"How Ron Paul Can Help Save the Party", or "How I Can Piss Off Everybody"

[Jason Taylor]

If there was ever clear evidence that the conservative message is alive and well, it can be found in the candidacy of Ron Paul in the 2008 Presidential Election. So many who took the time to seriously pay attention to his message were tremendously inspired.

So then why did he not cruise through the primaries and decisively win the nomination? Simply stated, not enough people took the time to seriously pay attention! His message was simply not constructed in a way where it could be accepted in bite-sized doses, so one really had to pay close, long, serious attention to "get" it.

Ron Paul's short suit seemed to be in presentation of his vision and message. While watching him perform in the primary debates, I completely agreed with many of the points that he made. However, at the same time I was quite disappointed in his delivery and persuasiveness. His answers were long and winding, and far too general to make a strong impact. I also felt that his metering was unconvincing and his tone sounded weak and pallid.

*** Please Don't Stop Reading! *** (I know that many of you love him, but please stick with me. I promise I have a point here. A good, positive one.)

I hear the Ron Paul supporters complain about how we all have not given him the respect he is due. I can completely understand their point of view. Why did we all dismiss this man so casually?

I can't answer for anyone else, but let me tell you: I dismissed him as a candidate because I didn't think he had a snowball's-chance-in-hell of winning the general election. After all, if his message was not developed well enough to be quickly digested by Republicans, Independents and Lefties were hopeless.

So how can this vastly intelligent, yet unassuming man be a cornerstone of our party's rebirth?

Simple. He needs to be included in a leadership position for the rebuilding of our conservative platform.

*** Please Don't Stop Reading! *** (I know that, like me, many of you have dismissed him, but please stick with me. I promise I have a point here. A good, positive one.)

I'm pretty sure that we can all agree that many of Ron Paul's positions are really ideal conservative viewpoints. The problem is that we are approaching the same issues from different standpoints. The non- Ron Paul folks look at a platform including things like abolishing the Federal Reserve, re-enacting the gold standard, etc., as unrealistic and politically suicidal. The Ron Paul supporters, on the other hand, see the challenges associated with such a platform as being surmountable, and believe in "fighting the good fight".

Here's the solution.

Remember, it took us somewhere between 40 and 80 years to get to the point where we had the Fed, IRS, fiat money, social welfare, monopolizing labor unions, etc. It didn't happen overnight! If the Lefties had run on a platform outlining all of their long-term plans right from the beginning, the American people wouldn't have bought into it at all; it would have been far too drastic a change. Instead, they work for a series of gradual changes over time. One step at a time, America becomes comfortable with walking a path toward progressive socialism.

Nowadays most every American has grown up with all of these things. For the average American, a platform which promotes absolute conservatism is just too drastic a change. Just like we got to this point, we have to make things right one step at a time. With the power of the information age, I don't think it'll take 40 years, but it certainly won't happen overnight.

I believe that Ron Paul should be intimately involved in crafting the long-term plan for the conservative movement, which can be broken down into phases. The first phase of this plan, then, should be crafted into the next Republican platform.

Additionally, Ron Paul needs to continue educating, organizing, and leading through his Campaign for Liberty, and help develop inspiring new candidates who are worthy of their support.

[Michael Salaba]

I am a Dr. Ron Paul supporter.

He was my congressman back in the 90s. I was a liberal and a member of the ACLU. I lobbied Dr. Paul frequently with the ACLU agenda. He would send me letters in response. His words were powerful. He would always cite the constitution and state the issue should be left to the states. This concept intrigued me. So I took a college level American Government class. I have been a conservative since.

The moral of the story is that Dr. Paul is a great educator and motivator. But, alas, watching his performance during the primary, I was shocked that he came off as loud and unpolished. In watching his campaign for liberty, I conclude that his goal was not to win, but incite a revolt within the party. This has happened quite readily.

There are many in the party that are appalled at the lack of adherence to conservative ideology. He has brought many energized youth into our folds. I believe this energy should be embraced. Now is the part where compromise must be employed and a new Republican message formed, polished, sound bite-sized and packaged to confront liberalism. The other side of the coin is to hold our elected officials accountable and hold their feet to the fire during the nomination process. To many times I have seen party hacks get the nod because it is their turn. Then they get trounced. We need to nominate polished, articulate candidates true to their convictions.

I believe Dr. Paul could be instrumental in guiding us in this direction. But, I believe he is of most value on the House banking and finance committee.

[Chris Lawley]

Jason - I agree that Ron Paul should be included in a leadership position AND involved in crafting a long term solution to the problems. We need his voice and vision.

My question is, does he want to be involved with the Republicans in this rebuilding process?

The reason I ask is that as the general election approached, and it was clear the the Republican Party did not offer any meaningful change of direction over the past 8 years, Ron Paul ended up endorsing the Constitutionalist candidate for president. Can't fault him for that.

However, I think that our party has to commit to getting back to some basic principles, we need a new Republican Chairman who is going to listen and make it a priority to craft a new Republican platform and stick to it. Until then I see Dr. Paul distancing himself from the Republican party, and continuing his work through the Campaign for Liberty.

I do see an opportunity though for Dr. Paul and his supporters in the months ahead to be heard and included in this rebuilding process.

[Carlos M. Rodriguez]

I would go further than including him. I believe he should be in the running for the presidency of the GOP, much in the way that Howard Dean was for the Dems.