Review of How to Win America for Ron Paul and the Cause of Freedom in 2012 by Allan Stevo

09 Apr

Allan Stevo has written an comprehensive campaign blueprint for liberty candidates.  Stevo lays out practical advice for Ron Paul supporters and future liberty candidates who believe winning elections will help restore freedom in America.  Unfortunately, it was published too late for this presidential cycle.  Stevo’s primer may have had a greater impact this year if it was published in mid-2011. 

According to Allan Stevo, 32 year old writer and former ­­congressional candidate, and author of How to Win America for Ron Paul and the Cause of Freedom in 2012, which was published in January of this year (while a free e book is available here) winning elections is more likely if voters at the grassroots level work “the plan.”  Stevo lays out “the plan” to elect Ron Paul in 2012.  He explains why Ron Paul should win, could win and how it is up to his supporters to make that happen by working what he calls their “social precincts.”  The first part of How to win America….  lays out the nuts-and-bolts of winning the votes of individuals who will go to the polls and select the GOP presidential nominee and liberty candidates in general.  As Stevo writes on page 74:

“If you are convinced, if  you are moved to action, please stop reading this book now. Please put it down, and get to work. Come back and read the rest when you need a little inspiration or would like a tip. Don’t read it if you simply have nothing better to do, please. If  you have nothing better to do, I’d like you to be out following the plan. We follow that plan and we will be the clear winners at the end of the primaries. Ron Paul will be the Republican candidate, well-positioned to win the Great Debate.”

Despite Stevo’s optimistic assessment in January about Ron Paul becoming the GOP presidential nominee, the fact that the Texas congressman is not the leading GOP presidential contender at this time after spending tens of millions of dollars to convince primary voters that his message of limited government, individual liberty, sound money and an noninterventionist foreign policy is right for America, speaks volumes about GOP voters and missed opportunities throughout the campaign.  In addition, there is ample evidence that the mainstream media played a role in marginalizing Dr. Paul’s campaign as early as last August’s Ames, Iowa straw poll which he nearly won, yet the media focused its coverage on former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty who came in a disappointing third and soon dropped out of the race.    

Although Stevo downplays the role of the media’s effects on the presidential primaries, the bias of so-called journalists during the two dozen debates came though crystal clear, not only with their superficial questions at times and ignoring Ron Paul during the debates as much as possible,(who could forget the 89 seconds CBS gave the congressman in one of the debates), but their nightly newscasts rarely gave him equal time with the other candidates, implying his “unelectability.”  In other words, was there a concerted effort to ignore presidential candidate Ron Paul and therefore silence his message of peace, freedom and limited government?  To ask the question, is to answer it.

However, Ron Paul’s campaign spokespersons should have jumped all over the media for repeating this mantra, which became a self-fulfilling prophecy, because the more the talking heads said it, the more the public believed it and the more voters perceived that voting for the Texas congressman was a “wasted” vote.  In short, Paul campaign’s media folks should have pounced on television and cable producers and editors and called them out for their disingenious reporting.   For the media,  Ron Paul has been a “third party’ candidate in the GOP primary, especially inasmuch as he has been the only candidate who has been asked about running as a third party candidate in November.   

In another vein, the GOP establishment did not want Ron Paul—to put it mildly–to be the presidential standard bearer.  To guarantee that Ron Paul would not get any momentum in the primaries, the January Iowa caucus was the firewall.  If Ron Paul had won what in effect was the Iowa beauty contest kicking off the primary season, the media could not have ignored this phenomenon (wanna bet?).  But if Ron Paul had won the Iowa caucuses and rolled into New Hampshire the following week and knocked off Romney or come in a close second, he could have claimed a “victory” just like Bill Clinton did in 1992, when he proclaimed himself the “comeback” kid even though he lost the primary to Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas. 

What if?  We will never know the answer to these questions, but there is enough anecdotal information that the vote counters (GOP party officials) have been less than honest in counting the votes for Ron Paul throughout the primaries.  Moreover, when the time came to select delegates at local GOP caucuses to choose individuals to attend state conventions where the state GOP would select delegates to the national convention in Tampa, more shenanigans occurred to prevent Ron Paul supporters from becoming delegates.

What now?  Should Ron Paul run as an independent candidate in 2012 to carry his message of liberty to the American people in November, because a Obama-Romney race would be choice of a Democratic welfare-warfare state versus a Republican welfare-warfare state?  If Ron Paul believes the American people deserve to have a choice in November and that the GOP is part of the problem along with the Democrats, then Ron Paul just might jump at the opportunity not only to reshape the political landscape in America by creating a pro-liberty political movement in contrast to the Washington Party in DC comprised of two wings, the Democrats and Republicans. 

A Ron Paul independent presidential campaign in the fall would be exciting, a huge boost to the liberty movement, and would provide the American people with a real choice instead of listening to the big government nominees, Obama and Romney, continue the charade that there is a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans.  In addition, Ron Paul does not owe any loyalty to the GOP or its nominee, because of the egregious treatment of the mild mannered physician from Texas by the political hacks who run the GOP throughout the country.  Moreover,, electing Romany or reelecting Obama would maintain the status quo in America.  That means the welfare-warfare state continues, a triumph of crony capitalism.







Comments Off on Review of How to Win America for Ron Paul and the Cause of Freedom in 2012 by Allan Stevo

Posted in Federal Government, Politics, Presidential campaign, Warfare state, Welfare state


Comments are closed.