March 18, 2012
Ron Paul Sweeps the 36th and 46th District Caucuses
In a display of organization, devotion and dedication, the Ron Paul campaign won all 21 delegates to the Washington State Republican Convention from the 36th Legislative District Caucus and all 20 in the 46th. The first test of strength came in both districts on the election of a permanent chair of the caucus. Generally, the legislative district chair acts as caucus temporary chair and is pro forma elected as permanent chair. In each district, the Paul campaign not only challenged the temporary chair but also took the highly unusual step of nominating a woman from outside the district. In the 36th they were successful and also initially in the 46th. However, a motion was made to revote for permanent chair in the 46th because of confusion regarding abstentions. While the new chair pondered the motion, a cell phone google found evidence she was a hard line Paul supporter and a question from the floor revealed she lived not in northeast Seattle's 46th District, but (cue an audible gasp) Bellevue. The revote confirmed the temporary chair as the permanent caucus chair. It turned out to be a pyrrhic victory.
There were 96 people nominated for the 20 delegate positions allotted to the 46th District. The district chair (now also caucus chair) published a recommended slate consisting primarily of people who had volunteered their time on district work. There were at least two Paul supporters on the slate, a few undecided and the rest split between Romney and Santorum. Additionally, someone distributed a flyer addressed to the "Santorum, Gingrich, Paul Delegates" that attacked Romney and called for a brokered national convention. A third handout titled "Prolifers for State Delegate" listed ten names, all Paul people but not identified as such. Total non-Paul delegates out numbered Paul delegates so the purpose of the anti Romney and pro life material was to divide the opposition to Ron Paul. It worked. Two Paul delegates were elected on the first ballot, twelve more on the second, and four on the third. By rule, the fourth ballot would elect the final two delegates from four remaining names. This final ballot pitted the 46th District Chair and the 46th District Mitt Romney Chair against two Paul candidates; the Paulistas prevailed.
It was hardball politics won by the best coached team with unified members that stayed for the whole game. As the meeting wore on, many non-Paul people left but the Paul team hung in all six plus hours and swept the delegate elections. Eventually enough people left, some on purpose to force a quorum call, that the chair declared a lack of a quorum. He was sustained by a four vote margin and adjourned the meeting without electing any alternate delegates. Had alternates been elected, no doubt they would have gone to the Ron Paul team.
These two caucuses demonstrated the power of a dedicated minority to control an outcome. Were delegates selected by a primary election, the results would be similar to other states, few if any Paul delegates. It was also the opening battle in a war by the Libertarians to take over the Republican Party in King County and the State of Washington. I asked several Paul delegates if they would support the presidential nominee of the Republican Party? Their answers were the essence of equivocation. It will be a helluva war.
clear fog blog
Posted by warrenpeterson at March 18, 2012
10:55 PM | Email This
1. Ron who? Never heard of him.
2. Ron Paul won't be the GOP nominee. It's fine for him to work at it and win a few delegates and all that. Makes for some good discussion of the issues he cares about. BUT - if his supporters are actually considering not supporting the eventual GOP nominee, that means that they think another four years of President Obama is OK with them. And if that's their attitude, then to heck with them. The state GOP and all real Republicans and conservatives should fight them with everything they have and keep them from getting ANY power or say in ANYTHING. The number one goal in 2012 is to DEFEAT OBAMA.
3. The GOP is going to have to accept the youthful enthusiasm and social moderation of the Libertarian wing should it hope to survive in the future.
Right now there is very little difference between the two parties in terms of their methods of infringing on individual rights. For example, putting forth candidates who want to ban internet porn, force people to purchase insurance as a condition of existence or advocate perpetual war needs to end. Otherwise, it doesn't matter who is in office when the Republic collapses.
4. Your right, bigal...Ron Paul won't be the GOP nominee. However, the supporters of Ron Paul will never vote for Obama nor sit the election out. They will all vote for the GOP nominee whoever it is even, if its Obama's twin, Mitt Romney.
I was at the 46th district caucus on Saturday and the post is accurate with a few additional observations:
The Paul contingent was very well organized with coordinators and free doughnuts! However, not only were the Paul delegates organized and the Romney/Santorum delegates not at all organized, the overall caucus organization and the 46th district leadership also had a distinctly disorganized and befuddled feel to it. I left after the 20 delegates were chosen around 4pm out of exasperation (I wasn't part of the Paul contingent) because there was clearly no thought given to the process of how to nominate the alternate delegates. When I left, it seemed the consensus was forming to nominate them from the floor, which combined with the voting process could have taken several more hours.
There was also a serious lack of information on what to expect and how long this entire process would take. I think many thought and planned that the entire caucus would be over at noon and many left at that time with 235 delegates seated reducing to around 180 delegates in the second voting round which was after noon. More and better information about what to expect and how much time to plan for would have been useful both at the original March 3 caucuses and in subsequent communications.
The 46th district Republican leadership seem like really nice people but their average age is probably well over 70 and it may very well be that if the Party is to thrive in the Seattle area, it may be time for a younger and more libertarian volunteer base to emerge. Of course, that energy may not be there outside of the presidential primary process.
You got it all wrong bigal... Many people see Romney as a progressive and not far off from Obama himself. His comments on the Fed, taking advantage of federal grants in his state, health care comments, lack of constitutional respect with his open favor of the Ndaa and detention of citizens and military action towards citizens.
The people are actively refusing the blatant disregard for the constitution, Bill of rights, and our declaration of independence. Putting in Romney does not help the conservative cause. The republican party has been infiltrated by progressives, it is my job and the rest of the Ron Paul's to flush them out. Return to sound conservative princi ples and one that protect the liberties of the people before the fortunes of the government and other special interests.
Yep, those two caucuses demonstrated the power of a dedicated minority to use rules, procedures and power grabs to make sure that the minority has power over the majority. Sounds a lot like what Adolf Hitler did on his rise to power and while in power.
This is America folks, regular Republicans stand for equal opportunity, we don't stand for Politboro style methods to gain power over the majority.
Evidently that is Ron Paul stands for.
8. even, if its Obama's twin, Mitt Romney.
Only a complete loon would think Romney is Obama's twin. Wise up, Daniel. Romney will be the next president of these United states, so my suggestion is to deal with it!
If you aren't willing to commit to supporting the ultimate Republican nominee, how can you claim to be a Republican? And you signed a statement at the caucuses saying you were a Republican.
Upcoming county/district conventions should require all participants to sign a statement saying they support and endorse the ultimate Republican nominee. And if they won't sign, they shouldn't be allowed to participate in the convention, as they clearly aren't Republicans.
10. Gee, Rick D...You don't see any similarities between Obama and Romney? How about Obama Care and Romney Care? That, in itself, should be enough to give you a clue. I could go on and on about Romney being a solid member of the corrupt good ol boys club/establishment that both parties share in common cause, you know, the ruling elite but, why bother? Yeah, he's the same kind of Crap that John McCain represents, he's a RINO!
11. Damn Doug, didn't take long for you to Godwin the thread did it?
How about the active suppression of Ron Paul in so many well documented cases during this primary by the party leaders?
The values of the party are no longer shared by the majority of Americans, especially when they force another McCain upon the Electorate and ignore true conservative principles.
Why else would the Rockefeller Republicans put forth the only democrat in this years race?
12. I was at the Saturday 3/17 district caucus and I feel it was bad-sportsmanship on the part of the 'old-guard' to walk out and in effect disenfranchise those delegates who had come to be elected by consensus amongst the district delegates, fairly and squarely according to the rules of the WSGOP. The fact that at least 60% (12 out of 20) of the slate of delegates suggested by the 'old-guard' were married/co-joined also speaks volumes about the diversity of their proposed candidates compared to the diversity which exists in the 36th and 46th districts. Out with the old, and in with the new...If you don't like the rules, change them, but do it fairly and squarely and in the open, not by walking out to disenfranchise delegates.
13. Yeah, he's the same kind of Crap that John McCain represents, he's a RINO!
He's the only electable candidate we have, period. Of the 3 sane people running (I don't count Ron Paul in this category), Gingrich is far more liberal than Romney. Just look at his record. Romneycare is not Obamacare, no matter how much you want to shove that square peg in a round hole.
I've been a republican since I started voting. If there was a GOP name on the general election ballot, it had my mark. My first votes were as a delegate for George H.W. Bush at the caucuses, even went to the state convention.
However, you are asking me to support someone in the form of Romney, who is really not a Republican. Sure, he has the moniker, but really? The inventor of Obamacare is a Republican? The Cap and Trade lover is a republican? The man who has tripled gun ownership fees is a republican? The man who appointed way more democrats to the judicial benches than republicans, is a republican?
Romney is more of a democrat than a republican, heck the democrat Warren Magnuson would have considered him too far left of himself, Scoop Jackson would have run against him as the more conservative candidate. He is left of Bill Clinton and right of Walter Mondale.... that puts him on the democrat side of the political sprectrum, though he has the GOP moniker.
I will not blame any GOP voter for not voting on the presidential ticket of Romney is the nominee, in fact, they probably would be doing the party a whole lot of good in the long run.
15. If you think Ron Paul won't win the GOP or be a big factor in the decisions in Tampa you have a lot to learn here. A few delegates? Ron Paul has landslide victories in a many caucuses and you don't know it. He has delegate in his favor in a huge way ... be very careful about what you say when it coimes to delegates. Ron Paul could have the second most if not the most when all is said and done.... then what? The GOP needs his votes to beat Obama without question. Ron Paul pulls blue republicans and democrats that dislike Obama but won't vote for the Romneys and Santorums. I am telling you there will be a lot to hash out by the time Tampa rolls around.
16. Ron Paul is 77 years old. That's enough for me not to take the man seriously as a presidential candidate. The days of Old, white males being propped up by the Republican party has got to end if we indeed do have a future as a party.
17. Still waiting for the reasonable Paul to run, when Rand runs he could have my vote, but Ron Paul? Heck, we could vote for a rock to put in the white house and it would do just as much. Either way the GOP and Dems in Congress would have to sweeten the pot on every bill to make sure they could get the 2/3 vote to override Ron Paul - or the rock. You think we have debt issues now, my gosh, with Ron Paul they would be twice as worse.
18. Rick D - I would consider Romney an old white guy propped up by the Republican establishment. Paul might be white, but the establishment hates him.
Get, Real, Rick D! You're such an Easy Believing Sucker! Who do you think put out that lying Crap that Romney is the only electable candidate the GOP has? Do you think that maybe, Romney Inc was the author of such Slop? It probably was the Establishment itself that orchestrated such Bull. You see, the Establishment only wants one of their boys to be elected President...PERIOD! Yeah, that's Right! Whether, it's Romney or Obama, they'll will take either one. The last thing the Establishment wants, is a true American to be President. Get it? Probably not, you've got too much Liberal blood in your veins to see the Light of truth and reality.
20. So I attended the 36th District Caucuses on Saturday March 13 and I read that Ron Paul swept the 36th and 46th congressional districts. This blog (http://soundpolitics.com/archives/015294.html) describes what happened at the 46th but left out something that happened at the meeting of the 36th at Seattle Pacific University. Yes, the Ron Paul people were able elect a permanent chair and hold on to it. What the blog left out that probably can't be proven and is probably irrelevant to the outcome of the seating of the delegates (except for a possible challenge of the alternates), was a dirty trick by the team of the Temporary Chairman of the meeting (36th District chairman Glenn Avery GRAvery@comcast.net ) who had just lost their jobs running the meeting. There was an announcement by Chairman Glen Avery that, "The Bubble Ballot Sheets and Vote Counting Machine are no longer in the building," after he was questioned about the whereabouts of them by the new administration of the meeting and the majority of the revolting delegates. Lori Sotelo the woman who was in charge of all of the printed material during the setup of the meeting is the person allegedly responsible for taking the voting ballots and counting machine from the meeting. She is also the person that sent out our Call to Order cards in the mail to all of the delegates. That ballot stall maneuver by the Glen Avery people forced the "Ballot Listing" (the sheet with the corresponding numbers that we were supposed to use to fill in the Bubble Ballots) to be used as the official voting ballot. The outcome of all of this was a forced hand count and a caucus that took up an entire Saturday. Nine hours of the most interesting process I have ever seen. No one was prepared for such a long meeting. Half of the delegates did not eat. I actually felt patriotic again. Funny to see that most of the Mitt Romney people had packed lunches. Seems like they knew it would be a long day. I just needed to email someone about it because I want people to know the length that these Republicans are going to stop a process that was democratic and peaceful. They are willing to run off with ballots! I saw it first-hand. I noticed during the meeting in the back, on cell phone camera, Glen Avery was dodging questions as to whether or not the Ballots even existed. We might not ever know.
21. Correction in my previous post... It was Saturday March 17 I attended the Caucus... Sorry typo...
22. Romney will be the top of his class of GOP presidential nominees in one category: He will have done more to forward the liberal cause prior to being the nominee than any other Republican in history. The guy should go down in the democrat party hall of fame for enabling Obamacare.
23. You folks are borderline delusional if you think anyone other than Romney can win this thing in November. Piss and moan all you'd like, but he will be the nominee and all the pissing and moaning you can muster between then and now won't change a damn thing one iota.
24. The Bottom Line...Rick D, is that hopefully, we can do better than, Romney as the nominee for the GOP. Unfortunately, if Romney becomes the nominee we'll all have to hold our noses and vote for him. However, it is not over until the Fat Lady sings. May God help us.
25. ..so if you're a delegate, be sure to go and prepare to outlast the Ronulans, if that's not your choice. It can be done. This Saturday, the 45th District caucus happens, and I'm sure many others...
26. ..and bring a packed lunch! (thanks, Martin!)
Re: Martin Allen #20/21
I also attended the March 13 36th District Caucus (at least the first 6 hours' worth). I was a Romney supporter, but sadly didn't get any secret message in advance, so I also had to do without food and drink during the caucus. :(
The Ron Paul folks were well organized to vote in their person as the Permanent Chairperson, and to have her then appoint Paul supporters as the other caucus officers. Good for them! Since they had about 120 delegates versus about 80 for the other candidates, the outcome wasn't in doubt.
Of course, if you want to run a meeting, it really helps if the officers you present are COMPETENT. The signal lack of competence and foresight shown by the Paul-supported meeting officers is what led to the caucus stretching more than 6 hours after credentials verification.
Among other issues, although the Permanent Chairperson claimed to know Robert's Rules of Order, she was unclear in her instructions to the meeting, unclear as to what was being voted on, failed to recognize the numerous delegates on the floor wishing to be heard, and had no plan as to an agenda for the meeting. I'm still not sure if it was helpful meeting-running suggestions from non-Paul delegates on the floor or just sunset that finally ended the meeting!
The really sad part is that if the "establishment" meeting officer candidates had been elected instead, the meeting would have been well-run, ended much much much sooner with much less wasted time and effort, and the Paul campaign STILL would have elected their slate of delegates, given their overwhelming delegate count advantage.
Again, Dr. Ron Paul campaign: if you're going to take over a meeting, BE PREPARED TO RUN IT PROPERLY once you have taken over! Otherwise, your incompetence just encourages everyone to believe that a Paul administration would be an administrative disaster!
28. Re: Armand MacMurray
I agree with you completely! I hold the newly appointed Sargent at Arms and Head Teller responsible. They should have foreseen the move by the temporary chair to withhold the bubble ballots and counting machine and asked to take possession of them immediately upon election or brought their own machine and ballots. Next time we will foresee and expect such treachery... And there will be a next time... I love parliamentary procedure. You are right, the elected officers were inexperienced... incompetent is a strong word since the main point of contention and moment that everything fell apart was due to a swindle by the incumbent officers that ended with them running off with the ballots... Pretty slick move though. I've got to hand it to them. They wanted to disrupt the permanent chair's procedures and they did. It wasn't totally her fault.
29. Re: Armand MacMurray
...Also for the first time ever that those Ron Paul supporters took over a meeting they did pretty well. If you or I were put into the position of running that meeting I doubt we would have done any better. I think it went pretty well considering...
30. Re: Armand MacMurray
You are right also that the meeting would have gone way faster if the "establishment" meeting officer candidates were elected to run the meeting. They had the freaking ballots and machine counter... duh! Of course it would have gone faster! But they had to be babies on not share. It was a totally childish move. And to be clear, your comment "...helpful meeting-running suggestions from non-Paul delegates on the floor or just sunset that finally ended the meeting!"... It was neither... There were no other delegates except Paul Supporters left at the end to give meeting advice. What ended it is more volunteer tellers to hand count votes. The other delegates walked out so trying to force a second quorum call. Which never happened because we all stuck around. If the "establishment" meeting officer candidates were elected to run the meeting I'm sure that Paul supporters would not have been able to seat any alternates like what happened at the 46th district.
31. I will write-in Ron Paul for prez on the 2012 election ballot. He and Gary Johnson are the only presidential candidates that give a damn about the Constitution. Republicans are just the right wing of the Big Government Party, just like Judge Napolitano has stated in the past.
32. How noble of you, Politically Incorrect. A write-in for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama. Yes, a write-in for Ron Paul is a wasted vote and one less vote going for the GOP. Yes, the Democrats would be very glad for your decision and would support you wholeheartedly.
I have to follow me conscience, chief. Besides, Romney, Santorum and Gingrich make me want to barf! I can't stand any of those other guys: Ron Paul's the guy for me for 2012, and I fully intend to write him in, just like I did back in 2008.
Besides, the Reps will hold on to the House and gain in the Senate, so, even if Obama gets elected by a landslide, neither he nor the Republicans can do much harm!
34. What you are following is your emotions and not, using your brains. Even, when it is pointed out to you that you are using faulty thinking clouded with emotions, you still insist on throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You still insist of not, only wasting your vote but, to give the Democrats a one vote advantage because, you wasted your vote. Naah, the is no excuse for flushing your vote down the toilet. Anybody, who can't connect the dots any better than, you is more of a Liberal than, a Conservative.
Do you know why they call religion "faith?" Because it's not a "fact." Religion is something you take on faith, not as fact. It's belief and principles that matter.
I'm more of a Libertarian, which is why you are having trouble with the fact that somebody doesn't agree hook, line and sinker with your views. Well, Danny-boy, the Republicans are just the right wing of the Big Government Party. The Democrats are the left wing of the Big Government Party. I think the Constitution actually means something, so I'll be writing-in Ron Paul (again) in 2012. I've also decided to write-in Dennis Kucinich for vice-prez. He's a fiesty guy who sometimes has the same view on the issues as Ron Paul. Plus the Democrats hate hime just like the Republicans hate Ron Paul.
36. I agree with Daniel. I, and many others tired of the system voted for Perot in 1992 and it cost GHW Bush a second term. The only thing dumber than pissing away your vote, is not to learn from the experience and repeat it. It sounds like some here are willing to take that chance and piss their vote away yet again. Ignorance, as they say, is bliss.
In the first place, Politically Incorrect...Religion is not called "faith". It is the belief in God/Jesus Christ that is known as "faith". So get it right. Bottom Line: There is only one God and only one God's truth. The reason there are so many religions is because, of man and not because, of God. Your illogical approach of pissing your vote away is cutting off your nose to spite your face. In other words, you action does more harm than, good. So grow up and quit using your emotions for your critical thinking and start using your brain.
Yes, the Republican Establishment and the Democrat Establishment both will hold hands and represent themselves before they will represent the American people. It is just, that the Republican Establishment will not kill the Golden Goose that lays the Golden Egg as quickly as the Democrat Establishment. What we want to elect is someone that is more for the American people than, the Establishment. I pray to God that we are able to do so.
'pissing away your vote' is exactly what happens when a conservative republican votes for the man who enabled Obamacare simply because he is inevitable.
It's a simple question, do you choose to enable the Republican party to move more to the left after November by voting for President and defacto leader of the party their most liberal Republican nominee in history, or do you choose to give the leadership in the Republican party to the GOP leaders in Congress, moving the GOP back to the rightward where it should be?
It's pretty simple, the output of Washington DC would be more suited to conservative republicans with a conservative held GOP and an Obama Presidency than it would with a Romney Presidency and a GOP congress where the president is bent on getting his beliefs passed such as government run healthcare and cap and trade.
39. I also stand with Politically Incorrect, Doug and my personal integrity.
The establishment candidates ARE the problem here and I will not be voting for a different color pig waiting for their turn to belly up to the trough.
What we need is a candidate that will uphold and defend the Constitution, not the sanitized American Idol candidates handed to us by rook or by crook as Romney has been.
40. Sorry to inform you Rick D, but Romney's Health Care Plan in Massachusetts was very much the model that the health care plan that congress came up with and that Obama signed. It wasn't what Obama originally proposed. He had to make accommodation to congress to include the mandate, which is 50/50 whether it will be striken. The rest of the pieces, of the plan, however are very much in line with Romney's version, like use of Health Exchanges made up of private insurance companies. The health care bill, while not perfect, also at least addresses medicare costs.
41. As I read the comments I realize that it's the same old pendulum game: Republicans-Democrats...
Same old arguments ...Both parties are the same.Period. Though candidates are not... The only sane person amongst them is Ron Paul.. The only one that makes sense.. As a person that has lived in a totalitarian sistem for 29 years I say to you: Wake up people! You are played hard by the establisment and mainly the controlled media.This is the most important election of our lifetime, not just the "bull" "who is most electable" as the establisment wants you to think.
Nomatter who is nominated other than Ron Paul it will be worst of the same
I support Ron Paul and I will never vote for "more of the same" in any form it comes to me...
warrenpeterson, nice job reporting the story of Ron Paul's strength and Rmoney's weakness in the WA GOP caucus process that has received little coverage anywhere else.
However, reading this story and the subsequent comments I could not help but be reminded of the history of the 2nd Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. :-D
"Religion" is often called "faith." Havne you never heard anyone say, "I am in the (fill-in-the-blank) Faith." Faith and religion are the same thing: believing in something in order to have an explanation of the un-explainable. That's why faith/religion exists.
BTW, I'll still be voting for Ron Paul in November, as will h8f8kes and emilio. Good for them!
44. Also, Danny-boy, voting for someone you want is NEVER wasting your vote. How else do you communicate to the political establishment that it has run itself off of the rails?
Politically Incorrect...There may be many people who refer to their particular religion as their "faith" but, they are wrong to do so. It is their "belief" that is their "faith" not, their particular brand of religion. Faith and religion are not the same thing. Again, you can have various Catholic and Protestant denominations and it is their "belief" in God/Jesus Christ that is their "faith" and not, their particular church. Get Real!
As far as voting for someone you want when, that someone is not the nominee is an act of useless Stupidity. The Establishment and others find such as, you to be a laughable Fool.
You, h8f8kes and emilio go ahead and piss your vote away. No matter how much fact and common sense is presented to a Fool, a Fool like yourself, is usually a complete waste of time.
46. This is the most important election of our lifetime..
Yet you Paulestinian's will sit at home or write in a person that has ZERO chance of winning in November. Brilliant strategy for winning the "most important election of our lifetime", emilio.
I support Ron Paul and I will never vote for "more of the same" in any form it comes to me...
Right, you (and some here) are choosing to sit out the "most important election of our lifetime" based on your delusional allegiance to Dr. Paul. I'll take 80% of what I may agree with Romney over about 4% of that I agree with Obama anyday. Anyone with common sense would do the same- take that as you'd like.
Danny-boy et. al.,
You are deluding yourself if you think your Republican messiah is going to win in November. Romney has about as much in common with the average American as an Eskimo has with a Beduin. Obama will win because he's a likeable guy, and Romney, Santorum and Gingrich are pompous jerks (especially Gingrich!).
So, go ahead and piss away your vote on Romney or Gingrich. It makes more sense to vote for someone of principle than some slick-boy pompous a-hole!
48. You're a Blabbing in the dark Liberal who has failed to make any sense and continues to show his idiocy again and again. You've have long since become irrelevant. You're as Dumb as demo-shit and probably one and the same. Get lost, Idiot!
The Ronulans will never be taken seriously until they give up pushing the "weekend at Bernies" candidate Ron Paul. Didn't we just see this same movie 3-1/2 years ago?
Sane Ronulans will do the right thing in November and vote for the most electable Republican candidate. The alternative scenario is careening down the train tracks to a more statist union under a 2nd Obama term. Can any of you suggest why that is a more palatable option for someone with a 'libertarian' philosophy? It isn't. Wake the hell up, folks.
My suggestion would be to push for a more visible/viable candidate in the Republican party like Rand Paul going forward. Sitting at home stomping your feet in protest isn't going to cut it in this pivotal time in history. And voting for his 77 year old father is useless. If you think it's hard to get your ideal candidate now, just wait until another 4 years of Obama.
50. Rick D;
You can take any percentage you want;at the end of the day it will not make any difference because basically there is no difference between Romney and Obama.
Paradoxically we have to choose between the two evils but there is no real choice to make.
You mentioned the "movie we saw 3-1/2 years ago. To bad the vast majority has not learned anything from it.. Is today better than 3-1/2 years ago?
If no, what difference would it make to agree for more of the same?
Mark my words: many of those deceived today will want to turn the time around and wish it was Ron Paul they voted for...
51. "The days of Old, white males being propped up by the Republican party has got to end if we indeed do have a future as a party..."
The problem is that Dr. Paul is not "propped" by the Republican party;on the contrary...
Even a liberal newspaper, The Seattle Times admitted that Ron Paul was the only real fiscal conservative,the other 3 establishment representatives being considered a "US fiscal threat"...
The reasoning is simple: Romney's, Santorium and Gingrich past records and their present campaign contributors... As for Romney, I really have hard time believing that a Goldman Sachs propped guy would represent me...
52. The Paul-ites are truly delusional. Look forward, not behind. You are wasting your time looking at "what could be" in some friggin' dream world where Ron Paul actually wins the presidential race of 2012- Newflash! it ain't happening! I really don't give a damn if you sit at home sulking that Ron Paul isn't the candidate in 2012, just understand that a write in vote for Paul is not only a "wasted" vote, but also puts the vision you seek for this nature's future even further in the rear view mirror.
53. Rick D,
It will make no difference if we, Ron Paul supporters sit at home.I am a Ron Paul delegate and I'll go up to the end... If God forbid, Romney will be the nominee, "I look forward" and all I see is more of the same;so it will make no difference.He will continue the same agenda as he hinted so many times. He said nothing about the FED, nothing about a noninterventionist/nation building foreign policy which basically ruined this country, nothing about the IRS or promoting small business frendly environment, NDAA , etc.(list is long).
Is he not the same Romney that run against Obama 4 years ago? Why is he "so good" now? It is not the same corporate controlled media that propped Obama 4 years ago and now propps Romney? Why is that? It is not because the media instead of informing tells people how to think?
How can you believe that Romney can defeat Obama when the two are owned by the same corporate/foreign interest and have the same campaign contribuitors?
A corporate CEO, a "christian" just around the elections or a flip-flopper speaker of the House to represent me? Are you kidding?
It makes no sense to support the very same establishment guys that brought us where we are today. The whole system needs reformed and the only candidate who has a plan is Ron Paul.He is preaching the same message for more than 30 years. Too bad his words fell on deaf years. We'll all pay the price and this is just the beginning.
We need real solutions for real problems not campaign rethoric we've heard before so many times...
54. [Paul]is preaching the same message for more than 30 years.
And yet, the message isn't resonating with the American public and Paul isn't getting any younger at the very tender age of 77. My advice? Hitch your wagon to someone that does not have one foot in the grave. In the meantime, take your ball, go home and sulk because your star player didn't make it into the big game. Don't worry though, you've made your stand just as Custer did at little big horn. Foolish as that is.
On CNN this morning Rmoney Communications Director Eric Fehrnstrom
HOST: Is there a concern that Santorum and Gingrich might force the governor to tack so far to the right it would hurt him with moderate voters in the general election?
FEHRNSTROM: Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It's almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all of over again.
See, everything Rmoney said he'll do can change ... just like an Etch A Sketch
57. "The message isn not reasoning with the American public" because they are manipulated big time by the corporate media. Anyone who can decide for himself/herself and would not fall for the media show knows that Ron Paul will bring large numbers of the young, blue republicans , independent, and undecided voters if he is the nominee.
I consider a "wasted" vote any vote that goes to the establisment guys.(Mitt, Newt or Rick).
If all the republicans supported Ron Paul candidacy, he would win in November. He is the only one that can defeat Obama because he is different than any other candidate and he would deliver real solutions not just campaign speeches.
As it stands, Obama will get a second term.
Well, who is blinded by the media show and party games without being capable of simple critical thinking and also being a "more of the same" supporter,deserves it...
58. As it stands, Obama will get a second term.
False. Obama is hemmoraghing independents that were dumb enough to fall for his bumper sticker sloganeering. Hope and change and all that crap that MikeBS drinks down like the leftist tool he is. Obama is 180 of what he advertised 4 years ago and people are recognizing it [FINALLY], if only 3-1/2 years too late.
Bottom line is: Mitt Romney is the ONLY candidate running on the GOP side that can and very probably will win this election, not to mention the ONLY person on either side that is qualified for the position in the first place. That isn't conjecture, that is fact. Facts are stubborn things.
59. emilio...I'm not totally against Ron Paul. If Ron Paul becomes the nominee, I would certainly vote for him. In fact, I would vote for Ron Paul over Romney. I also, believe that if Ron Paul was running against Obama, Ron Paul would win. However, that doesn't look like it is going to happen. Nevertheless, if the Establishment's piece of Crap Mitt Romney runs against Obama, I would hold my nose and vote for Romney. The last thing I would do is simply piss my vote away and vote for someone not on the ticket. Bottom Line: Romney is better than, Obama. Not much but, better.
60. "now is the time for Republicans to unite behind Governor Rmoney and take our message of fiscal conservatism and job creation to all voters this fall. I am endorsing Mitt Romney for our Party's nomination."
LOL... The establisment "at work'...
61. Daniel, I will not fall for "party games" .Romney or Obama will change nothing for me and you...
If Ron Paul is not on the ticked the Rep party should know that it will loose... I believe that this has already been "programed" in advance. It's just a game in order to make the people believe that they have a say.
Ron Paul is peoples say, the real deal, and if the astablishment opposes that then have it their way. I will not support more corporate slavery...
62. If Ron Paul is not the nominee, Obama will win a second term. You wanna bet on it?
Just watch what the media will do. Exactly what it's done every time...
Be smart,do not fall into the trap and waste you vote on Romney or any other establishment candidate.Any of them have no chance against Obama...
When media tells you what to do just do the opposite. It's the only way to get the right man in the WH and have a real change...
63. Your position of Ron Paul is not the nominee, Obama will win a second term is insane. The last mid-term elections where, the Dems took a beating should bring some awareness that all is not permanently loss to Obama. Yes, the Dems would like very much to have as many of your kind of thinking and wiliness to piss their vote away if their particular nominee is not on the ticket. Your position is so amazingly Dumb and backward it is hard for me to believe that your serious. Only, a Liberal can be so Dumb. Only, a Liberal can think he can persuade anybody to give up the vote in such a manner. So, I conclude that you're probably same Liberal that goes by the name of demo-shit. Get LOST!
I can tell you're young and idealistic and starry eyed emelio so I won't waste too much time here trying to convince you of your own naivete. As I stated earlier, I voted for Perot back in 1992 because I was tired of the "establishment" candidate. At the time I didn't think I pissed away my vote, but with maturity I realized that that's exactly what it was. I also supported Harry Brown up until a front runner emerged and whom I then would support in the election.
Lastly, I find it rather obtuse when you say if Paul doesn't get the nomination then Obama is destined to win this November. That's a ridiculous assertion to make and it just further isolates Paul-ites as irrational in spite of your own best interests. And why the hell would the Republican party want to put an ocotogenarian on the ticket? That makes even less sense than having Paul as the primary Republican candidate this fall.
Why oh why won't Republicans get in line behind Rmoney?
Now Rick Santorum is attacking Rmoney's Etch-a-Sketch strategy!
"We all knew Mitt Romney didn't have any core convictions, but we appreciate his staff going on national television to affirm that point for anyone who had any doubts. With the two year anniversary of the signing of ObamaCare upon us, can voters really believe that the man who urged the President to use his healthcare plan in Massachusetts as a model would really repeal ObamaCare? Or is that promise just something they would 'shake up and restart' with when Romney hits the general election.
Voters can trust that Rick Santorum will say what he believes, and do what he says. They may not always agree with Rick Santorum, but they can trust him because they know he is a man of principle. Clearly, the same cannot be said of Governor Romney."
And even Newt, Definer Of Civilization's Rules And Leader (Perhaps) Of The Civilizing Forces, Gingrich is challenging the profound wisdom of the Rmoney Etch-A-Sketch strategy!
What next? Will Ron Paul say anything?
Oh, I forgot. Ron Paul won't say anything bad about Rmoney because the quid pro quo is that Rand Paul gets the nod for VP.
[feyth] Show IPA
1. Confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. Belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. Belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. Belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. A system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. The obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. The observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. The trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
Religious fanatics and bible thumpers never realize "faith" and "blind faith" is exactly the same and has hijacked the word entirely and redefined it. "Faith" in its raw form is a personal belief attained without all of the facts period! It does not matter the subject or object of the faith. If I were a blind man that has never seen the sky, I am going to have 100% "faith" that the sky in the daytime is indeed the color blue... Why you ask? Because 100% percent of the people around me say it is. This concept is "Faith". I still don't have all of the facts because I am blind. I have no idea what "Blue" is for that matter. So I will go with the 100% and concur that the sky is indeed blue glossing over the fact I am blind. Now, say the same blind person has 75% of the people saying the sky is blue and 25% saying it is yellow. Well he is still blind but he will probably go with the majority of the people that say it is blue. He will have to completely ignore the 25% that say it is yellow. He will just gloss it over, ignore the facts. This is a 25% leap of faith... obvious "blind faith" to be exact... it is pretty much the same as "faith" which is still blind but less obvious about it. I don't need to utilize faith to know the sky is blue. I can see it. I have eyes. The color of the sky is now a fact to me. If it is a fact you can test to see if it is or not. God is a conceptual idea. It is a concept. That is why they call it ideological not logical. It is based on ideas not fact. Before you debate the definition of a word try reading a dictionary first or you risk sounding like you are blind to the facts. Oh wait, you are! You must be if you are religious... God is a concept created by humans several millennia ago so there would be a symbol for us to relate to a concept that we didn't understand. "Why are we here and where are we going after that?" The fact is nobody really knows for sure why we are here or what happens after you die. If you think you know. You are delusional. As time goes on and more people open their eyes to facts instead of hearsay, there will be a time that religious people become the minority and eventually die off. It's already happening. It's called Evolution. We are evolving into something better and smarter. And I know everything I am saying is really pissing you off. Well, the truth hurts. That is your hang-up. You have been brainwashed to come to conclusions without evidence.
Now let's go on to Republicans and Democrats and "wasted votes". This is The United States of America!!! There is NO SUCH THING as a wasted vote! If People want to vote for Ron Paul as a write in who are you to call them out? Get off your meds man or start taking them again. I am technically a Mormon and you will never see me vote for Mitt Rob-me-blind. These people that are voting for Paul are voting because they actually like him. They believe he will actually do what this country needs. And they are also thinking that if Paul doesn't get the nomination that they don't want to "hold their nose" and vote for the other Republican'ts. I am not Liberal or Conservative. I personally think we should take the most functional ideas from both parties and do them all at once. Size doesn't matter here folks. "Does it work?" is the ultimate question. Republicans want big government just like Democrats do. The difference is what they want to meddle in. Democrats want to legislate in our wallets and Republicans want to legislate in our wombs. Both sides are equally invasive to our privacy as Americans. The majority of the Paul voters are going to vote for Obama if Paul doesn't get the nomination. Why you ask... the voters already know him and know what he is capable of. They already know his capabilities and they aren't as freaking scary as the rest of the clowns.
"Patience my old padowan, patience..."
When it happens you will understand...
As to "get lost" my friend, you so naive.
There is not much I can do for you.
When it happens you will understand...
68. . "Ron who? Never heard of him."
Then you watch to much corporate TV garbage.
No hope here, 90% are like you pal...
Martin, you poor more than, dumb Idiot. I know what faith is all about. If you had a brain, you would know that the discussion was dealing with faith verses religion and nothing more. For you to extrapolate with a lot of Goggling and an unnecessary long dissertation in the pretense of you having intellect and something to say, is Laughable. The rest of your spiel is just, a rambling atheist rant showing complete disconnect from reality. Yeah, you and emelio or whatever, are a real pair of losers.
70. Rick D,
"I can tell you're young and idealistic and starry eyed emelio"
I wish I was young and idealistic...
In the mean time Jeb Bush endorsed Romney; that should "tell" you something...
"An octogenarian on the ticket"?! Dr. Paul is the most respectful politician that I've ever seen in my entire life.
A young spirit in a old body makes no difference..
The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights is more than 300 years old but their universal principles are the same; today and 1000 years from now.
I lived in a totalitarian system for 29 years and now I am stunned to realize that the vast majority will give up on them.And for what?!
You and others will remember Ron Paul for a very, very long time..
71. Well, the truth hurts. That is your hang-up. You have been brainwashed to come to conclusions without evidence.
You're obviously speaking of the "big bang theory" right, Martin?
This is The United States of America!!! There is NO SUCH THING as a wasted vote!
Sure there is. When one is mathematically eliminated from getting enough votes to win in the general election, a vote for that candidate is a wasted vote. See "pissing your vote away" and/or documented history for a more defininitive historical perspective on this.
I am technically a Mormon and you will never see me vote for Mitt Rob-me-blind.
How exactly did Mr. Romney rob you blind? Do share.
I am not Liberal or Conservative.
Correct. A better category for you is "confused".
The majority of the Paul voters are going to vote for Obama if Paul doesn't get the nomination.
And yet the Paulestinian's piss and moan why nobody pays attention to them in the Republican caucuses. Perhaps you've hit on something there.
They already know [Obama's] capabilities and they aren't as freaking scary as the rest of the clowns.
I have yet to see any Obama capabilities other than running the economy into the ground, high unemployment and gas prices. Maybe you can elaborate on that point a little better, Martin.
72. I realize that the establishment manipulate people in America and not only by using three main ways: mainstream media, religion and unions.
When you will understand this fact you will clearly see who is your real enemy, you'll make the right choice and you will gain your freedom...
Ron Paul 2012!
Believe me, there is no other way...
No One But Paul. If the GOP doesn't want to support the ONLY conservative in the group, Ron Paul, then thats going to give Obama 4 more years. Support Ron Paul, or kiss the republican party goodbye. Frankly, the dems and repubs should just merge into one party and make it official, and then the true conservatives who support Ron Paul can re-light the Republican Party flame.
No One But Paul...2012.
I used to buy all those "pissing away your vote arguments" too. But the more I've observed politics, the more I've come to believe that the exact opposite is true.
As long as conservatives are willing to hold our noses and vote for the "R" even if he or she has shown zero respect for personal liberty and limited government, we will continue to get phony conservative candidates like Romney offered up. And we will continue to get bigger government, higher debt and less freedom, no matter which party is in power.
2011 is a perfect example. Speaker Boehner and the rest of the party promised us in 2010 that if we got them into the majority, they'd get serious about the debt. I don't know why we believed them, but we did, and we turned out in droves to get the Sociali.. er.. Democrat party voted out.
So in 2011 when Republicans in the House had two chances to actually do something meaningful about the debt, what did we get? They caved twice, and gave us a whopping 350 million in budget reductions for 2011. Wow! Talk about fiscal responsibility!
I've had it with voting for a big government Republican over a big government Democrat, just so that they can all continue to make my grandchildren slaves to today's debt, while stripping away our rights with bills like the 2011 NDAA.
It is time for a return to limited government and the Constitution. It is time to stand up and say to the Republican party, "NO! We will not accept another phony conservative." The only way that message is ever going to get across is for conservatives to leave en masse every time the establishment offers us another statist.
For my fellow Ronulans here, one question: You've all said you'd write in Ron Paul if he doesn't win the nomination, but why not vote for someone with Ron Paul's values who is actually on the ballot? Gary Johnson is where my vote will be going if the Republican nominee is Romney.
One other thing..
@9 t7h8y: So if Obama were running as the Republican candidate and Romney were running as the Democrat, would you toe the party line and vote for Obama? Remember, you said "If you aren't willing to commit to supporting the ultimate Republican nominee, how can you claim to be a Republican?"
Of course you wouldn't, right? Because Obama's values run 180 degrees counter to yours. Well, for constitutional conservatives, Mitt ORomney's values run 180 degress counter to ours.
As you may recall, in speaking of his switch from Democrat to Republican, Ronald Reagan said, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me." More and more constitutional and fiscal conservatives are beginning to feel that the Republican Party has left us. If that means you no longer consider us Republicans, then so be it. At least we won't have sold out our values in the name of party loyalty.
76. @69 "Danny Boy"
"Martin, you poor more than, dumb Idiot."
- Clinically this statement is obvious projection by you. If you know not what I mean you should "Goggle" Projection as a clinical term. If I was "dumb" as you so poignantly stated, I'm sure Mensa International would kick me out of the club... LMFAO!!! Hahahah... There is a reason I am an Aeronautical Engineer. They don't give those jobs out to everyone... Scary huh... If you ever get on a plane there is a good chance your life is in MY hands. Scary thought... right?
"I know what faith is all about."
- I seriously doubt it... If I had any glimmer of hope that you actually gave a real thought to half of the Word Vomit spewing out of your face-hole I would not have said anything and left you alone...
"If you had a brain, you would know that the discussion was dealing with faith verses religion and nothing more."
- Projection again... I do have a brain and realized the topic of discussion. You did not apparently... that's why I said something... let me refresh your memory... you said..."Politically Incorrect...There may be many people who refer to their particular religion as their "faith" but, they are wrong to do so. It is their "belief" that is their "faith" not, their particular brand of religion. Faith and religion are not the same thing. Again, you can have various Catholic and Protestant denominations and it is their "belief" in God/Jesus Christ that is their "faith" and not, their particular church. Get Real!" - I totally disagree. Remember I told you to look at a dictionary... Well did you? I even "Goggled" it for you... Your statement "Faith vs. Religion" is totally negated by definition #5. I provided you with - A system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. Etc... Did you take reading comprehension in high school? Should I type slower for you?
"For you to extrapolate with a lot of Goggling and an unnecessary long dissertation in the pretense of you having intellect and something to say, is Laughable."
- First, I rarely extrapolate. That would require a level of estimation. I tend to deal in more concrete data before making a decision. Second, I "goggled" one word only... "Faith"... And that was for your benefit... I can understand how one word to you could be "a lot of Goggling" seeing as how you didn't look it up for yourself before your word vomit about it. Third, if my dissertation seems to long for you I could dumb it down a little if you didn't understand it. Besides don't get too flattered it wasn't entirely for just your benefit. Four, I never need to feign intellect. There is that Projection thing again. Maybe you should see a shrink about your anger issues.
"The rest of your spiel is just, a rambling atheist rant showing complete disconnect from reality."
- Reality is third party perspective. If you think I am disconnected with it. Show me the way young Skywalker... Don't just say I'm not in touch with reality, be more specific. Please elaborate. I'm definitely in touch with your delusional state you Project as reality for sure. And technically if you were to pay attention you would know I am not an atheist. Try to "goggle" Agnosticism. A lot of theologians are agnostic so are scientists.
"Yeah, you and emelio or whatever, are a real pair of losers."
- There is that Projection thing again... Maybe you should look in the mirror...
Look, I hate to rip you a new one like this but dude you deserve it... I'm a nice guy... really. I hate defamation... truce? If you truly believe the things you are saying I would like to see you convey them more constructively and with less flaming of the others in this thread. I am actually interested in your point of view regardless of my opinion of it. That is how negotiations are started.
77. Gary Johnson is where my vote will be going if the Republican nominee is Romney.
Duly noted. So you've decided in your grand wisdom that pissing away your vote for another person besides Ron Paul makes more sense. How is it more useful than just writing in Ron Paul? Some of you Ronulan's make exactly zero sense. Grades? A- for loyalty, F- for logic.
Well, for constitutional conservatives, Mitt Romney's values run 180 degress counter to ours.
Asinine statment. You don't even know what Mitt Romney's "values" are to begin with. He's a man of faith, has a great, tight-knit family unit, excellent CEO who has succeeded in both the private and public sector as well as a great communicator. You Ronulan's have bought into the narrative the liberals want you to buy into and the one the liberal media have pushed for them. If you think Obama's values are more in stride with your own than Mitt Romney, then I'd say you have a diconnect with reality.
Sit out this election if you please, Ronulan's. Just don't piss and moan when your wasted vote this November escalates the speed in which our country is thrust onto the socialist superhighway. Alas, common sense is an uncommon virtue these days.
78. @#71 Rick D.
"You're obviously speaking of the "big bang theory" right, Martin?"
- Haha nice try, I get where you are going. The reason they call it "big bang theory" is because it is just that, a Theory. If it was a fact they would call it "The Law of the Big Bang", Law of Relativity or Gravity are good examples of this. Religious people are more self-serving though. I doubt they would call it "The God Theory" that would not be absolute enough for them.
"Sure there is. When one is mathematically eliminated from getting enough votes to win in the general election, a vote for that candidate is a wasted vote. See "pissing your vote away" and/or documented history for a more defininitive historical perspective on this."
- I read the pissing your vote away part. I fully understood it at first reading. My opinion has not changed. It only seems like a wasted vote to you because you are probably an "anybody but Obama" guy and get pissed when others are not. The people voting for Ron Paul don't care about all of that. They are not Republicans. They are long time Libertarian supporters of Paul. It wouldn't matter if I wrote in Ron Paul or Mickey Mouse at the General. I will not "hold my nose" and vote for someone just because I hate the other guy. I'm sure I'm not alone in this thinking.
"How exactly did Mr. Romney rob you blind? Do share."
- Technically he hasn't yet. But I'm sure if he gets into office he'll dismantle our country into pieces and sell them all off to china like he did at his last corporate job. He hasn't really done anything yet really. I guess that is my problem with him. So I guess you got me on this one. I guess I just got tired of being called a Paulbot or Ronulan. I don't blindly follow candidates. So it hit a nerve. Calling him Mitt Rob-me-blind was a retaliatory statement and sounds pretty cool.
"Correct. A better category for you is "confused"."
- Instead of calling me confused, which I am clearly not.... if someone says "I am not Liberal or Conservative." Don't just call them confused. Say "what do you mean by that?" There are people that can think for themselves and not prescribe to any preordained label.
"And yet the Paulestinian's piss and moan why nobody pays attention to them in the Republican caucuses. Perhaps you've hit on something there."
- Yup, the Paul supporters aren't Republicans they are Libertarians so yes... Except for the Tea Party folks. Funny, most people don't realize Ron Paul is the Godfather of the Tea Party.
"I have yet to see any Obama capabilities other than running the economy into the ground, high unemployment and gas prices. Maybe you can elaborate on that point a little better, Martin."
- I would love to elaborate on that! Don't you pay attention? Previous administrations are to blame for the bursting of the bubble. Remember? If you look at the economic numbers the economy is not in a decline anymore and it is and has been for several months now improving. Unemployment is shrinking in my state. How about yours? If you think any president of any nation can control or has any influence whatsoever on a global commodity like oil prices you need to do some research. And don't talk to me about domestic production. It is at an all-time high and never has an impact on global prices.
Any more questions?
@77: F- for logic? Seriously? Because I said I'd support Johnson?
Johnson and Paul both advocate, and demonstrate via their actions, a desire for constitutionally limited government and fiscal responsibility. I like both of them, and I believe that they are the only two people running for President who actually adhere to the founding principles of this nation. I would be happy with either of them, so if only one of them is on the ballot, he'll get my vote. How exactly is that more illogical than voting for someone who I believe will only continue - perhaps at a slightly slower pace - our national departure from constitutionally limited government?
Regarding my second statement that you quoted, perhaps you're right. I should have stated it more clearly and specified that Mitt Romney's political values do not square with mine. You are correct that in his personal life, he seems to be quite an upstanding man. I respect the fact that he, like me, is a man of faith. I respect the fact that he, like me, is a loyal family man. I respect the fact that he, like me, is a successful businessman. I would never consider attacking his personal values.
I have ZERO respect for the political values he has displayed during his career in politics. I shouldn't need to list them here, but to avoid being unclear and being called "asinine" again, I'll spell it out for you.
Number one, without a doubt, is Obomneycare. In my opinion, any man who would sign a bill which gives the government the power to tell citizens what they must spend their money on, either has no respect for or does not understand Natural Rights and individual sovereignty. I do not care if he now, after realizing how unpopular Obamacare is, says he would not implement it on a national level. To implement this kind of government intrusion at ANY level, be it national, state, county or city, is an absolute affront to liberty.
And then there are his countless changes in position depending on his political situation. From saying that he was not a Reagan Republican, to changing his stances on a whole host of issues important to conservatives... It's awfully hard to tell what Romney actually believes. Sure, what he says *right now* sounds good, but it doesn't square with his previous statements, and he's even in the last couple days given an indication that those conservative views he is espousing now will be jettisoned as soon as he is the nominee.
But maybe you're right. Maybe all of these opinions have been pushed on me by liberal media outlets. You know, like Fox News, the liberal bastion that regularly debates Romneycare's significance in this election. Or that left wing socialist radio talk show host, Mark Levin. Or that Rush Limbaugh fellow.. who let that liberal nutcase on the radio? Even personalities who regularly toe the Republican party line, like Hannity, seem to have serious doubts about Romney's conservative credentials.
I will not be sitting out this election. If Romney is the nominee, myself and millions of other freedom-loving Americans will be letting the Republican Party know that big government is not acceptable, by taking our votes elsewhere. I will demand the return of our liberty with my ballot, so that some future generation doesn't have to do it with bullets. If you want to sit and fiddle while the Constitution burns, that's your choice.
80. If it was a fact they would call it "The Law of the Big Bang", Law of Relativity or Gravity are good examples of this. Religious people are more self-serving though.
So you'll admit the Intelligent design theory is just as theoretically valid as the big bang theory posited by "scientists", right? Afterall, you are the one that put forth the argument of "conclusions without evidence". The truth is, both are simply conjecture, not valid, provable science.
My opinion has not changed. It only seems like a wasted vote to you because you are probably an "anybody but Obama" guy and get pissed when others are not.
No, it seems like a wasted vote because it is. I preferred Romney last time around and we got McCain. I didn't sit at home and stomp my feet in anger like the Ronulan's will this election. I voted for the most viable candidate that I thought I had the most in common with- my last choice, Jonn McCain. I used common sense based on my life experience after first supporting Ross Perot and thereafter Harry Browne in past elections. I've matured since those days and understand that letting the triple scoop ice cream cone I'm given melt away and fall to the ground just because I didn't get what I really wanted, a Sundae with a cherry on top- really doesn't make a whole lot of sense either.
Technically he hasn't [robbed me blind] yet. But I'm sure if he gets into office he'll dismantle our country into pieces and sell them all off to china like he did at his last corporate job. He hasn't really done anything yet really.
Wow, so you have some kind of ESP that alerts you to know you're going to get hoodwinked by Romney. Some of us would just call that unfounded paranoia, but considering you're a Ron Paul backer, that really isn't that uncommon.
Funny, most people don't realize Ron Paul is the Godfather of the Tea Party.
Seriously? Ron Party is the godfather of the teaparty? Last time I checked it was a grassroots effort spawned by millions of ordinary Americans tired of this country ignoring our ever increasing national debt and fed up with our increased taxation. Do you guys just make stuff up on the fly for entertainment or do you actually believe this tripe you're putting out there, Martin?
No, he didn't just "make up" the Godfather of the Tea Party comment on the fly. Ron Paul was warning of the dangers of runaway debt and increased taxation for DECADES before it became fashionable to do so.
And as the article referenced below notes, Ron Paul was holding "Tea Party" fundraisers in 2007, long before the current Tea Party movement came to prominence.
@ 79 Antisocialist:
I agree with some of the points you've rasied and find some of the criticism of Romney valid. I consider myself more a libertarian than a "Republican", as do many other's on this site. I think people are largely misinformed about the distinct differences between "Romneycare" and "Obamacare", but I'm really not going to delve into that issue at this late hour.
The statement that is most illogical in your post is:
I will not be sitting out this election. If Romney is the nominee, myself and millions of other freedom-loving Americans will be letting the Republican Party know that big government is not acceptable, by taking our votes elsewhere.
Taking them elsewhere? Perhaps to the magical world where Ron Paul wins the November election and rides in on his rainbow colored unicorn riding side-saddle at the Inauguration in January 2013? Reality check...
@82, Rick D., Anti stated above that if Romney is the GOP choice he'll be supporting Libertarian Gary Johnson. I didn't see anything about rainbow unicorns (nor did I see even any insinuation of an expectation that Johnson would win).
The point is, the Republicans are rapidly making their bed by shunning those who actually believe that ever-expanding government infringes on the freedoms that we hold dear. You can call it "sitting out the election" or "pissing away our votes" but that's just semantics and a convenient way of ignoring the truth that is staring the GOP in the face. The simple fact is that there are people who would otherwise vote Republican and are not going to. When the "Big Tent" party can't carry out the needed introspection to understand WHY, instead focusing on vilifying those "disloyal" voters, it's a clear sign that the GOP is screwed.
The three-legged stool doesn't balance so well on two legs.
84. You can call it "sitting out the election" or "pissing away our votes" but that's just semantics and a convenient way of ignoring the truth that is staring the GOP in the face~ RookieRick
The time to have that conversation is not the presidential election, If you want to change the party apparatus, you do so in the interim. Semantics or not, it is true that you are throwing away your vote- believe me, I've done so myself. I've since grown up and undertand that I need to vote for 65-70% of what I believe as opposed to 3-5% that we have currently in the white house. Frankly, I'm kind of shocked how petulant some of my fellow libertarians are being that they are willing to sit out such a pivotal election in our (AND your family's) lifetime.
Option 1: Don't vote, sit at home and holler at the tv for 4 more years
Option 2: Vote for Gary Johnson and spend the next 4 years complaining about Obama's socialist policies
Option 3: Vote for the MOST ELECTABLE CANDIDATE that reflects your values and work to change the party going forward
Pick your option from above and tell me logically which makes the most sense once you've removed the emotional argument from the equation.
85. No One But Paul 2012..
86. Option 1= An act of despair
Option 2= An exercise in futility
Option 3= A fighting chance to right the ship
87. No One But Paul 2012
88. "So you'll admit the Intelligent design theory is just as theoretically valid as the big bang theory posited by "scientists", right? Afterall, you are the one that put forth the argument of "conclusions without evidence". The truth is both are simply conjecture, not valid, provable science."
- That statement can be debated. It all depends on the level of trust of the data the theory was created with. Personally I would put my money on the Big Bang Theory vs. "Intelligent" Design. Why? Well. The big bang theory is being researched using Scientific Method which is uniform throughout the universe just like Math is uniform. And we are looking at actual Matter in the universe that is tangibly measurable. We can all agree on the process factually. Well if you understand the process... Intelligent design is people trying to apply scientific method to The Bible which is half symbolism. We can't apply the method to it unless we were to interview the original writers of the bible and ask "What do mean by that?" There is no "Control" to test against when it comes to intelligent design theory. It is full of way too many "Variables". So no, they are not equally valid theories. One is based on proven facts the other is not. One has far less conjecture than the other. There is actual measurable evidence with one and not the other.
"No, it seems like a wasted vote because it is. I preferred Romney last time around and we got McCain. I didn't sit at home and stomp my feet in anger like the Ronulan's will this election. I voted for the most viable candidate that I thought I had the most in common with- my last choice, Jonn McCain. I used common sense based on my life experience after first supporting Ross Perot and thereafter Harry Browne in past elections. I've matured since those days and understand that letting the triple scoop ice cream cone I'm given melt away and fall to the ground just because I didn't get what I really wanted, a Sundae with a cherry on top- really doesn't make a whole lot of sense either.
- Well you are not getting it man. Our goals are different. The Ron Paul people are not going to sit around pouting at home. They are too organized for that. They know he might not be the nominee. They are for sure going to disrupt the status quo though by going for a brokered convention. If he gets a bunch of delegates at Tampa and gets a percentage of the vote in the general election via write in it is the message to the establishment that is the goal. They will need to fear him and people like him next time around because he carries young peoples' votes and that will increase as the old school republicans get old and die off. Their goal is not winning the general election for the Republicans or the Democrats they want to elect Libertarians and if they can't do that they will frame the argument for the next election cycle until they can elect Libertarians more and more as time goes by. Political parties die too. Remember "The Wigs" or "Democratic-Republican Party"
"Wow, so you have some kind of ESP that alerts you to know you're going to get hoodwinked by Romney. Some of us would just call that unfounded paranoia, but considering you're a Ron Paul backer, that really isn't that uncommon."
- I wasn't being paranoid at all. Believe me hard right wing republicans are far more paranoid than I in my opinion. I was actually being sarcastic. I was joking... it is called humor. Fact is Romney probably won't do anything profound at all. That is his problem. He is just another establishment candidate.
"Seriously? Ron Party is the godfather of the teaparty? Last time I checked it was a grassroots effort spawned by millions of ordinary Americans tired of this country ignoring our ever increasing national debt and fed up with our increased taxation. Do you guys just make stuff up on the fly for entertainment or do you actually believe this tripe you're putting out there, Martin?"
- Now here is a good reason for you to stop and smell the roses a little. You were told what to believe by the media. They are going to black-out all positives of Ron Paul. Yes he did start the tea party. Please refer to the article link posted by Antisocialist on comment #81.
Anymore questions for me? I'm happy to entertain.
I was at the 46th LC, during the time while votes were being counted one of the Paulistas was speaking to someone near me, he said he could vote for Gingrich or Santorum if the nominee but Romney was too much like Obama. So if Romney won, he would vote 3rd party. His name is Scott Hodges.
That is the opinion of most Paulistas, they are not Republicans they are Libertarians.
@89: If the definition of a Repulican is that the person will always
vote for the Republican candidate, no matter who it is, then you're correct. Most Paul supporters are not Republicans. And by that definition, I think you'd probably have to disqualify a whole lot more people than just Paul supporters.
I seem to remember Gingrich saying a couple months ago that if Paul were to become the nominee, he could not vote for him. So I suppose we have to kick Newt out of the party now. Santorum made a comment just recently suggesting that it would be better to give Obama a 2nd term than to elect Romney. He later walked it back of course, but.. See ya Rick. You're no Republican.
Now, those two examples are just politicians doing what they do, but think about this for a moment. Would you vote for the Republican candidate even if you disagreed with him or her on 100% of the issues you care about? Or even on just the issue that you care most about? Let's say 12 years from now the Republican nominee is someone who says that since Islamic terrorists are such a threat, the Federal Government should regulate all religion. Would you vote for that person, or would you tell the Republican party, "Sorry guys.. I'll be back next cycle if you nominate someone who represents me"?
Scott Hodges was, in my opinion, displaying a rational approach to his decision on who to vote for. He didn't say "Paul or nobody". He even said he could vote for Gingrich or Santorum. I'm sure there are a whole host of issues on which Hodges would disagree with those two candidates, but he's willing to set those aside and compromise. What it seems to me that he is saying though, is that he's not willing to set his objections aside for a candidate who he believes will represent virtually none of his political beliefs.
I'm much the same, although I would have a very difficult time voting for Gingrich as well. To me, Gingrich seems to be on every side of every issue, almost as much as Romney is. As such, I don't trust him and don't believe that his stated conservatism is real at all. I believe he's conservative only when it is convenient.
Santorum at least, in my opinion, believes most of what he says. I disagree with him vehemently on some issues, but I think that with a little pressure from constitutional conservatives and libertarians, he could possibly make a good President. He wouldn't be my dream candidate - not by a long shot - but I think that at least he might slow the growth and intrusiveness of the Federal Government.
Romney: No way, no how. If Republicans nominate a man who signed a law changing Masschusetts residents from citizens to subjects, then I'll be saying "See ya, Republicans. I'll be back next cycle if you nominate someone who represents me".
91. good morning, grand blog on blubbery loss. like helped.
I was at the 46th LD meeting. As a PCO, I was a delegate and was running for a state delegate position. I stated I wanted anybody but Obama and was officially undecided. I consider myself a small-l libertarian and a fiscally-conservative republican.
I was appalled at many of the Paul supporters. Not necessarily the long-time folks, but the newbies feeding into the cult of personality. They were organized, but uninformed. Many did not even know what precinct they lived in. The woman they tried to elect to the chair had no clue as to Robert's Rule of Order. I was the one that found the letter she had written to the Bellingham paper supporting Paul and put the question to her. She went into full weasel mode attempting to avoid the question.
Sadly, I walked off the floor to end the farce and force the quorum call. I have no hope that, once Paul is out of the race, any of these folks will be seen again at Republican meetings.
I would like to know what level the Paul supporters funded the donations that pay for the local meetings. I got the impression they are happy to have a free ride to get their man the presidency, but they aren't willing to do the work for the rest of the slate.
Ron Paul is a Republican? Since when?
He is the Ralph Nader of the right.
Paul supporters do not fulfill the deals they cut, they do not work with anyone else, they do everything to manipulate the rules in their favor.
You want to take over the Republican party? Well, what will it be when you have alienated all the donors, the volunteers and the community?
Where have you been for the past 4 years? Certainly not helping get Republicans elected.
Temporary gain, but long-term loss.