...Paul is not really the GOP’s problem. It’s his followers, perhaps as much as 15 percent of the general electorate, many of them young, vocal and highly energized. Like Paul himself, they’re not exactly party regulars. No, Paul and his followers promise to be a lot like that fired employee who, if “handled” incorrectly at farewell, will make it his life’s work to, if not bring your organization down, at least show you how very wrong you were to cut the cord.
The Republican Party would be flat-out careless to let that happen...
There can be no brush-off. No “Phew, he’s gone. Now let’s get down to business.” No booby prize. Ron Paul needs to be given a role that really means something to him –- a role with influence and voice...Because if [it doesn't happen] Ron Paul and his followers will make their unhappiness known. And for the mishandling of this defining moment, the GOP will deserve their ire.
(htDaleFitzgerald)
Yes we will!
ReplyDeleteThe GOP has NO CHANCE to win without Ron Paul, period!
ReplyDeleteI think Jack Welch is out of touch here.
ReplyDeleteHe obviously wants Ron Paul to go away. But it won't happen by ignoring him. So Welch's idea is to throw Paul & his followers a bone.
Welch appears to think that the Liberty Movement is akin Occupy Wall Street; where politicians will just throw the hippies a bone, and that'll pacify them. Give them handouts...or in central bank speak "shove enough money in their mouth."
Ron Paul & his followers don't need anything.
Welch has it totally wrong. He doesn't see the changing of minds that is taking place.
That's a good thing.
It's funny when people say things like that. It makes it sound like we'd actually vote for them if they started talking like Ron Paul did even with their horrid records.
ReplyDeleteIf Ron Paul is not the nominee, I will write in his name. Ron Paul 2012!
ReplyDeleteThe GOP (in general):
ReplyDeleteHates Blacks
Hates Muslims
Fears Iran (and Syria, and ....etc etc)
Loves Israel (This in and of itself is not so bad)
Loves War
Loves Fox
And has completely forgotten how to THINK!
They'll sit around the country club and cry into their martinis, and screw it up again and again.
They are just pathetically systemically CLUELESS!!
Don't worry, they'll blow off the Paulians.
If it weren't for the Supreme Court (2000), and the Tea Party, they would have been out of power in both Congress and the Executive, for 16 years!!!
Screw 'em!!! Let's start a new party!
Jack Welch is a pretty smart guy. He's a hard nosed, no nonsense, get the job done and justify the means later kind of an executive. In some ways I admire him. In others I pity. Yet in others the feeling is more like despise.
ReplyDeleteAll that notwithstanding, his comments here exhibit a complete and total lack of understanding both about Ron Paul and those who adhere to the same principles as Mr. Paul.
Notice I didn't say, "Follow him." We are not lemmings. I don't follow Ron Paul and yet he has my support for the presidency and I've put my money where my mouth is more than once.
It is simply that I believe the Constitution of the united States embodies principles to which I subscribe and that the free market which it enables provides an opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and promotion of the general welfare as no other currently available economic environment can and that those in control of our current government openly opposes those very principles and, therefore, have become enemies of liberty. I further believe that if Ron Paul read that last admittedly verbose sentence, he would agree.
I do not follow Ron Paul, we simply agree. And he is one of the very, very few politicians worthy of that description. If I found someone more principled running for the presidency, I would vote for that person.
What Mr. Welch finds incomprehensible is the notion that it is principles we follow, not people. We used to say something like that about the law before men became the law.
In the Patrick Swayze movie "Road House," Swayze plays the good guy trying to rid a small town of the resident gangster played by Ben Gazzara.(It's only worth seeing on a TV channel that removes the profanity and brief nudity. It has it's moments though, especially when Sam Elliot is in the scene and Jeff Healey plays some mean rock and roll.)
Gazzara, at one point, after it's clear that Swayze's character is going to be a major problem does what all gangsters (and political powers-that-be) attempt--Gazzara offers him a blank check to join the bad guys. Swayze simply answers, "There's no amount of money," and leaves to fight on.
Go ahead, Mr. Welch, offer Mr. Paul a political blank check. You're going to find out that Mr. Paul, and Mr. Swayze's character in Road House, have a lot in common.
Furthermore, Mr. Welch, your Republican Party hasn't see unhappiness yet but regardless of its tactics, it's coming.
January was a very long time ago. The GOP is nearly finished, Romney can't beat Obama.
ReplyDeleteWhy should Ron Paul tarnish his stellar career to prop up a failed party?
I am one of these young and energized Ron Paul supporters he talks about. The fact that he fears the likes of me is energizing. I registered as an independent at 18 (now 27). I have always disagreed with Democrats and have leaned Republican. Why did I not register Republican until last year? Because I have never been happy with their hypocritical politics. I have always been a constitutional conservative in the true sense of the word. When I first heard Ron Paul speak, I realized that there were politicians that saw things the way I did (as well as other Americans). If Ron Paul does not win, I will once again register Independent (or perhaps Libertarian). I do not wish to identify myself with a party of hypocrites and only did so to vote in the primary. It amazes me how both parties pick and choose which parts of the Constitution they want to follow. The founding fathers are revered as geniuses by many but the one person trying to push their beliefs and their framework for our country back into being is labeled as a goof, a loon, etc.
ReplyDeleteHe and his supporters (not followers) are not the problem. We are trying to push the only governmental framework that has been successful, sustainable, and promotes personal freedom and rights back into being the framework that governs our country (actually this is the only form of government that is legal, or Constitutional, in the USA). That is only a "problem" to someone if they do not support such a government and would rather illegally instate another governmental framework such as socialism, communism, fascism, etc. The direction we have been going is nothing new, and has always ended badly. Maybe, just maybe, that is the real problem.
Thanks Bob. Welch is smart and VERY connected, and knows Paul holds the key to a GOP victory.
ReplyDeleteRDFitz
The Repubs have to lose 2012 to win 2016. Any alcoholic or drug addict knows you have to hit rock bottom before you can recover.
ReplyDeleteIf RP support is averaging 10-20% nationally, then it's just a matter of time before it reaches majority. He has past the magically 10% threshold for creating a new trend.
ReplyDeleteMake no mistake. Mr. Welsh is a big corporate animal, part of the PTB, and thinks in that framework.
ReplyDeleteNotice he defines Dr. Paul and his followers as a "problem". Interesting.
His corporate mindset defines his solution which can be stated in three words - "buy them off". Corporations rely on only a few strategies. Among these are: buy them, bribe them, sue them, or destroy them. Integrity, truth, honesty, fair play, have no part in corporate solutions. They are simply a way to make the problem go away, minimize disruption, and get back to business as usual.
Clearly, as the comments above demonstrate, this old school solution is a non starter. Liberty, it appears, is not for sale...
I, am Spartacus
I am voting more for Ron Paul's ideas and what he stands for than him personally. Should he end up compromising his principles in any way or form, then I might be dissuaded to look somewhere else.
ReplyDeleteInteresting how the the last election cycle included a similar cast of characters. The young and energized electorate rallied behind an ambiguous word, change, which inspired a different meaning for each who supported it. Now, a separate section of this same demographic group rallies behind ideas that are understood with agreed upon definitions, open for all to analyze, and are type-cast as dangerous followers.
ReplyDeleteI can understand where this gentleman is coming from, though. As an entrepreneur, one can only imagine the wonderful world where all that is sufficient to entice consumers to purchase your product is a word acting as the gatekeeper to utility. Details, specifications, ingredients... GTFOH. Just point and I will consume.