Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul Could Still Win Enough Delegates To Deny Mitt Romney The Republican Nomination
The American Dream ^ | 5/7/2012 | The American Dream

Posted on 05/07/2012 9:31:44 AM PDT by JohnKinAK

Despite what you may have heard from the mainstream media, Mitt Romney does not have the Republican nomination locked up. In fact, he is rapidly losing delegates that almost everyone assumed that he already had in the bag. To understand why this is happening, you have to understand the delegate selection process. Each state has different rules for selecting delegates to the Republican national convention, and in many states the "voting" done by the public does not determine the allocation of delegates to particular candidates at all. And the truth is that delegates are the only thing that really matters in this race. In state after state, the Ron Paul campaign is focusing on the delegate selection process with laser-like precision, and it is paying off big time. At this point, there is still a legitimate chance that Ron Paul will be able to win enough delegates to deny Mitt Romney the nomination on the first ballot at the Republican national convention in Tampa. If Romney does not have the 1,144 delegates that he needs on the first ballot, then it becomes a brokered convention and anything becomes possible at that point.

Sadly, most Americans have no idea how this process really works.

For example, originally we were all told that Mitt Romney won Iowa.

Then, later on we were told that a mistake was made and that Rick Santorum actually won Iowa.

Well, it turns out that Ron Paul actually won 20 out of the 28 delegates in Iowa. That is because the process of actually selecting the delegates occurred long after the voting by the public was over.

So what happens if the Ron Paul campaign is able to produce similar results in state after state?

The Ron Paul campaign is very organized, very motivated and they understand the rules of the game. As a recent Politico article detailed, there are huge amounts of unbound delegates out there that are still up for grabs....

There are roughly 30 states and territories where delegates aren’t bound to a particular candidate. The majority of the other states, according to a number of party officials, call for delegates to be bound for a first round of balloting but not the ensuing rounds.

“The dirty little secret is: At the end of the day, these guys and gals can vote any way they want,” said a Republican who has attended national conventions for decades. “Each state has different (laws) on pledged delegates.” In many states, the "official" results of voting done by the public mean next to nothing. The talking heads on television often tell us how many delegates are "projected" to go to a particular candidate, but as we have seen in Iowa and in so many other states, those "projections" are basically meaningless.

A recent Salon article discussed how the delegate selection process really works and how the Ron Paul campaign is using these rules to shake up the game....

In many caucus states, the “official” results that most people saw this winter were from nonbinding straw polls conducted in conjunction with precinct-level caucuses. But when it comes to choosing national convention delegates, the real action is at district caucuses and state conventions. In the past, this distinction hasn’t mattered much, but for the Paul forces – who lack the numbers to win statewide primaries but have the devotion to pack any room, anywhere, at any time – it has offered an inviting loophole. When turnout is small and no one is looking, the Paul folks can win, and that’s what’s been happening in a number of states.

To Paul die-hards, this will all culminate in a surprise for the ages in Tampa, with the political world suddenly realizing that Romney actually doesn’t have the 1,144 delegates needed to win the nomination, thereby allowing Paul to extract major concessions or even steal the nomination for himself. So could Ron Paul really deny Mitt Romney the Republican nomination?

At this point, nobody really seems to know what the real delegate count is.

Websites such as The Real 2012 Delegate Count are more accurate than most sources in the mainstream media, but even that site has been underestimating the true number of Ron Paul delegates.

Right now, Mitt Romney is not anywhere close to having the number of delegates that he needs for the nomination and Ron Paul just keeps picking up more delegates with each passing week.

For example, a Washington Post article that was posted on Sunday reported that Ron Paul just achieved a stunning delegate victory in Nevada....

Despite former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney’s overwhelming victory in the Nevada caucuses, Texas Rep. Ron Paul has won a majority of the state’s delegates to the party’s national convention later this year in Tampa, Florida.

Thanks to organized Paul supporters, who have been working to increase their candidate’s support at state conventions around the country, 22 of the 25 Nevada delegates up for grabs will be Paul supporters. (Another three are automatic delegates.) That was a state that Romney supposedly "won".

It looks like Romney has a real problem.

In state after state, Ron Paul is gobbling up delegates. The following are quotes from a recent Huffington Post article about what the Ron Paul campaign has been able to achieve in the past few weeks....

-"Sure enough, Paul has already won 20 out of the 24 delegates allocated in Minnesota, by winning a majority of the congressional district contests."

-"In Louisiana, Paulites "dominated" the congressional district caucuses this past Saturday, according to the New Orleans Times-Picayune. Paul's supporters carried four of the state's congressional districts, and are guaranteed at least 17 of 46 delegates in the Bayou State, with the potential to pick up more at the state convention on June 2."

-"The other state that Benton likely has his eye on is Colorado, where the Denver Post reported in mid-April that Paul supporters and Santorum backers combined forces to win a "stunning upset" at the state convention, guaranteeing that about half of the state's 33 delegates will be for Paul in August."

And look what just happened in Maine according to USA Today....

In votes leading to the close of the two-day Maine convention, Paul supporters were elected to 21 of the 24 delegate spots from Maine to the GOP national convention in Tampa, Fla. So Ron Paul is definitely accumulating a huge pile of his own delegates, but even many so-called "pledged delegates" for Romney could end up playing a huge role for Ron Paul.

In some states, Ron Paul supporters have been getting elected into delegate slots that are supposed to go to Romney. This is highly unusual, and it could really shake things up at the national convention. As a Salon article recently explained there will be quite a few Ron Paul supporters that will actually be going to Tampa "disguised" as Romney delegates....

Besides the pledged delegates he’s won so far and the extras he’s collecting through caucuses and state conventions, Paul will also have some supporters disguised as Romney delegates. To understand how this works, just consider his campaign’s mischief in Massachusetts, where Romney won 72 percent of the primary vote – and with it, a monopoly on the state’s pledged convention delegates. But to determine who would fill those pledged delegate slots, the state GOP held caucuses recently, and the Paul crowd came out in force, gobbling up 16 of the 19 available positions. In how many other states will this happen, or has it already happened? But those delegates are required to vote for Romney, right?

Not so fast.

The Ron Paul campaign could actually ask those "disguised" Romney delegates to abstain during the first round of voting in Tampa. If Romney did not win on the first ballot, those delegates would then become unbound and would be able to support Ron Paul.

In fact, Ronald Reagan considered using this tactic against Gerald Ford in 1976. The following is from a 1976 article entitled "Reagan Forces May ‘Steal’ Ford Votes"....

“In secret strategy sessions, Reagan aides have toyed with the idea of asking delegates to abstain as long as their state laws require them to honor the primary verdicts. This would prevent the President from riding up an early-ballot victory. Then, in subsequent ballots, they could legally switch to Reagan. Delegates have abstained from voting before. Back in 2008, at least 14 delegates abstained from voting at the Republican national convention.

So what would happen if the Ron Paul campaign was able to get 100 or 150 "Romney delegates" to abstain from voting during the first ballot in Tampa?

That is a very intriguing question.

And remember, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich also have significant numbers of delegates pledged to each of them.

So Ron Paul does not need to accumulate 1,144 delegates himself to deny Mitt Romney the nomination on the first ballot. He just needs to keep Romney from getting to 1,144.

The race for the Republican nomination is not over.

You can find a state by state breakdown of delegate voting rules right here.

It is not too late to get involved.

If nobody gets to 1,144 on the first ballot in Tampa, it becomes a "brokered convention" and anyone can become the nominee - even someone that is not running right now.

So if you are not satisfied with Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee, don't lose hope yet.

The game is still being played.

It would be a challenge, but if his supporters get energized enough, it certainly is possible that Ron Paul could still win enough delegates to deny Mitt Romney the Republican nomination on the first ballot in Tampa.

And if that happens, anything is possible.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: cuckoo; larouchies; paulestinians; spammonkeys; whytheycallitdope
Could be very interesting convention.
1 posted on 05/07/2012 9:31:50 AM PDT by JohnKinAK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnKinAK

And here I thought my nightmares were over.


2 posted on 05/07/2012 9:33:00 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnKinAK

Deja moo http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2880838/posts — I’ve seen this scat before. :D


3 posted on 05/07/2012 9:34:49 AM PDT by Keith in Iowa (Willard Romney, purveyor of the world's finest bullmitt. | FR Class of 1998 |)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnKinAK

Romney has 856 Delegates and needs 288 more delegates to secure the nomination. Ron Paul could get 70% of all the remaining delegates (over 900) and Romney would still win.

Is this possible? No

Is it delusional, bordering on insanity to even suggest that it is possible? Yes

I am no Romney fan, but facts are facts.


4 posted on 05/07/2012 9:35:06 AM PDT by BushCountry (I hope the Mayans are wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BushCountry

Is this possible? No

Is it delusional, bordering on insanity to even suggest that it is possible? Yes

___________________________________________________________

Read the whole article and you’ll see many of those Romney pledged Delegates are being filled by Paul supporters. And these delegates may abstain from voting on the first round, preventing Romney from winning on the first vote.


5 posted on 05/07/2012 9:38:12 AM PDT by JohnKinAK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JohnKinAK

No wonder the GOP is called The Stupid Party. Yeah, let’s have Grandpa Ron Paul as the nominee. Obama is salivating at this scenario.


6 posted on 05/07/2012 9:38:21 AM PDT by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

For those of us in CA the primary is pretty much a joke...seems the nomination has already been determined by the eastern and southern states with a couple of western states tossed in for measure...so why should we even bother other than maybe a protest vote just for the hell of it? And as to ballot issues? Why bother with that either? Any time the legislature doesn’t like the way things go they scream violations and it is unconstitutional etc...
Apart from the weather in Central CA along the coast, CA has little to offer..but I am stuck here...so I may not even bother to vote at all until Nov.


7 posted on 05/07/2012 9:49:31 AM PDT by celtic gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

I’m sure Las Vegas will give anyone here odds that Ron Paul will not be the next GOP candidate. Put your money where your mouth is.


8 posted on 05/07/2012 9:53:49 AM PDT by kempo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JohnKinAK

Porcine Airlines will fly first...


9 posted on 05/07/2012 10:07:32 AM PDT by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

Hate to break this to ya...

Romney has no chance.

The people who make up the ground game are not with him. Hell, may not even vote for him (I wont be voting for him).

However...

No matter how flawed Ron Paul is he is NOT a socialist and therefore I can bring myself to vote for him. I would even work for his general election campaign.

With that being said...

There is no reason not to support this tactic, a brokered convention is simply the ONLY conceivable way we can keep the socialist/statist Romney off the ticket.

For those of you so called ABO types that say how much you dislike Romney but will vote for him over Obama... Well... Put your time and money where your GD mouth is and help create an opportunity to get someone other than that POS Romney on the ticket. Or are you, as I fully suspect, just paid romneybots or actual romney loyalists? (rhetorical question)


10 posted on 05/07/2012 10:10:28 AM PDT by myself6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

Given the choice between Obama lite (Romney) and Nut Job (Paul), I’d have to go with Nut Job.


11 posted on 05/07/2012 10:22:48 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BushCountry
Romney has 856 Delegates and needs 288 more delegates to secure the nomination. Ron Paul could get 70% of all the remaining delegates (over 900) and Romney would still win.
I may have misunderstood but i think the article is implying that of the 856 that Romney 'has' he may not actually have. And that it is possible to convince members of that 856 to either support another candidate or if they are legal bound to Romney to just not vote in the first round as they would not be breaking the law and not helping Romney. That being said I agree with you that this article is grasping at straws that just are not there.
12 posted on 05/07/2012 10:27:49 AM PDT by HenryArmitage (it was not meant that we should voyage far.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JohnKinAK

I don’t buy it. Paul’s fanatics always seem to have this secret foolproof strategy for winning even though they lost.

On the off chance this is legit ... it ain’t a good thing. I don’t like Romney or Paul — but neither will beat Barack Obama if the Republican Party looks like a banana republic. International embarrassment doesn’t help electoral prospects.

SnakeDoc


13 posted on 05/07/2012 10:28:57 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("I've shot people I like more for less." -- Raylan Givens, Justified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnKinAK

Bummer for Paul he still has the plurality of votes in five states (not delegates) to even be considered, even with his games. If he doesn’t win the plurality and Romney exceeds the required pledged delegates (no matter how many ‘sleepers’ Paul slips in), his name won’t even be brought up nor will his ‘sleepers’ be given a chance.

There is also the issue the RNC is looking at punishing Paul for some of his games such as Nevada and Louisiana where they have deceived voters (false voter guides) or having their own people lie as to who they are supporting when pledging as a delegate.

All this shows is his camp is as deceptive as a Chicago politician.


14 posted on 05/07/2012 10:31:52 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BushCountry

Romney is a LYING CHEATER.

He does not have 856 delegates.

That said, Romney has no chance. Zero. Zed. Nada.


15 posted on 05/07/2012 10:32:45 AM PDT by Diogenesis ("Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. " Pres. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor

A GOP Brokered Convention isn’t nearly the “international embarassment” of what Obama has put us through.


16 posted on 05/07/2012 10:33:28 AM PDT by wolfman23601
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wolfman23601

Agreed. The public won’t see it that way ... the party name would change to “Banana Republicans” instantly.

This wouldn’t be a brokered convention in the normal sense. This would be one candidate hijacking-by-technicality delegates that, by actual party vote, were supposed to go to another.

SnakeDoc


17 posted on 05/07/2012 10:37:52 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("I've shot people I like more for less." -- Raylan Givens, Justified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JohnKinAK
So if Ron Paul manages to get his drug-addled followers to throw a monkey wrench into the GOP convention and the ensuing chaos is on display for the Left to mock and ridicule, does Paul expect some sort of gratitude or admiration?

Lunatic Libertarians have been trying for decades to tank the GOP so their party of drugs, porn and open borders can ascend. Fortunately, most people know there is an enormous difference between Republicans and Democrats.

18 posted on 05/07/2012 10:38:56 AM PDT by Deb (Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

I’m sure Las Vegas will give anyone here odds that Ron Paul will not be the next GOP candidate. Put your money where your mouth is.


19 posted on 05/07/2012 10:41:24 AM PDT by kempo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All

Me, I’m just hoping for the Shrieking Comet of Death to cause an extinction level event before ANY of the likely political debacles come to fruition.


20 posted on 05/07/2012 10:49:06 AM PDT by LegendHasIt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnKinAK

Pipe dreams. If a state GOP delegation is pledged to vote for Romney, it will vote for Romney despite what individual delegates want. The delegation won’t be given a chance to vote on it. The leader of the state will, when his state is called, recite the agreed to delegate vote count. Paul’s sneak delegates will not be recognized. They can lay down on the floor and stamp their feet, whatever, they will not be recogized.


21 posted on 05/07/2012 11:14:36 AM PDT by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnKinAK

The bottom line here is not “is this possible?”, or even if this is a good thing or not.

The bottom line is that if this *does* happen, then what?

If the onerous Romney fails in the first ballot, that is the end for him. He will not get a second chance. But this does *not* mean that Paul will win, either.

Or Santorum, or Gingrich.

What it *does* mean is that the real conservative leaders out there, who have been relatively quiet so far, had better be lining up a real conservative who is acceptable enough to those delegates, 60-70% of whom will likely be conservative, to win the nomination.

So far I’ve seen a list of about a dozen who have been in the background, very quietly, and not thrown their hat in the ring. But I also have to assume that eight to ten of this dozen will refuse the opportunity for the job.

This leaves one or two that are not just “nihil obstat”, but who are such reliable conservatives that they can take the convention.

Granted, they cannot enter “clean”. They will have to give some iron clad promises, in writing, to the conservative king makers. But these should not be objectionable to their core values.

In return, they may also demand support from congressional leaders.


22 posted on 05/07/2012 11:16:36 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deb

“Lunatic Libertarians have been trying for decades to tank the GOP”

The GOP sure doesn’t need any help in that regard, it does just fine on its own.


23 posted on 05/07/2012 11:17:36 AM PDT by ScottfromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ScottfromNJ

Gee, great comeback.


24 posted on 05/07/2012 11:28:44 AM PDT by Deb (Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
Ron Paul supporters think they are going to do for the GOP what McGovern supporters did to the Democrat party back in 1972.

Unfortunately, there is one big difference: McGovern actually won a number of primaries back in 1972.

Ron Paul didn't manage to with single primary with the possible exception of the irrelevant state of Maine.

Still, it would be good theater and possibly force the GOP to adopt a couple of overdue rules changes:

  1. If delegates wish to abstain from voting for whomever it was they were elected to support on the first ballot, then they forfeit their position as a delegate and are replaced by an alternate. They get to make their statement, but they also get to pay a price for violating their pledge.
  2. Delegate allocation rules should be changed to award a lot more to states which regularly deliver electoral votes to the GOP at the expense of those which seldom, if ever, do. DC, for instance, deserves fewer delegates than American Samoa since there is a remote chance that American Samoa might someday become a state and actually deliver electoral votes to the GOP. There is zero chance DC ever will.

25 posted on 05/07/2012 11:49:50 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

Delusional nutjob wrote this article and he has followers. Haa, haa...

Again, I am not a supporter of Romney, but jeez... Romney will win at least 750 of the remaining delegates handily, odds are plenty more. 856 + 750 = 1,606 Delegates at a minimum. Ron Paul would have to steal over 450 Delegates from him at the minimum (more than he will have earned through votes). Which is not going to happen on a planet where reality exist! On Ron Paul’s followers’ bizarro world it might.


26 posted on 05/07/2012 2:37:25 PM PDT by BushCountry (I hope the Mayans are wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JohnKinAK

At this point I’m: “go Ron Paul”!


27 posted on 05/07/2012 3:02:40 PM PDT by JSDude1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnKinAK

Ron Paul’s people are acting like the cheating; lying, backroom boys that they campaigned against.

The will of the voters (like their choices or not) in the primaries are being totally ignored now.


28 posted on 05/07/2012 3:34:12 PM PDT by HereInTheHeartland (We are the 53%. 47% of Americans pay no taxes; end the free ride...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

“No wonder the GOP is called The Stupid Party. Yeah, let’s have Grandpa Ron Paul as the nominee. Obama is salivating at this scenario.


Better than Mitt Romney. At least we know what Paul will do. With Romney, we have to hope that he’s as conservative as he is a liar. Funny how ABO only works for Romney and not for any other candidate. If Paul pulls this off, at a brokered convention ANYTHING could happen.


29 posted on 05/07/2012 8:59:16 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Let me tell ya tale ‘bout a man named Jeb,

Rich Southern folk always kept his family fed,

Then while out for a make or break vote,

He’s drafted for a job of significant note:

Presidency that is...POTUS...Commander-in-Chief.

Well next thing ya know ole’ Jeb is ‘45’,

Obama’s out and it ain’t no shuck ‘n jive,

Hey Jeb, D.C. is the place ya otta be!,

So he moved up North next to Hillary!,

Clinton that is...Secretary of State...wife of a President.

It’s the Jebberly Snowbillies!

Jeb Bush/Sarah Palin 2012.


30 posted on 05/07/2012 10:23:19 PM PDT by bigoil (Study Thy Nixon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: bigoil

I think Jeb would be refused by conservatives, because of his family.

H.W. violated his “Read my lips...” pledge, for pragmatic reasons; but that was nothing compared to what W. Bush did.

Granted, America had been attacked, and while W. Bush did “take the fight to the enemy”, he also “brought the fight home” *against* ordinary honest American citizens. This was a grotesque abuse against the constitution and America itself and will not be forgiven.

In short, on a “theory” of protecting Americans from foreign terrorists, he turned America into a minimum security prison. An intolerable abuse of power. And it has forever tainted the Bush family.

Broad sections of the Patriot Act, for example, were from the start used almost exclusively against ordinary Americans both for non-terrorism related investigations, or just fishing expeditions, when they were suspected of nothing.

America has 16 major intelligence agencies, and now well over 100 federal police agencies. While they should be directed outward at our enemies, instead they are directed inward against us. And much of the fault for this lies squarely with W. Bush.

The loss to our freedom and liberty has been horrific, and it will be generations before they can be fully restored.

This is one of the big appeals of Ron Paul, who despite his wacky foreign policy ideas, does have a very good idea about restoring balance and reason to the federal government through massive reductions in its size, power and authority.

While he personally will never become president, hopefully he will create an opening for a serious conservative who will carry out many of his ideas (while forgetting the odder ones.)

His people do seem to be masterful at short range infighting, which we can but hope will derail the nomination of the onerous Romney. If that is achieved, though he never holds our highest office, America will be deeply indebted to Paul.


31 posted on 05/08/2012 6:15:55 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: JohnKinAK; All
Let me say right from the outset that I cannot support Ron Paul based on his views of national defense.

Period.

The fact, however, is that Ron Paul **HAS** managed to take control of a number of district and state conventions and has racked up a bunch of delegates. His people are well-organized and now that everyone else has suspended their campaigns, he could possibly conduct an under-the-radar campaign that successfully causes serious trouble.

It shows just how bad things have gotten that Ron Paul — who is the Lyndon LaRouche of the Republican Party in 2012, not Ronald Reagan in 1976 or George McGovern in 1972 — has more ability to damage Romney right now than any credible Republican candidate.

The main thing this would do would be to de-legitimize the Republican Party by making us look like the chaos of the last national convention of the Reform Party when Pat Buchanan managed to get the nomination.

Some people may think total chaos at the convention with national media wall-to-wall coverage is a good thing. As long as a parliamentary brawler like Newt Gingrich with a legitimate record of parlaying backbench politics into top leadership as Speaker was in charge, I was willing to go along with the argument that a chaotic convention could be defended as “democracy in action.” After all, while I wasn't a Gingrich supporter, he had more than two decades of legitimate leadership work, knows his American political history up one side and down the other, and could make a case for a brokered convention.

At this later date, show me how utter chaos caused by Ron Paul supporters would help anyone except Barack Obama and I'll listen. I don't see it.

32 posted on 05/08/2012 1:24:48 PM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BushCountry

Also don’t forget there are a few hundred delegates that go the convention as unpledged because of their state leadership roles. Does anyone think these are going to vote Paul when in effect they are many of the ones ranted against here, GOPE , etc?


33 posted on 05/08/2012 1:43:06 PM PDT by deport (.............God Bless Texas............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina

Since you against Paul’s national defense you might see why he gets support from those wanting to end America’s role as world policeman and nation builder.

A PRO-AMERICA FOREIGN POLICY

As an Air Force veteran, Ron Paul believes national defense is the single most important responsibility the Constitution entrusts to the federal government.

In Congress, Ron Paul voted to authorize military force to hunt down Osama bin Laden and authored legislation to specifically target terrorist leaders and bring them to justice.

Today, however, hundreds of thousands of our fighting men and women have been stretched thin all across the globe in over 135 countries – often without a clear mission, any sense of what defines victory, or the knowledge of when they’ll be permanently reunited with their families.

Acting as the world’s policeman and nation-building weakens our country, puts our troops in harm’s way, and sends precious resources to other nations in the midst of an historic economic crisis.

Taxpayers are forced to spend billions of dollars each year to protect the borders of other countries, while Washington refuses to deal with our own border security needs.

Congress has been rendered virtually irrelevant in foreign policy decisions and regularly cedes authority to an executive branch that refuses to be held accountable for its actions.

Far from defeating the enemy, our current policies provide incentive for more to take up arms against us.


34 posted on 05/08/2012 2:05:08 PM PDT by ex-snook ("above all things, truth beareth away the victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
Ex-Snook, I do understand the issues with Rep. Paul and national defense. For me, this is a Romans 13 issue affecting the primary purpose of government. I realize that Rep. Paul's position is more or less the older pre-World War II “fortress America” view of isolationism, which was once standard Republican Party politics, with avoiding entanglement in foreign alliances. I do not believe that is a viable position any longer given modern technology (i.e., ICBMs) and the current situation with international affairs.

Under the current environment I'd rather not throw stones at Rep. Paul. Nobody else is left out there trying to stop Mitt Romney, but his campaign is not one I can support.

If someone else wants to do so, that's their call.

35 posted on 05/08/2012 2:26:59 PM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson