It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Politics/Legislation/Elections => Topic started by: IronDioPriest on May 14, 2012, 02:41:46 PM
-
Ron Paul ends his hunt for votes (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/14/ron-paul-ends-his-hunt-votes/)
Rep. Ron Paul of Texas said Monday he will not compete in primaries in any of the states that have not yet voted — essentially confirming Mitt Romney will win the Republican presidential nomination.
Mr. Paul said he will continue to work to win delegates in states that have already voted and where the process of delegate-selection is playing out. He said that’s a way to make his voice heard at the Republican nominating convention in Tampa, Fla., in August.
“Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted,” Mr. Paul said. “Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have.”
He did encourage his supporters to still turn out and vote.
His decision not to compete for new votes in other states leaves Mr. Romney as the only candidate still actively fighting for voters’ support in the 11 states still to vote. That list includes the biggest prizes on the board — Texas and California.
-
O rly. Did someone make him an offer he couldn't refuse?
-
Interesting. If he was concerned about money, he should have dropped out months ago. I wonder if this will deter his lunatic supporters?
-
Okay, based on this, the Paulbots over on Facebook are insisting that Paul has NOT dropped out.
read it and see what you think (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/05/14/ron-paul-statement-on-campaign-going-forward/)
“As I reflect on our 2012 Presidential campaign, I am humbled by the supporters who have worked so hard and sacrificed so much. And I am so proud of what we have accomplished. We will not stop until we have restored what once made America the greatest country in human history.
“This campaign fought hard and won electoral success that the talking heads and pundits never thought possible. But, this campaign is also about more than just the 2012 election. It has been part of a quest I began 40 years ago and that so many have joined. It is about the campaign for Liberty, which has taken a tremendous leap forward in this election and will continue to grow stronger in the future until we finally win.
“Our campaign will continue to work in the state convention process. We will continue to take leadership positions, win delegates, and carry a strong message to the Republican National Convention that Liberty is the way of the future.
“Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted. Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have. I encourage all supporters of Liberty to make sure you get to the polls and make your voices heard, particularly in the local, state, and Congressional elections, where so many defenders of Freedom are fighting and need your support.
“I hope all supporters of Liberty will remain deeply involved – become delegates, win office, and take leadership positions. I will be right there with you. In the coming days, my campaign leadership will lay out to you our delegate strategy and what you can do to help, so please stay tuned.
For Liberty,
Ron Paul.”
-
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
-
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Me too. He's going to stop campaigning and is encouraging his followers to work behind the scenes at the delegate level to move the GOP towards a constitutional liberty agenda.
-
to move the GOP towards a constitutional liberty agenda
That's such a crazy idea ::)
-
to move the GOP towards a constitutional liberty agenda
That's such a crazy idea ::)
Don't be ridiculous. That isn't the problem that (most) conservatives have with Ron Paul, and you know it. There is a reason that Ron Paul was once a Libertarian. He is more libertarian than conservative in his ideology. There is also a reason that he switched to the Republican Party. He couldn't get elected as a Libertarian.
-
I always get confused about the conservative thing.
What is a conservative?
And is the GOP a bastion of constitutional liberty?
-
I always get confused about the conservative thing.
What is a conservative?
And is the GOP a bastion of constitutional liberty?
The piece you posted above, written by a Paultard, makes no sense to me, and you can't explain it either. Just suffice it to say that you are obviously not interested in any type of discussion, so I'll just move on. It's not my job to educate you.
-
Don't let the door...
-
One of us doesn't seem to be interested in discussing it, Janny
It's not my job to educate you.
But, you can discuss it
The issue of what a conservative is has come up here before.
To my knowledge, it has never been defined.
Neocons, Socons and all other types of cons call themselves conservative.
I have major disagreements with Ron Paul.
Especially in foreign policy and lax on immigration
But, I also have problems with the endless wars that many conservatives espouse.
-
As far as I can tell Paul (or his campaign) is realizing (finally!) that he has zero (0) chance of winning in a straight-up race. He isn't going to quit however since he can still throw a monkey-wrench into the works and further advance the prospects of Øbozo.
edit: altard-proofed
-
Don't let the door...
I don't like you either. You are one of the main reasons that I don't post much here. You enjoy being deliberately obtuse. The only thing that is more difficult for me to tolerate than downright stupidity is people who are deliberately obtuse, like you and your bud.
See ya 'round, champ! I won't be back. That will no doubt make you happy.
-
That's always the scare, that he could really screw things up.
On the other hand he could help push Romney to the right.
I think he meant what he said in his speech about what he is
going to do as far as why he quit, 'that it would take too much
money' sounds similar to the tried and true 'I quit to in order to
spend more time with my family' type of answer. It would be
comforting to know he was "bought off" by Romney for the sum
of his campaign debt and the job of Sec of the Treasury.
Oh, Lucy in the sky with diamonds.
-
Perhaps I am the one who is being obtuse but I do not see what AP or CO did or said that justify Janny's reaction/exit.
-
Perhaps I am the one who is being obtuse but I do not see what AP or CO did or said that justify Janny's reaction/exit.
I think Janny got taken over by a Pod some time ago.
Seriously, I think the implications of what is going on are too stressful for some people to deal with. I know I feel that way some days. Janny used to come and share her opinions along with the rest of us, but right before her last departure - and now this one - she seemed more interested in lashing out than in understanding that we're all dealing with the same concerns, our differences in approach and conclusions notwithstanding. We had a similar situation with GScott quite some time ago. Sometimes people conflate strong disagreement with personal animosity, and it goes downhill from there.
Charles, obtuse? That is about the last adjective I would use. So last, that it would never occur to me to use it.
Thanks for your patience, AP, and you too Charles.
Take care Janny. Hope things go well for you.
-
I hope I didn't drive her away.
I neither meant to offend or anger.
But, I will stick to my guns if I feel I'm somewhat correct and apologize profusely when I am wrong
Given the fact that we all care deeply for the country and where it's headed, we don't always agree on the specifics.
-
Don't let the door...
!!!!!
-
Still, I would prefer not to lose a member. We have precious few.
-
Don't let the door...
!!!!!
My response was to Paul pulling out not Janny.
-
Still, I would prefer not to lose a member. We have precious few.
I agree but nothing happened here that can't be worked out.
-
I hope I didn't drive her away.
I neither meant to offend or anger.
But, I will stick to my guns if I feel I'm somewhat correct and apologize profusely when I am wrong
Given the fact that we all care deeply for the country and where it's headed, we don't always agree on the specifics.
None of us have the power to drive anyone away with the exception of a ban for ToS violation. People are here or not here of their own volition. If she chooses to leave, it is not because you drove her, it's because she made a choice.
Your intentions were obvious to all others, and damn right you stick to your guns. She's the one who had the issue, not you or Charles or anybody else. I'm sorry to see her go too, but hey... whatevah. Eggshell-walking can happen somewhere else.
-
Still, I would prefer not to lose a member. We have precious few.
I agree but nothing happened here that can't be worked out.
She took her ball and went home, JF, so I don't think there will be anything worked out. I appreciate your optimism, though.
-
What the frack was that? CO gets lit up of all people?
I guess I missed an opportunity to pipe up last night!
Anyway, BOT, I am with you AP...I would add my concerns over certain social policies and and Paul's habit of attracting virulent Jew-haters to the list, he is first and foremost a person who is at least trying to get people to remain inside constitutional boundaries and wants a return to sanity in our fiscal and monetary policies.
Having said that I am not sure what he has to gain by refusing to endorse Romney or continue a delegate battle he is not likely to win. He could be holding out for a better deal at the convention as to speaking slot and/or cabinet post...but, I think he is too weak to manage his own followers who would likely go apesh*t if he took the traditional route of endorsing and campaigning for the leading candidate.
-
Paul certainly does attract some loons. But to have Liberty, we may need to put up with that as long as those loons indulge me. As long as we don't interfere with each other
He is naive in much of his foreign policy and, as I said, very weak on immigration.
But, I'm sure we could close quite a few bases and stop being the world's policeman as well as much of the endless wars
Domestically, and on the economy, he is far and away the only one who has a chance to salvage this sinking ship.
Returning to States rights and the Constitutional role of the Feds seems like like a good idea to me.
I never understood the fear that he brings to many of us.
Here and elsewhere.
Someone that scared the hell out of me was Santorum.
He was ready to start a new war on 1/21/13. He was big and bigger govenment and wanted to meddle in my life and yours.
I know that I'm not a full blown Libertarian. But have some tendencies.
Reducing the size of government is a great idea on so many levels.
He was the only one who had that message.
As far as what he had to gain?
Perhaps a true Paulistinian could answer better than me.
I can speculate, though.
Influencing the Repub party, getting the message out about Freedom and Constitutionalism and the Federal Reserve.
There are some who question the delegate counts that are out there.
I don't think he believes he can get the nomination. But, possibly, stop Romney on the first ballot
-
Yeah, not sure what Paul hopes to gain, it's speculation and all we have to go on is past performance, which has been pretty relaibly independent of the GOP. It has to rankle even non-Ruling Class Repub's that a guy who is more maverick than J-Mac ever hoped to be is out there doing his thing and yet has nominal membership in the GOP. But, bottom line I don't think much will change from now to the close of the convention, so this is purely a discussion for future reference.
My only remaining point about Paul is, even if he won the nomination outright what natural constituency exists that makes even the most ardent Paul supporter think any pieces let alone a few key peices of his policies could be implemented? He would have to be the anti-Obama in policy while being the equal of Obama in issuing executive orders in order to get his agenda going...so we would have traded a hard-left despot for a right-of-center despot. I don't mean to imply Paul is a despot I am merely looking for a common term to highlight what would have to be done for him to have any success. Hell, Boehner & Mytch bend over rock-ribbed conservatives all the time...Paul Ryan was absolutely raped last August...these guys are going to play nice with Paul? Ending the Fed, getting departments shut down, etc? Not under these clowns.
I think even if Palin would have swept the primaries and trounced Stymie in the general that she would have found to going tough in repealling/ending/eliminating all that is necessary.
All we are talking about is various degrees of slowing the decline vs speeding it up...I am willing to entertain the idea of Paul getting the big chair only so far as it stands to reason that Congress would block his more aggresive moves, which thankfully might include some of his goofier foreign policy, immigration and social views...
But I don't think he has a chance so, there we are.
-
Paul certainly does attract some loons.
Paul is a loon. No serious player gave him a 2nd glance because he was a non-starter. If in the bizarro world that could ever possibly elect someone as goofy as he is ever actually did the deed we would be lamenting the return of Øbozo. What?! you say?
Øbozo is a hyper-partisan and affords zero representation to anyone except his cronies. But even at that the wheels continue to creak along. Paul is a whack-job and has no cronies. No one - left or right - would work with him (and vise-versa). The dysfunctionality he would bring to our government would redefine gridlock to look like a bullet-train.
No thanks - we got problems enough as it is.
-
If they had gridlocked Obama we'd be in a lot better shape today.
-
Boehner & Mytch made sure something got done...
::gaah::
-
Soup, you make it sound like gridlock is a bad thing.
-
I'd have taken pure gridlock over the ankle-grabbing the GOP leaders did in a heartbeat!
-
LINK (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/15/pssst-ron-paul-has-already-won/)
In the past few days alone, several incidents cast the campaign in an unfavorable light: Mitt Romney’s son Josh was booed off the stage by Paul backers in Arizona on Saturday, and Romney surrogates Tim Pawlenty and Gov. Mary Fallin received similarly rude treatment in Oklahoma. They were the latest in a string of recent disruptions from Maine to Alaska that threatened to tarnish Paul’s legacy and marginalize the ideas he believes will one day dominate the Republican Party.
“It concerns him,” campaign chairman Jesse Benton told POLITICO. “He wants to convey to everybody and our staff want to convey that we’ll lose more than we gain if we go and we’re disrespectful. Respect and decorum are very important to Dr. Paul.”
“You need to give respect to get respect,” he added. “We are confident that there will be mutual respect at the convention. We want to make sure that we take every step we can to make sure that happens.”
Paul will retire from the House at the end of this year, and his son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, is widely expected to run for president in 2016 as a Republican. Against that backdrop, the Paul high command worries about Pyrrhic victories: hostile takeovers at state conventions that win hordes of delegates but generate a backlash that could hurt the younger Paul in four years and prevent up-and-coming libertarians from obtaining positions of leadership in local parties.
So there ya go - seems like he wants to do damage to Romney and in the long run I guess, help Obama win a 2nd term.
-
Not sure if it's that, BMG.
Rand is pretty young.
The 2016 thing is a comment by the writer, I believe.
BTW, I also think Rand is more pragmatic than the old man.
Possibly, Paul just has some principles and wants to see the GOP have some
-
I read it that some of his skinhead followers are out of control
and Paul and his people are trying to get them in line. I believe
he sincerely wants his son to succeed as much or more than to
himself scoring a point today. He believes his son is a continuance
of himself therefore his biggest success will be Rand's.
-
Guess I just ain't convinced AP. If you're thinking he won't do anything too deleterious because the poo would stick to Rand as well, I donno. Politicians all over the country fling their crap left and right and it never seems to stick to their progeny. Murkowski, Clinton, etc. I don't see any kind of an overwhelming chance that if Ron Paul did something like I'm thinking that the stink of it would rub off on Rand Paul.
I could be wrong and you could be right of course. About all we can do about it is wait and see. Though I hope that Ron Paul isn't as big an a$$hole as I'm currently suspecting. So I hope I'm wrong and you're right. ;)
-
Possibly, Paul just has some principles and wants to see the GOP have some
I think that sums up the man in a nutshell. I don't know how anyone looks at Ron Paul and sees anything BUT a principled man. Principle above politics defines the man and his entire career. In the vacuum of principle known as Washington DC, it is no wonder that a man who over decades consistently means what he says and says what he means has garnered a hardcore of support.
It so happens that he has a few principles with which I disagree vehemently. But while I'm sure political calculation legacy, and his son's future are somewhere on his priority list I don't think they occupy a place on the list where direct conflict with first principles is much of an issue.
-
I'm with you 100%, IDP.
Although the ideas of ending foreign aid, closing bases and bringing all the boys home, and Iran has a "right" to a bomb are probably correct in an ideal world, we don't live in an ideal world.
Our enemies don't hold those same beliefs.
Avoiding foreign entanglements was a lot easier in George Washington's time.
The world was a lot smaller back then.
My personal position is somewhere between Ron Paul's and the present situation.
All those bases and soldiers overseas remind me of outposts of an empire.
I know about forward deployment
Europe should be paying their own way, for example.
All those wars aren't about defending your interest and mine.
They are to protect some American interests but seldom the average American.
Iran may have the "right" to have the bomb. Same as a 6 year old has an inalienable right to bear arms. But, I wouldn't trust either to do the right thing.
I stand with Israel. They may not need us. I hear they have a bigger guy on their side than us.
My own view has changed a lot over the last few years.
I no longer think my country is always right in their foreign dealings.
Hell, we spend a lot of electrons here discussing what our government is doing to us, it's own citizens.
Why do we accept that they are bad for us here but good for us over there?
-
Well articulated AP, I find myself in agreement with much that you have said.