Despite Mitt Romney's inevitability and scoring a win in only one state (Minnesota) and corralling less than 100 total delegates to date, the Ron Paul Campaign rolls on. Why? No one ever expected he could be the Republican nominee and at this point if he won every delegate still to be selected (about 800), he'd fall over 200 short of the 1,144 needed to win. See Real Clear Politics
One speculation goes like this. The Paul supporters realize they cannot win as a third party or in the Republican Party as currently constituted. Age aside, Congressman Paul's views are too far outside the mainstream to ever claim a majority but the father, Ron, may be a stalking horse for the son, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) in 2016 or 2020. Romney will still be the 2012 nominee but the Paulistas have other goals. A prime time speech by Ron Paul at the national convention, influence on local, state and national Republican platforms and the gold ribbon - electoral legitimacy through take over of the Republican Party.
In King County, the battle is already joined. King County Republicans held caucuses by state legislative districts within the county. The Paul forces sweep election of delegates to the Washington State GOP Convention in the 36th, 37th and 46th districts. With the cooperation of the Santorum campaign (even after Santorum had withdrawn from the race), they took a majority of delegates in several other districts freezing out Romney. Delegates to the National GOP Convention will mostly be selected by congressional district at the state convention. Paul supporters may win the 7th Congressional District but statewide will fall short of capturing more delegates to the national convention than Romney. Yet they could win enough to raise eyebrows.
The fight continues at the April 28th King County Republican Convention and culminates in early December when elected Republican Precinct Committee Officers (PCO) meet to elect a King County GOP chair and other party officials for the next two years. Both sides are actively recruiting candidates for PCO. Filing runs from May 14 through May 18 for election of PCOs in the August 7th primary.
One has to admire the Paulista's organization and dedication. At caucuses and conventions, they stick together, vote as a block and stay until adjournment. Just don't ask them to pledge support for the Republican presidential nominee, unless of course it's Ron Paul.
It remains to be seen if Republicans care enough to defend their party against the Paul insurgents.
Posted by warrenpeterson at April 27, 2012 10:48 AM | Email ThisThousands come out to hear him speak. So just maybe he has a much bigger following then some would like to let on. His followers are from every age group, ethnic group and political party.
Who in your life time has managed to do this and without any media support.
That is a shame because many other countries are supporting Ron Paul too because he represents real change and real hope.
The young do not want what America is today and I can not say I blame them.
Posted by: Terry on April 27, 2012 11:35 AMI remember discovering Ron Paul back in 2008, I was awestruck. Love of truth, logical arguments, courage, principled approach, consistency, a sense of humor. At that moment I was sorry for not being a citizen of United States and not being able to vote or support him financially.
An incredible gentleman, a true work of art. Godspeed, Ron Paul!
Posted by: Saul on April 27, 2012 12:22 PMWith that lack of political intelligence, these narcissistic, disingenuous voters would be to blame if we end up with the same government after the election as many were clamoring to have voted out. Do us a favor and don't vote.
Posted by: KDS on April 27, 2012 03:03 PMAnd let's keep the big picture in mind. The goal is not to save the Party. It is to save this Republic. Even bigger than that, the goal is Liberty.
Posted by: berferd on April 27, 2012 03:25 PMHe's an OB-GYN.
His SON is an Ophthalmologist.
My problem with both Pauls is their incredibly heartless isolationism. They talk a lot about freedom -- just not for anyone who doesn't live in America. Freedom for the Afghans? Freedom for Iraqis? Syrians? Libyans? Cubans? north Koreans? Burmese?
Ron Paul says that's none of our business.
If freedom is a universal human value, then it's incumbent on people who cherish it to be willing to fight for their own freedom AND the freedom of others.
(And it also irritates me greatly that Ron Paul stated at his rally in SeaTac, as he states in almost every stump speech, that when America made the choice to withdraw in defeat from Viet Nam that none of the negative consequences we were warned about took place. When we made the choice to leave Viet Nam that nation fell to the communists and so did Cambodia. And the Viet Cong and Khmer Rouge killed around 3 million human beings in the subsequent decade. I would say that is an EXTREMELY negative consequence of American disengagement abroad)
Posted by: AD on April 27, 2012 05:39 PMOops! right you are.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 27, 2012 07:11 PMFrom all I've been seeing, reading and hearing, it's the King County GOP and its chair, Lori Sotelo, who have damn bit of explaining and apologizing to do. And it's been the KCGOP and Sotelo - not the Paulbots - who have been violating caucus rules, causing a nuisance and giving Republicans a bad name with their antics by kicking out caucus-goers in the 37th Leg. District and removing voting equipment in others just because people are choosing not vote in lockstep with the party line.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2018061271_king_co_gop_leader_boots_caucu.html
Posted by: Don Ward on April 27, 2012 07:30 PM1. he has won more than MN. He has Iowa too and there are still many other states despite media claims that are his to win as well (such as WA, CO, MO, ME)
2. He can still win even without the 1144. There are multiple rounds of voting if no one gets the 50% needed to win the first round and his numbers are expected to go up as delegates are unbound.
3. Ron Pauls views are not outside mainstream. In fact they are probably more mainstream than Obamas or Romneys. If that were not the case those campaigns would not fight so hard to cast him as an outsiders. What views do you find outside the mainstream? Wanting lower taxes and spending? Desiring free speech on the internet? Pro 2nd amendment? Wanting less war??
4. Why do you think republicans need to guard against Ron Paul insurgents? Ron Paul supporters ARE republicans. What remains to be seen is if republicans will vote out Lori Sotelo for showing ignorance or malice at fellow republicans at the 37th district caucus. She should be welcoming new energetic small government favoring people to the party and instead she tries to push them away. Pathetic!
Posted by: Lysander on April 27, 2012 07:45 PMPaul brings out the young and enthuastic to politics and the GOP. Romney brings nothing but connections to big business.
Even if you think Romney has the election sewn up, vote for Paul if you truly want smaller government. Make it a close race and let Romney what the people really want!
Posted by: Lysander on April 27, 2012 07:50 PMhttp://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2012/0427/Ron-Paul-beat-Mitt-Romney-in-10-states!-Kind-of.
As I told them at our convention, Ron Paul would never have my vote but if I had a chance to vote for his kid I would.
Posted by: doug on April 27, 2012 08:28 PMFor those so bizarrely enamored of his isolationist meme, you all seem bent on achieving the American foreign policy of 1937.
And how'd that work out for us?
Posted by: Hinton on April 27, 2012 08:47 PMRon Paul is an isolationist and doesn't have a problem with Iran getting nukes (which is naive), but I don't have a problem with his fiscal policies. However, we need to be vigilant against Islamists radicals, that he seems to overlook repeatedly - not sure why. He is right about no more wars over there unless we are attacked.
Posted by: KDS on April 27, 2012 09:33 PMI don't know in what kind of a world some Americans imagine themselves to be living in but rest of us have a much broader spectrum of choice when compared to "invade-or-survive".
Posted by: From Saul to Hinton on April 28, 2012 12:28 AMI'd settle for the American foreign policy of 1917 - the one where the U.S. doesn't enter WWI, where Britain is forced to negotiate a ceasefire with Germany, the lives of 400,000 Americans are spared, the economy of Germany is un-decimated, the Nazi Party languishes on the sidelines of history and the second world war never takes place.
Using the fallout from one case of U.S. intervention to excuse subsequent interventions to fix the problems created by the first is an inescapable, vicious cycle.
Posted by: Zollern on April 28, 2012 07:53 AMThe truth is a vote for mittens is a vote for Obama/Bush policies and the death of freedom.
Posted by: h8f8kes on April 28, 2012 08:34 AMExtended Interview with Michael Scheuer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEQviZPyeXk
Where did you get that propaganda piece ? Prove it ! I think I'll say Ron Paul supports Agenda-21 and await your rebuttal. Do you think Van Jones is a positive change agent ? Are you going to vote for Obama ?
Cut the juvenile crap ! I can't take you seriously with your mindless claptrap.
Posted by: KDS on April 28, 2012 10:36 AMAs much as I agree with his fiscal policies, Mr. Paul's foreign policy does not really address how dangerous the world is out there. It is good that we mind our own business, but what happens when we are attacked like on 9-11 ? Doesn't he want to drastically cut our military budget as Obama does ?
Posted by: KDS on April 28, 2012 10:43 AMIsolationism is ignoring free trade, rather, doing business at gunpoint.
Isolationism is placing sanctions on countries in hopes of driving the populace into the outstretched arms of radical irrational leaders. Do you think Japan attacked Pearl Harbor for fun and the prospects of it? Think again. America was meddling in the shipping lanes of the Japanese and routinely ignored their protests. Cavalierly claiming America doesn't provoke wars with it's foreign policy is naive and dangerous. Calling people unpatriotic who seek to better the foreign policy with a sober approach of discourse is infantile, and again, risky, with people's lives at stake.
Isolationism is telling people how much better you are while oppressing your people.
Isolationism is exporting oppression and inflating the world's reserve currency.
Isolationism is killing people in unjust (Christian just war theory) and unlawful, undeclared wars. Ever wonder why Congress wouldn't declare war? War profiteering rules go in effect in a declared war, and that's an uncomfortable prospect when you're intent on front running markets with insider information.
Isolationism is the two faced tyranny of pointing guns at people to get what you want all the while exclaiming how free and moral you are.
All these things are intellectually depraved and radical isolationist.
Ron Paul is NONE of these shameful and depraved things. The list of those who are is multitudinous, and not a single one of them is fit to carry his jock. Hypocrites, posers and the deceitful will have to answer for their misdeeds, and the mobs to back them up will be strangely absent in their reckoning.
The person who libels Ron Paul as an isolationist has no ground to stand on. This type of person is also irrational, dangerous and espouses resorting to violence whenever they don't get their way. Their is no place for this type person in a free society. Oh, I forgot, we don't really have to worry about that now, do we?
Libertarians will always rank high in love of truth, logical arguments, principled approach, and consistency, as long as you use their narrow definition of "truth" to not include the realities of human society. Much has been written about the wisdom and folly of libertarianism and if you're one if its adherents, nothing I say is going to change your mind.
I suppose any losing political candidate has courage in some sense, but that's not in itself a credential. You could say the guy on the street corner warning that Martians will land on the Space Needle tonight has courage.
Ron Paul does seem to have a better sense of humor than many candidates. That's a good thing, but not nearly as relevant to the presidency as his beliefs (whether you think they're wise or wacko -- and most Americans, fortunately, believe the latter).
So I'm not surprised that you were awestruck. That still doesn't mean the guy, or anyone who shares his core beliefs, would make a good president.
Posted by: Bruce on April 28, 2012 12:48 PMPosted by huckit at April 28, 2012 11:26 AM
OK, so would you care to elaborate a bit more ? You have not convinced me - you'll have to do better than that. Why are Ron Paul's accomplishments in Congress over his 30+ year career meager ? Just sayin' - Do you agree with his stand on there being no problem for Iran to obtain nukes ? Since Ron Paul is going to be a candidate - 3rd party or otherwise, who do you plan to vote for /
Posted by: KDS on April 28, 2012 03:17 PMIf a silent majority liked him, he wouldn't be an also-ran. Quite to the contrary, Paul is supported by a vocal minority.
Posted by: Bruce on April 28, 2012 04:57 PMnext.
Posted by: I am Ron Paul on April 28, 2012 09:54 PMNext
Posted by: Church Mouse Republican on April 29, 2012 02:42 PMRon Paul left the party in 1988 and ran as Libertarian for President. He is not a Republican, he is a Libertarian.
Paul is not a libertarian. Want proof?
He left the libertarian party and ran as a republican in 2008!
Travis.
Posted by: Lysander on April 29, 2012 03:53 PMIf our peace was nicely given to us, there would have been no need to fight for it. We fight for our peace every day, or more directly, we fight for our sovereignty and our liberty. And if ever there comes a day, when the weak...like you...truly take over America, then America will cease to be free, sovereign or safe.
The only principles I see you supporting, are the ones where you espouse the nanny state taking away more of our rights...and metering them out as they see fit, in your little personal doctrine of fairness, where only guys like YOU get to send your kids to private schools, while everyone elses kids get shafted by public schools, which is okay with you...
you talk out of both sides of your mouth, just another moving contradiction.
The presidency is a race between 2 men. The others on the ballot, do not matter. Those _not_ on the ballot, do not matter. If you choose to write in Ron Paul - assuming he is not the Republican candidate - you will split the anti-Obama vote. This is unacceptable. A second Obama term is unacceptable. It will be the downfall of this country.
Posted by: Dee on April 30, 2012 12:33 PMSo, how do we know you are not Obama supporters masquerading as Ron Paul supporters ? Demonstrate that you are not and the best way to demonstrate that is to meet Mitt Romney campagin and negotiate what they would like to see added to his platform. Stop trying to mortgage the future of this country for you faux rhetoric and narcissism.
Posted by: KDS on April 30, 2012 12:40 PMThis much is clear.
No One But Paul 2012.
Posted by: I am Ron Paul on April 30, 2012 02:43 PMUntil there is a definite press release from Ron Paul about running even if he does not get the GOP nomination (which he won't), you are blowing smoke being divisive like Obama. He has not indicated he plans to do this, so get your head out of the sand and assist in defeating Obama. Otherwise, you are the enemy !
Posted by: KDS on April 30, 2012 03:09 PMI support Rand Paul and would like to see him be part of Pres. Romney's cabinet and may also support Rand if he decides to run for President in the future. Take a deep breath and try to understand that we support a common cause - I think. IF Ron Paul had enough delegates to win the nomination, I would have supported him, but no way it will happen. Kindly, face the facts and quit being a spoiled sport because your guy won't win this time. I seriously doubt that Ron Paul would endorse this type of behavior from his supporters. Think about it - together we can make a better America.
So, we all love Ron Paul, but because the RNC has given the marching orders and starts lying about Mitt being the nominee, its clear there are still people who put party before country. Wake up.
Posted by: I am Ron Paul on April 30, 2012 06:55 PM"We all love Ron Paul, but because the RNC has given the marching orders and starts lying about Mitt being the nominee."
You misquoted me. I said that he has virtually sewn up the nomination, which is different from him being the nominee,. The only other possibility is an open convention. However, the odds have become heavily tilted against that, now that Santorum has dropped out and Newt will soon drop out. If it turns out to be an open convention - which looks doubtful, then obviously Ron Paul deserves consideration.
You are being evasive in not answering the questions I asked to you. These are valid questions and if you don't answer them, we will assume that you don't want to blow your cover and maybe you are an Obama-zombie after all.
It's already settled that Ron Paul is the ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVE. Thats twice now that i've explained that, but it appears you have the blinders firmly attached per RNC rules.
Posted by: I am Ron Paul on April 30, 2012 08:03 PMAre you incoherent ? It is difficult to reason let alone dialogue with cultist- types like you. Mitt Romney is not a liberal, but he is a moderate conservative and has evolved from being a RINO in Mass when he was Governor - you've been listening to Newt the most progressive Republican too much. Enough of your stupid hair spliting - it serves to undermine your campaign for Ron Paul.
To repeat what I wrote before;
"We all love Ron Paul, but because the RNC has given the marching orders and starts lying about Mitt being the nominee."
"You misquoted me. I said that he has virtually sewn up the nomination, which is different from him being the nominee,. The only other possibility is an open convention. However, the odds have become heavily tilted against that, now that Santorum has dropped out and Newt will soon drop out. If it turns out to be an open convention - which looks doubtful, then obviously Ron Paul deserves consideration."
If you don't respond here in a coherent manner, then I have wasted enough time with you.
Posted by: KDS on April 30, 2012 08:37 PMPosted by I am Ron Paul at April 30, 2012 08:03 PM
I support defeating Obama for the third time ! You keep missing the point on purpose. Your points have no validity unless there is an open convention. Obama will likely win WA State - a firmly blue state, so write in Ron Paul in as a wasted protest vote if you wish but it will not make one whit of difference.
Posted by: KDS on April 30, 2012 08:47 PMYou want Obama defeated..i get it...thats why i support and will vote for Ron Paul and you support the liberal. You are really confused If you don't join me in that effort to elect Dr. Paul, then when/if Obama gets elected, it will be partially your fault along with the RNC.. pretty simple.
Posted by: I am Ron Paul on April 30, 2012 10:27 PMYou are too simplistic. Write in candidates have no chance in hell of winning, Einstein !
Here's the deal, if Ron Paul is the Republican nominee, he will derinitely get my vote. End of story.
Posted by: KDS on April 30, 2012 10:51 PMIf you don't like Republicans or Democrats, work to form a third party that becomes a factor in future elections. The Tea Party may even want to help you out. I'd like to see Rand Paul be part of a future Presidential campaign.
Posted by: KDS on May 1, 2012 11:08 AMhttp://www.newsmax.com/WayneAllynRoot/Jon-Stewart-Obama-socialist/2012/03/27/id/434036
and Romney is moderate Republican who is more conservative than he ran in 2008, when he was the most conservative candidate except for Mr. Paul. There will be significant change if Romney is elected - not as much of a change I would be satisfied with and there is room in the future for a 3rd party. End of story.
Why does Ron Paul favor earmarks - it is written all over his record. I thought earmarks are unconstitutional.