Huntsman Withdrawing from GOP Presidential Race

[ArmedProgrammer]

Can you give an example of what proper bedside manners would look like?

I will take this for an honest question... and I'll make the attempt. Magnum Opus warning (thanks for your indulgence Rambone).

Let's say that there's 25% of the Republican party that is voting for RP right now... Then let's say that there's a big bunch more that are 70-80% in agreement. Let's say they are all for less government, all for the constitution - but are still hung up in a couple of areas - maybe their hang up is that they are still feel that we should be have a strong defense (I know - RP HASN"T said that we DON'T - but remember this is all about PERCEPTION), or they cling to the war on drugs (at least for harder drugs), or whatever their hangup is between their current position and pure libertarian constitutional thought....

These people (and there's a crapload of them that are 3/4's of the way into the RP camp.) are moving in the RIGHT direction to get them to your cause. RP comes out with the following: "AUDIT THE FED! PULL ALL OF OUR TROOPS OUT OF EVERYWHERE!!! LAY OFF every government agency you can find! Strap on your tinfoil hats! Call up the Wookies! **I'm being a wise guy, but you get the point**" Look many of us may find nothing wrong with that... But it is NOT the way to sell it...

Oh - and if these voters don't get behind EVERYTHING and EVERY part of the cause, then they're just a bunch of worthless $%^&ing Statist Pigs. They've been called so on this very forum. Many times. The are not intellectually PURE. They deserve nothing but the gas chamber. They're as bad as Obama.

Maybe - just maybe - RP and some of his more rabid supporters should consider turning down the volume of the shouting. Not turn down the conversation mind you - just the rabid shouting. Realize that much of the country is on their way - they see the valid points that RP and the gang are raising. But this is NOT a 100% or %0 sort of situation.

Instead of playing all of the cards right now out of the chute - maybe reserve judgement a little. There's a big difference in HOW things are said. It's one thing to say - "I have some concerns with how the Fed is being run" and another to say - "The Fed porkers are pure EVIL and need to be out on there collective arse...". I would submit to you that Rand Paul would say something more like the former, while Ron Paul would go towards the latter... Both of them MEAN the same thing - but one is saying it in a much less hysterical manner. That's why I believe that Rand Paul might be better suited as the messenger - but alas - he is in the Senate, not the run for the Big Job.

Think about it - this really is similar to a revolution that took place 200+ years ago, right? Many of the changes that RP is pushing for NEED to happen. People agree. Then like now, there were people that saw it faster than others did. And there were people that pushed for Drastic. Action. Now. This time, it's a battle of ideas, and patriots ARE coming to their senses. But if we yell and scream at everyone who isn't 100% intellectually pure as the driven snow -are we helping the cause? If we propose pulling all of the troops out of everywhere IMMEDIATELY - are we going to scare a bunch of people off? These are people that otherwise would support us! Far better to simply say that "as a principle - we should avoid these sorts of entanglements". These statements mean the same thing - but how they are delivered MATTERS.

Win the battle of ideas - THEN move the chains - and march steadily down the football field. Don't just throw the Hail Mary and bet the game on it.

My point is this - I don't think ANYONE questions Ron Paul's sincerity, or the religious-like zeal of his supporters. If they would/will ratchet back on the inflammatory approach to things, they will win a LOT more support. Not everything you believe must be shouted from the rooftops. And not everyone that may disagree with one point of what you may say is your mortal enemy. They may well be your friend and agree with every other point you make.

That's why I say that Rand Paul's "bedside manner" is more effective than his father's. Your don't need to scare the bejeebers out of the patient to get them to take the medicine - even if the medicine is really nasty! The patient is feeling sick enough already after the last 10 years of gross mismanagement of the country. And arguably a lot more... They KNOW that the medicine is needed. Smart doctors have no need to scream at their patients. It's generally counter productive. That was the "bedside manner" that I was referring to.

 

[Bummer]

Good points being discussed, but I'd like to drag this back toward the original post for a moment: Didn't Huntsman actually "suspend" his campaign? Same thing Cain did? From what I've heard if one withdraws one loses the money, if one suspends one keeps, or at least gets to keep spending the money. Anyone know anything about this? You know, like do they get to treat it like pocket cash and stuff like that.

 

[daverezz]

Huntsman was a good man, but had zero charisma. You’ve got to energize the masses if you aregoing to get them out to vote. You canbe the best guy in the world, but if you’ve got no pizzazz…. You can forget it. You can be the worst dude ever, but thecrowds love you.. and you are in. US isa lot like “Natural Born Killers…. We love you Mickey and Mallory!” Welove a great story…

 

[rambone]

A couple months ago Huntsman said that he didn't think that Romney could be elected given his plethora of flip-flops. Romney has broken his trust with voters.

Go to 2:42 in this video.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtVI7VJT5Ks[/ame]

 

[rambone]

These people (and there's a crapload of them that are 3/4's of the way into the RP camp.) are moving in the RIGHT direction to get them to your cause. RP comes out with the following: "AUDIT THE FED!

Instead of playing all of the cards right now out of the chute - maybe reserve judgement a little. There's a big difference in HOW things are said. It's one thing to say - "I have some concerns with how the Fed is being run" and another to say - "The Fed porkers are pure EVIL and need to be out on there collective arse...". I would submit to you that Rand Paul would say something more like the former, while Ron Paul would go towards the latter... Both of them MEAN the same thing - but one is saying it in a much less hysterical manner. That's why I believe that Rand Paul might be better suited as the messenger - but alas - he is in the Senate, not the run for the Big Job.

I think his strategy with the Federal Reserve has been great. His push to "Audit the Fed" is a perfectly "incremental" way to attack the Fed. This is the phrase that Paul most commonly uses in speeches and debates. It doesn't even strike me as a controversial position. He's doing it perfectly.

If people want to know a bit more, they can read his book, End the Fed. Nothing hysterical about it, just a thoughtfully laid out case against the existence of the Federal Reserve. If all he does is say "I have a problem with how the Fed is being run," then all you achieve is sounding like every other politician. People walk away thinking that everything will be A-OK if we replace Ben Bernanke with another stooge. Nobody challenges their preconceptions about government this way.

Ron Paul has been so instrumental with his message on the Fed that he is even inspiring other candidates to rethink their stances.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qKQV-Y6Qq4[/ame]

PULL ALL OF OUR TROOPS OUT OF EVERYWHERE!!!

This time, it's a battle of ideas, and patriots ARE coming to their senses. But if we yell and scream at everyone who isn't 100% intellectually pure as the driven snow -are we helping the cause? If we propose pulling all of the troops out of everywhere IMMEDIATELY - are we going to scare a bunch of people off? These are people that otherwise would support us! Far better to simply say that "as a principle - we should avoid these sorts of entanglements". These statements mean the same thing - but how they are delivered MATTERS.

I think you would have a hard time finding a Ron Paul quote where he says that there would be zero troops outside our borders if he was in charge. He doesn't phrase it that way. What he has said should be "immediate" is the end of the wars. There is no incremental way to end to these wars. As he says, "you can't be a little bit pregnant." We either continue to wage war on the Middle East or we don't.

After that, he simply challenges the need to have 900+ bases around the world, and challenges the idea that America can/should continue to be the policeman of the world. Again, what is controversial about that position? His speeches use the appropriate language in my opinion.

LAY OFF every government agency you can find!

I know you were being a wise guy... but Ron Paul hasn't ever said anything like that. He challenges the need for Federal agencies, and does it in an articulate way. How much more could we soften this message while maintaining its meaning? Should he just say that he doesn't like how the (XYZ agency) is being run? Should he drop the classic line that he plans to "cut fraud and waste"? That kind of pattycake rhetoric doesn't challenge the status quo, that is the status quo. Its the same thing that every politician says.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Rambone - if Ron Paul's not what's driving the "hysterical" message - then maybe some of the more rabid supporters are driving people away? Unwittingly, I grant... but...

It also occurs to me that the Press is shaping how people perceive him, and perception = reality in elections.

 

[rambone]

It also occurs to me that the Press is shaping how people perceive him, and perception = reality in elections.

This, is the truth. Ron Paul will never get fair and balanced press coverage while fundamentally challenging the workings of corrupt Establishment, and his supporters know it. They've made peace with it. Does that mean the battle is over? Not by a long shot. If the media and the pundits are going to spin the message and attack the messenger, then it is up to the tireless minority of libertine faithful to do the job of the media, and defeat the spin. This is why you see such impassioned supporters in this camp, unlike any other candidate. The passion comes from necessity; all odds are against us and the deck is stacked. Its now or never. If not now, when? If not us, who?

 

[Prometheus]

Win the battle of ideas - THEN move the chains - and march steadily down the football field.

It doesn't work. That is why.

You see, when we start talking degrees of tyranny and degrees of welfare we get to where we are today.

Either you believe in personal, individual liberty, or you don't.

Either you believe in the free market, or you don't.

It's like trying to say a girl is only a little bit pregnant. At the end of the term a baby will be born.

Same thing here with this idiotic notion so many people spout.

If it was going to work, it would have under Regan. No one was a better communicator of conservative ideas (even if the d'bag massively increased debt and the size of government and banned guns). He still talked a great talk.

I would submit that if regan couldn't do it, no one could.

The truth that welfare is wealth redistribution and wealth redistribution is THEFT must be strongly entered into the arena of public policy debate.

Otherwise we are just arguing about how pregnant they are.

Right and wrong. Good vs evil.

One way or another, the people who keep getting their money and lives stolen from them are eventually going to stop paying.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Prometheus - this is exactly what I'm saying. I don't disagree with your arguments. YOU ARE PURE... It IS Black and White. Fair enough? What I'm saying is this: not everyone arrives at these conclusions AT THE SAME TIME. It's not like flipping on a light switch. It takes time for the spark to become a flame, and the flame to spread across the country. It is NOT instantaneous. Didn't happen in the revolutionary war, didn't happen with slavery, and it ain't happening now! It's growing rapidly, but IT IS NEVER INSTANTANEOUS. And if you expect that it is, you will be disappointed. Greatly.

People have to arrive at these conclusions, and then think the ramifications of those conclusions through to their logical conclusion. Different people take longer (or shorter) amounts of time to make all of the connections in their head. The faster ones (like you, Rambone, Full Auto, and a host of others) - have arrived at it now. Others are still making the connections and processing it in their heads. Others may never arrive. Most will, I think.

While they are in the process of doing this, however.... they are being alienated by a rabid bunch of attack dogs that insist that they are sub-human Statist Pigs. People SCREAMING "Why the hell can't you SEE this??!!!", usually followed by "You ignorant POS statist [insert insult of choice here]" My disagreement is NOT with your line of thinking. It is NOT to suggest that you are wrong in thinking they way you do. In fact I rather agree with it. It IS to suggest a more pragmatic way of selling it to people - such that you don't alienate people who would otherwise be your friends.

There was a mini series on John Adams done a few years ago. Excellent work from all that I can tell. I would urge you to watch the first episode or two. Please tell me if you (and many Ron Paul supporters) don't sound EXACTLY like John Adams. And I mean that as a compliment of the highest order. That said - listen to Ben Franklin's approach to things. BOTH ARE NECESSARY to achieve the end result!

That sir, is my point.

 

[Bill of Rights]

^^This. (Post #29)
I heard recently that the average adult takes about a year to decide to go back to college for an education in a field s/he doesn't already know. At the end of the curriculum, that person will leave the college with a degree, but very few people will wake up one day, get the idea to go to college, and enroll the same day. It's a decision that people need to mull over, pros/cons, affordability, advisability, etc., while at the same time, cementing their dedication to the new career path.

When you "take a liberal to the range", they aren't instantly going to go out and buy an AR, an AK, 15 1911s, and/or several hundred thousand rounds of ammo. Eventually, maybe, but not after only the first time to the range.

I've told the story before how I was once very liberal in my thinking... I'm embarrassed to say I voted for Bill Clinton *twice*. I had a partner at work who understood reality and the way to bring someone to a more conservative thought process. We talked extensively. He started discussing minimum wage legislation, which at the time, I supported. I heard what he had to say and saw the sense of it, but I wasn't ready to completely and totally jump headlong into pure libertarianism. We talked more extensively. I thought about the points he raised even when we weren't working. Over time, it began to make enough sense, and shed enough light on the banal and vapid views I once held that I was willing, even eager to abandon them for a part of the mentality I now espouse.

At one point, AFTER this happened, on another gun board, I got called a "Left, liberal, socialist fascist", because I didn't agree that if I saw a person of Middle Eastern descent up the street from me, standing in a doorway, I should instantly shoot to kill. That's the only person to militantly demand that I come around to his thought process, and the only one I completely and summarily rejected out of hand.... The other views, I considered carefully. Some I adopted, some I rejected, but all of them other than that one got careful thought and consideration. I don't think I'm alone in that outlook.

Take the above as you will. It's my thought process and my experience. I don't win over everyone with whom I speak, but I've found that honey is far more effective than vinegar.

Blessings,
Bill