campaign is, but I cannot see where it is doing much to make Ron Paul’s name a household word and especially to spread his views on foreign policy which probably coincide with the American public’s views more than any other candidate of either party. Alas, no one knows about him.

I would argue that his policies are, on the whole, entirely antithetical to what most libertarians believe.

It really doesn’t matter who he appoints, its the actions that matter.

He has appointed many libertarians to top administration posts. Didn’t he appoint that woman from the Colorado Libertarian Party as Interior Secretary? How is that “hostile” to libertarians?

And Thompson’s not a centrist libertarian…he’s a Bush Republican.

My understanding is that Fred Thompson was endorsed by libertarian groups in his Senate races in the 1990s.

So, I don’t quite understand why some libertarians here are now opposed to him?

For the same reason you don’t eat imitation crab meat in New England.

I think it hurts Paul to be associated with such groups.

Fred Thompson is more of a centrist libertarian, and that’s where I’m at.

My understanding is that Fred Thompson was endorsed by libertarian groups in his Senate races in the 1990s.

So, I don’t quite understand why some libertarians here are now opposed to him?