Posted on 12/04/2012 11:26:02 AM PST by Bull Man
Although Ron Paul has yet to be specific about what’s next for him, it is highly unlikely he will run for president again. So then, what’s next for the Liberty Movement now that it won’t have presidential candidate Ron Paul to hug anymore?
The Movement that Ron Paul built lacks only a true and steady successor to hoist sails and steer it on its way, plugging his ears to the siren song of the Republican Establishment that would lure him onto the shoals of partisan accommodation. -snip- The next Liberty-Movement candidate, therefore, must be prepared to give the run his all, fight like a tiger to the end but also be willing, if necessary, to accept a strategic defeat to position the movement to win the next time around. This will require a long-term investment, both by the candidate and by his backers.
This is why Revolution PAC intends to organize a grass-roots campaign to draft Judge Andrew Napolitano as the Liberty Movement’s new helmsman, a man who really could win on principle in 2016 and who everyone in the Movement, and many people outside it, can rally round enthusiastically.
Next week, Revolution PAC will announce the formation of a committee to draft Napolitano—the person Ron Paul said he would choose as his running mate—to pick up Ron Paul’s mantle and run as a Republican in 2016 for President of the United States. The Committee will launch its Draft-The-Judge Campaign with a nation-wide petition drive gathering signatures to demonstrate a groundswell of support for Judge Napolitano’s candidacy.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
An off topic here, but I am concerned:
I saw Judge Napolitano, one of my favorites, for the first time in maybe a month. He appears to have lost much weight. I am worried. Any comments?
Thank you.
Probably Mickey Obama will run, there already is a move for that and if so, she will win.
Kelsey Grammer's personal life would make Newt Gingrich look like Mitt Romney by comparison. The leftard media and their DNC sponsors would be all over that one like mice on cheese. Charles Barkley? The same Charles Barkley who supported Obama twice? Ummmmmm... no.
You know, why the hell not?
How about Lou Dobbs?
Yeah, probably. And then she’ll have Obamagabe to “advise” her.
>> why the hell not? <<
Well, since Judge Napolitano is widely thought to be gay, he probably wouldn’t do well with the SoCon vote.
Charles “”I think Bill Clinton is the greatest president we ever had in my lifetime” Barkley?
I was reading yesterday morning about some internal Tea Party changes, and the article (can’t find it now) mentioned Tea Party #1, Tea Party #2, Tea Party Patriots.
I’m thinking we may have too many “TPs” - confusion factor - and need to consolidate their philosophies into a powerful, competitive 3rd party, quickly. 2014 and 2016 will be here, faster than most realize. Not being a ‘political animal’ myself, I have no idea how that’s done, or even if it can be done.
Like your choices, except for questions about Reagan, Barkley and Grammer. Their public ‘unknown political history factor’ - celebs who profess a certain leaning - need public exposure and a history. Even Levin will have some problems, too. His TR show and Landmark Legal will help to some degree.
Judge Napolitano on constitutionality of Obamacare
But consider the following problem with the attention that the Oval Office has been getting for decades.
Note that our mostly rural US ancestors of the 1910s got tricked by the Progressive Movement to pressure state lawmakers to ratify the ill-conceived 17th Amendment, giving citizens the right to vote for federal senators as a major step to unconstitutionally centralize government power in DC. However, today's understandable, but constitutonally indefensible patriot concern over which conservative should replace Obama is an unfortunate indicator that the Progressive Movement is likewise attaining its goal of subjecting the Oval Office to mob control; consider ongoing talk of getting rid of the electoral college. Please bear with the following concern about the so-called most powerful office in the country.
Regarding 17A, I'll bet that if you could have asked the mostly rural USA population at that time what Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution is, electronic communications still in its infancy in those days, that people would have shrugged their shoulders and said, "I don't know."
After all, one of the very few powers that Congress had over daily domestic issues when 17A was ratified is postal services as evidenced by Clause 7 of Section 8. So are we to understand that citizens were possibly not only upset with the cost of postage in early 1910s, but were demanding public use of the country's postal dirt roads to the extent that they demanded the constitutional right to vote for their state's federal senators? What's wrong with this picture?
Think of the Progressive Movement as having created a "crisis" in the minds of ruralites based on the constitutional reality at that time that citizens cannot vote for federal senators, a power deliberately denied to voters by the Founding States in Clause 1 of Section 3 of Article I. How awful! "Obviously" an oversight on the part of the Founders. In other words, the Progressive Movement had successfully created a false sense of panic in citizens to insure ratification of 17A.
Now I see patriots understandably wanting to undo the damage that Constituton-ignoring Obama is doing to the country. However, is electing a patriot like Judge Napolitano to the Oval Office, expecting him to likewise allow Congress to exercise Section 8-ignoring powers in a conservative manner, like previous Section 8-ignoring presidents have done the name of fiscal control, the right way to restore the constitutional republic?
I had supported Romney in the spirit of ABO. But given the constitutionally limited powers of the federal government concerning domestic issues, citizens should practically be expected to guess who the incumbent president is imo.
I agree. Let’s draft Judge Napolitano for the 2016 presidential election.
But give him solid ground to stand on first. Let’s build him a party worthy of support from true conservatives.
The time to start a third party is NOW!!!
Start plugging the (insert name) party TODAY. Give conservatives a new flag to rally ‘round and we can gain some serious traction in the 2014 mid-terms. An unknown third party is death in a presidential election. But if enough genuine conservatives back the new party and win a noteworthy number of Congressional seats in 2014, then the “third party” stigma will be gone in time for the 2016 battle.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh, and we also need to launch a blood war — a jihad — on vote fraud or no future election will be worth even a discussion. Top to bottom clean-out. Erase ALL current voter lists and make everybody register anew. Add voter ID, meticulous absentee voting enforcement (especially for military members) and omnipresent bottles of purple ink for finger-dipping and we might, just might, have an election worth fighting for. But with the situation today, major elections are a major embarrassment.
Andrew is great but a hard swallow for the more conservative Conservatives.
Is the Liberty Movement full of lost Liberals and misfits, or is it really about Constitutional Liberty?
Mostly libertarian I would say. It has grown from the Ron Paul constituiants.
>> Andrew is great but a hard swallow <<
Tut tut! You probably should watch your language here, because I imagine the people who suggest Judge Napo is gay will see a “double meaning” in your statement.
In any case, although the Judge certainly would do very well among the Libertarians, I don’t think there’s any chance he could carry the Social Conservatives. I say so even if he isn’t gay, because of his frequently-extreme ideas about “civil liberties.”
I hadn’t heard that. Learn something new everyday.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.