Ron Paul: I won’t spend any more money to contest primaries

posted at 4:01 pm on May 14, 2012 by Allahpundit

He hasn’t suspended his campaign but he says he won’t spend any more money to contest the upcoming primaries with Romney, preferring instead to focus on electing Paul supporters as delegates to the convention so that they can influence the platform. BuzzFeed has his full statement but here’s the key bit:

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.

Lest you’re inclined to interpret this as anything other than a concession, here’s what his heir apparent had to say last week:

“For all practical purposes, it is over. The numbers are there and Mitt Romney’s going to win the nomination,” Rand Paul said during an interview Thursday…

“I think he’ll be head and shoulders above [President Barack] Obama,” [Rand] Paul said. “Because [Romney has] sort of experienced the success of the American dream and President Obama is very much for deriding those who are successful and saying they’re not paying enough of their fair share, I think … the election in many ways will be about whether or not we still believe as a country … believe in economic mobility; whether we believe that our kids or ourselves could be successful and whether we want to divide up the shrinking pie and make things more fair or more egalitarian or whether or not we’re willing to accept that some people will make more money and by letting them make more money their success also creates more opportunity for the rest of us.”

There are only 11 primaries left and all but one — Utah, which was a lock for Romney from the start — will be held within the next 22 days. Why didn’t Paul hang in there and play out the string? I assume it’s because two of those 11 are Kentucky and Texas, the latter Paul’s home state and the former Rand’s. Santorum decided to quit before Pennsylvania to spare himself the bad press of a loss on his home field; Paul is taking a more middle-ground approach, trying to minimize the blow to Rand by declaring that he won’t contest those races but refusing to formally suspend so that his supporters still have reason to go to the polls and get him some delegates.

I go back and forth between thinking his campaign was a failure or a success. Last year it seemed like he might ride the big red tea-party wave from 2010 to a few primary upsets, especially given the base’s contempt for our likely nominee. Lots of things had broken in his favor since 2008: Debt and spending had moved to the top of the conservative agenda and four more years of war had made his dovishness far less of a liability on the right. Those upsets never happened but he did, I think, build on his 2008 effort to popularize the Paul brand. Four years ago, seeing isolationist libertarianism at the debates was a shock; this year, he was a familiar figure of whom everyone knew what to expect. Rand, of course, is the beneficiary, and he knows just what to do with his bequest. Re-read his solid pitch for Romney in the blockquote above. You won’t get that from his dad, who’s always been more of a “pox on both their houses” type vis-a-vis the major parites, but Rand’s positioning himself so that he was one foot in Paulworld and one in the mainstream of the GOP. If he can keep them there, he’ll be a player in 2016 or 2020.

Exit question: What exactly do the Paul delegates want from the GOP platform that won’t be in there anyway? I’m reasonably sure debt and spending will be covered regardless. Are we headed for a floor fight over … gay marriage? Man, that’s going to be some week of blogging.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

He was just too old.

Bmore on May 14, 2012 at 5:57 PM

shinty on May 14, 2012 at 5:51 PM

BS. “College kids hoping for legal pot…” What a damnable lie.

How was your time wasted? Because your slate LOST?

iwasbornwithit on May 14, 2012 at 5:57 PM

shinty on May 14, 2012 at 5:51 PM

BS. “College kids hoping for legal pot…” What a damnable lie.

How was your time wasted? Because your slate LOST?

iwasbornwithit on May 14, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Says the Ronulan…

SWalker on May 14, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Says the Ronulan…

SWalker on May 14, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Oh no. The guy who loves liberal Mitt Romney called me a “Ronulan”. Damn straight I am. I’d rather be a “Ronulan” than a “Romulan”.

Keep on voting for liberals though and see where that gets you.

iwasbornwithit on May 14, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Remember, Archiavix, Paul could be running as a 3rd party and knocking off Obama, but is instead choosing to sit out.

When the heat of battle is on, Paul will always undercut the most conservative camp.

shinty on May 14, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Take that three-way poll with a huge grain of salt. It was a single poll, possibly a severe outlier, that was not supported by any other evidence. Even worse, it could be lefties planting support for this dangerous idea.

It is true that most prominent Paulites are pot-loving college bodies but there are many intellectual heavyweights on his side, such as hedge fund people who are sick to the bone of progressive taxation and the Fed’s tyranny. Moreover, when those college bodies eventually grow up and get tired of the herb, they will face the choice; the kind of degenerate mockery that Hot Air frequents practice for kicks may force many of them to choose wrong.

Archivarix on May 14, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Ummm, never? [...]

Now, is there some dude on the internet that is saying that? Sure. But I don’t know if that is very relevant or credible. Most Ron Paul supporters despise Obama. They despise Romney almost as much because he is so much like Obama.

Just so. Look, Ron Paul’s brigade aren’t exactly natural GOP voters. You’re not going to get 100%, or 90%, or even 70% of them to vote for Romney, because part of Paul’s appeal is his non-mainstream orientation and Romney is the quintessence of middle-American decency.

But trust me on this: Paul voters will NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA. They will vote Romney, third-party, or stay home. If they can be brought over to our team then it’s a great net positive for us — and the things that would be necessary to get a critical number of them (with the energy they provide) would NOT really be a terrible concession for the GOP to make, or at least the GOP as I want it to be. If not, they stay home/vote 3rd-party.

But make no mistake: we wouldn’t be losing out on voters that used to vote GOP before. Paulbots are a new element in the voting ranks that Obama probably drew upon to a certain extent in 2008 (due to the ‘young cool hip historical’ factor) but won’t be getting anymore. Obama’s lost them, and that’s going to hurt him and help us no matter what. We can ADD to the hurt/help calculus by bringing some of them on board, though. (Bonus efffect: reorienting the GOP away from losing socon stances — note that I EXCLUDE abortion from this, as I think that’s a pretty basic and eternal issue — and towards winning fiscal ones that are only going to have more and more appeal.)

Folks, it’s all gravy for us here. If we get some of Paul’s people on board, it’s an extra vote for us. If we don’t, then hey: that’s still a vote that Obama’s lost.

Esoteric on May 14, 2012 at 6:06 PM

In some ways I supported Paul’s call to reduce “the police state” or whatever. We probably need the Patriot Act, though, but DRONES everywhere above us is a step too far. Forget the justification, even if drones save lives and money, and all that. Problem, the cost of privacy is greater than even the “saves a few lives” benefit. I don’t think the people will stand for it.

Today Jonathan Hunt to Sheppard Smith on Fox: “There could be as many as 30,000 of these drones flying above us… [talk about the benefits of the drones {yes, saves lives and $}] … but OBVIOUSLY the privacy concerns are HUGE, because they will in effect bring every single backyard into the authorities view. You’ve always had an expectation of privacy in your own backyard. You will no longer have that. (!!)”

Republicans, stand up against masses of drones buzzing above our own homes. Do it now! Start making noise about this.

anotherJoe on May 14, 2012 at 6:07 PM

And don’t be surprised if Ron Paul starts to pick up even more delegates now that the Romulans think that Ron has “suspended” his campaign. It wasn’t like he had any grassroots support to begin with, but this should pretty well kill it.

I’ll still be showing up to my state convention. How many Romulans will stay home instead?

iwasbornwithit on May 14, 2012 at 6:07 PM

His economic policies are not possible without his foreign policy. Paul is consistent in his philosophy.

fatlibertarianinokc on May 14, 2012 at 5:57 PM

And that’s exactly why I call him mad as a loon, and yet keep defending him on the forums. His foreign policy is as patently insane as Bush’s “nation building”, and I say so based on a decade of living in the Middle East. There will be no peace between Western and Islamic worlds until one side turns into radioactive cinders – and I’d rather be on the side that doesn’t.

Archivarix on May 14, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Folks, it’s all gravy for us here. If we get some of Paul’s people on board, it’s an extra vote for us. If we don’t, then hey: that’s still a vote that Obama’s lost.

Esoteric on May 14, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Romney might still be elected without the support of the Ronulans, but that is only because Obama is so incredibly bad. This is going to be decided by the swing states though, so I wouldn’t discount the need for the Paul supporters to vote Romney in order for him to win. Although I agree that a lot of them will not vote for Romney regardless of what he says between now and then, he could get a lot on board if he were to promise to audit the Fed, but he won’t because his top 5 contributors are knee-deep in the Fed.

There is going to be very little enthusiasm for either candidate and it’s hard to tell who that will hurt the most at this point. If I were Romney, I would make some significant gesture towards the Ronulans because he will most likely need a good portion of us in order to win, notwithstanding the fact that a good portion will also NEVER vote for him.

iwasbornwithit on May 14, 2012 at 6:15 PM

BS. “College kids hoping for legal pot…” What a damnable lie.

How was your time wasted? Because your slate LOST?

iwasbornwithit on May 14, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Let me put it to you this way, ‘withit…

I can tell the difference between someone who is in their 30′s & 40′s, most likely a taxpayer, someone wearing a wedding ring who looks tired from a long week at work…

…and someone in their late teens/early 20′s who seems to have a lot of energy (and nothing better to do) dropping by from the nearby college…

Look, I give the Paul people due credit. They took advantage of the system by teaming with supporters of the liberal Romney and were able to jam ‘St. Scrotum’ (as one of you calls him).

uh, congratulations, or whatever…

shinty on May 14, 2012 at 6:17 PM

This is the right thing to do. He’s just too old, and the ‘right’-wing, the ONLY ones who might possibly join him en masse, simply are too thickheaded to listen.

At this point Ron has done all he can really do.

MelonCollie on May 14, 2012 at 6:19 PM

What exactly do the Paul delegates want from the GOP platform that won’t be in there anyway
An end to war now until the end of the world. Oh and legalized drugs.

MFn G I M P on May 14, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Look, I give the Paul people due credit. They took advantage of the system by teaming with supporters of the liberal Romney and were able to jam ‘St. Scrotum’ (as one of you calls him).

uh, congratulations, or whatever…

shinty on May 14, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Bitter. That’s what I thought. Get used to it because we aren’t going anywhere. You might consider a third party.

iwasbornwithit on May 14, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Super PAC’s win primaries. Real people win delegates.

iwasbornwithit on May 14, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Although I agree that a lot of them will not vote for Romney regardless of what he says between now and then, he could get a lot on board if he were to promise to audit the Fed, but he won’t because his top 5 contributors are knee-deep in the Fed.

I would be happy to make a gentleman’s bet with you on this particular issue, IWBWI. Romney has already made some quiet noises towards getting on board with an “audit the Fed” plank in the GOP platform, and it would be perfectly consonant with his Bain Consulting background of going into a failing operation, overturning all the rocks, and rooting out the waste and inefficiency. I think it’s very, very likely that Mitt will not just ‘concede’ to an “audit the Fed” plank in the GOP platform, but actively welcome it.

BTW, I’d like to give you a little credit for being a reasonable Paulbot. Lord knows they can be an unruly bunch, especially on the internet. I can’t force you to look at the political stakes here the same way I do, but I respect your willingness to engage in the debate in good faith.

Esoteric on May 14, 2012 at 6:26 PM

They took advantage of the system by teaming with supporters of the liberal Romney and were able to jam ‘St. Scrotum’ (as one of you calls him).

shinty on May 14, 2012 at 6:17 PM

And for that alone I am grateful to Ron Paul and his supporters. Rick Santorum, his social conservatism notwithstanding, is a fiscal liberal and an apostle of the Big Government. That’s what matters to me.

Archivarix on May 14, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Of course he won’t. Just like every other cycle he builds up the safe deposit box and then claims workmans comp. Flim Flam to the n’th degree.

Limerick on May 14, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Talk radio for President!

dom89031 on May 14, 2012 at 6:35 PM

And for that alone I am grateful to Ron Paul and his supporters. Rick Santorum, his social conservatism notwithstanding, is a fiscal liberal and an apostle of the Big Government. That’s what matters to me.

I’ve spoken to a couple of Paul fans who quizzically asked me about the rumored (but empirically obvious) political alliance between Paul and Mitt during the primaries — they couldn’t quite understand it. And I explained it in two ways:

1.) Romney and Paul had more common ground that you might initially suspect given Mitt’s “Ward Cleaver” vibe and Ron Paul’s “cranky old rebel” schtick, particularly with respect to an understanding of business and economics, and a near-religious love for the Constitution. (For those who are unaware, Mormons are raised to believe that U.S. Constitution is a divinely inspired document, not just a mere ‘piece of paper’ — it’s a point of view that helps to explain both the overwhelming legal/constitutional conservatism of Mormons as well as the peculiar draw Paul had within Mormon circles.) Foreign policy is obviously a major area of disagreement, but then again that’s a disagreement that Paul and his supporters share with literally every single serious candidate in either party, so it’s actually something of a wash.

2.) LOOK AT THE OTHER ALTERNATIVES. As I said earlier, most Paul supporters I know aren’t exactly fans of Romney, but they give him a grudging measure of respect, possibly a reflection of Paul’s occasional praise for Mitt’s private sector skillz. But dear god they F**KING HATED RICK SANTORUM WITH A WHITE-HOT PASSION. And you know what? I would never go as far as they did, but man I can kind of agree with the basic thrust of their revulsion. Santorum literally announced, over and over again that he considered the libertarian strain of conservatism — a wing of the movement whose roots go all the way back to, as I referenced earlier, the famous William F. Buckley/Frank Meyer “fusionism” sparked by the founding of National Review — to be an evil virus within the party he would fight tirelessly against. I’d vote for a dead dog over Obama, but Jesus, I don’t want a guy like that as the representative of my party EITHER.

Esoteric on May 14, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Ron Paul DID NOT suspend or end his campaign.

The media, as usual, is assaulting him with lies and propaganda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzeoVUo1QCA&feature=youtu.be

fatlibertarianinokc on May 14, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Obamney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWDJEc92d38

dom89031 on May 14, 2012 at 8:56 PM

HE’D HAVE MY VOTE.

And if he breaks his pledge?

THEN WE’LL USE THE VIDEO TO DESTROY HIM.

fatlibertarianinokc on May 14, 2012 at 5:08 PM

OOOOhhh threats. He should be shaking in his boots.

He could care less about your vote. Go back to supporting obama

The Notorious G.O.P on May 14, 2012 at 9:02 PM

OOOOhhh threats. He should be shaking in his boots.

He could care less about your vote. Go back to supporting obama

The Notorious G.O.P on May 14, 2012 at 9:02 PM

When you consider that Romney and Obama could run on the same ticket, it makes your comment seem rather asinine and stupid.

Moron.

fatlibertarianinokc on May 14, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Esoteric on May 14, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Good gravy. This is like the third time I have tried to post this…it got screwed up twice…anyway.

Thanks! Likewise, BTW. I like to think I’m pretty easy to get along with when I’m not being accused of being a secret nazi or a junkie which happens in almost every post about Ron Paul.

I will take that bet and I hope that I lose!

iwasbornwithit on May 14, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Not many Dr Paul supporters showed.

Bmore on May 14, 2012 at 9:41 PM

And for that alone I am grateful to Ron Paul and his supporters. Rick Santorum, his social conservatism notwithstanding, is a fiscal liberal and an apostle of the Big Government. That’s what matters to me.
I’ve spoken to a couple of Paul fans who quizzically asked me about the rumored (but empirically obvious) political alliance between Paul and Mitt during the primaries — they couldn’t quite understand it. And I explained it in two ways:
1.) Romney and Paul had more common ground that you might initially suspect given Mitt’s “Ward Cleaver” vibe and Ron Paul’s “cranky old rebel” schtick, particularly with respect to an understanding of business and economics, and a near-religious love for the Constitution. (For those who are unaware, Mormons are raised to believe that U.S. Constitution is a divinely inspired document, not just a mere ‘piece of paper’ — it’s a point of view that helps to explain both the overwhelming legal/constitutional conservatism of Mormons as well as the peculiar draw Paul had within Mormon circles.) Foreign policy is obviously a major area of disagreement, but then again that’s a disagreement that Paul and his supporters share with literally every single serious candidate in either party, so it’s actually something of a wash.
2.) LOOK AT THE OTHER ALTERNATIVES. As I said earlier, most Paul supporters I know aren’t exactly fans of Romney, but they give him a grudging measure of respect, possibly a reflection of Paul’s occasional praise for Mitt’s private sector skillz. But dear god they F**KING HATED RICK SANTORUM WITH A WHITE-HOT PASSION. And you know what? I would never go as far as they did, but man I can kind of agree with the basic thrust of their revulsion. Santorum literally announced, over and over again that he considered the libertarian strain of conservatism — a wing of the movement whose roots go all the way back to, as I referenced earlier, the famous William F. Buckley/Frank Meyer “fusionism” sparked by the founding of National Review — to be an evil virus within the party he would fight tirelessly against. I’d vote for a dead dog over Obama, but Jesus, I don’t want a guy like that as the representative of my party EITHER.
Esoteric on May 14, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Excellent summary of the Ronulan view on Santorum. I don’t trust Romney but he didn’t call RP “dangerous” and said that he would support him if he were the nominee, unlike Gingrich and Santorum. Santorum went even further by stating his opposition to Goldwater and the libertarian wing of the GOP. I could not believe it when I heard him say those things just from a purely political perspective. You are trying to win the GOP nomination by insulting Goldwater? Seriously?

iwasbornwithit on May 14, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Last year it seemed like he might ride the big red tea-party wave from 2010 to a few primary upsets, especially given the base’s contempt for our likely nominee.

AP, you really don’t understand the Tea Party if you think that constitutional conservatives would unite behind Paul. A few, maybe, but most Tea Party members are not libertine libertarians and definitely don’t support his isolationist policies, replete with laughable Chinese troops occupying Texas analogies.

AZfederalist on May 14, 2012 at 10:59 PM

AP, you really don’t understand the Tea Party if you think that constitutional conservatives would unite behind Paul. A few, maybe, but most Tea Party members are not libertine libertarians and definitely don’t support his isolationist policies, replete with laughable Chinese troops occupying Texas analogies.

AZfederalist on May 14, 2012 at 10:59 PM

Any connection between the TEA Party and RP is a joke. The Paul crowd has tried to push that silly notion, and the liberal media went along with it with a nudge-nudge-wink-wink. It’s much like his claims of massive support from the military.

slickwillie2001 on May 14, 2012 at 11:51 PM

What exactly do the Paul delegates want from the GOP platform that won’t be in there anyway?

Because the Republicans have yet to prove that they’re serious about cutting debt and spending. So far, they talk the talk but don’t walk the walk. See the vote about the Ex-Im bank as an example.

It’s not just the debt and spending either, it’s overbearing intrusive regulation that taking away our freedoms. The EPA, the Dept of Education, and the militarization of the police are just some examples.

We need as much libertarian influence in the Republican Party as we can get. It’s really too bad Gary Johnson took the Libertarian Party candidacy. He would have easily won the Senate seat from New Mexico and would have been a great partner for Rand Paul and other true fiscally conservative limited government senators.

Common Sense on May 15, 2012 at 12:04 AM

I’ll still either be writing in Ron Paul or voting Gary Johnson. Choices, choices, choices….

RightXBrigade on May 15, 2012 at 12:27 AM

What Romney would have to do to win my vote:

1. Rescind his support for the NDAA of 2012, or at lest sections 1021 and 1022. We don’t restore the Constitution by blatantly violating it. And don’t give me any of that “we can totally trust the government with vaguely defined powers” guff.

2. Stop saying bone-headed things like “if we cut gov’t spending, the economy will shrink.” That’s Keynesian philosophy, and while it’s really popular with the political class, it has been falsified to a hideously embarrassing degree by the “stagflation” of the 1970′s. In addition, people who think that the economy is best managed by a central authority in any way (including monetary policy) don’t really believe in the free market. Further, while taxes are onerous on an economy, it is the gov’t spending where the real distortions occur, since incentive to gear production toward gov’t-demanded goods and services accompany the obvious economic loss due to government consumption and waste.

3. Declare that any social issues (abortion, same-sex marriage) should be handled by state and local governments. The Federal Government does not have the Constitutional authority to interfere in such issues.

4. Promise to veto any legislation that grants the Federal Gov’t power beyond the restrictions that the Constitution is supposed to impose.

cavalier973 on May 15, 2012 at 1:01 AM

So, you are still giving away your vote. The Dems like people like you.

Voter from WA State on May 15, 2012 at 1:12 AM

Well I can’t support someone who won’t do anything about the NDAA, PATRIOT Act, Dept of Education, TSA, restore habeus corpus, cut spending, and leave me alone. I guess that kind of narrows it down…

RightXBrigade on May 15, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Obamney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWDJEc92d38

dom89031 on May 14, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Very cute. We know that Romney is a rino. We know he’s even got some socialist issues, and is far from a prize. Unlike Obama though, we have a CHANCE at steering Romney in the right direction.

Romney wasn’t even my third choice, but here we are, at the fork in the road for America’s future, and one of these two men-Romney or Obama will be our next president. Anyone who has done any decent amount of research, knows that acting as if this a tough decision is SHEER LUNACY. This frankly, is the kind of talk that should have you making an appointment with ahem…your doctor.
Here is just a simple, sample list-(and there is PLENTY more) in no particular order-we can say that:

1) Romney is not a Marxist-communist. Yes I realize that statement will have some who just woke up after a *5 year sleep wringing their hands, shaking their heads, and perhaps even laughing. If you don’t get this one by now…what can I say, other than you’ve really been sheltered. (*5, because many of us knew this about a year prior to the election)

2) Romney would not promise Russia “more flexibility” at all, including when he thought he could be sneaky about it.

3) Romney does want to “fundamentally change” America. This is not the job of any President, so he shouldn’t. Why would anyone want to change the greatest country in the world anyhow?

4) Romney would not trash the constitution, multiple times. Romney would not write a book criticizing the U.S. constitution saying “it didn’t do enough for people”

5) Romney would not have a bunch of socialists, Marxists, communists, and even two Maoists working in his administration. He wasn’t reared buy them either. He didn’t have a communist father (Barack Sr.) or a communist childhood mentor (Frank Marshall Davis). Romney did not “seek out Marxist professors” while in college, and then write a book about it telling us he did so.

6) Romney did not sit in a church for 20 years where a radical, racist, Marxist, anti-American so-called Pastor presided. Romney was not involved with three other equally radical “pastors” either, as Obama was.

7) Romney doesn’t/wouldn’t try to divide people by both class warfare and racial issues. He would not do countless things to incite jealousy, envy and covetousness.

8) Romney would not run up our national debt more than the first 43 U.S. presidents COMBINED, in ONE TERM.

9) Romney would not get on national television to claim capitalism a failure, as Obama claimed “We tried the free markets (capitalism) and it failed” when in reality he and his administration have been sawing off it’s legs, only so they could usher in its replacement-some form of socialist government.

10) Romney would not bend over backwards to please and appease Muslims both at home and abroad.

11) Romney is far superior at running a business, while Obama was a “community organizer” (aka street hustler). Romney would be better for the economy in many ways.

12) Romney would not be anti-drilling for our own oil, so we wouldn’t have to buy from terrorists who want to kill us.

13) Romney would be much more likely to secure our borders.

14) Romney would not advance the Gay agenda, the abortion agenda, and the Atheist agenda that has become so prevalent with liberals.

15) Romney would not have the main stream liberal media covering up, or sugar-coating his every move-regardless of how dangerous it might be for the country. Quite the contrary we’d know once again, if Romney sneezed crooked.

16) The Romney administration would not sue individual states for trying to secure their borders.

17) The Romney administration would not act as protectionists for the radical racist New Black Panther Party. The New Black Panthers had endorsed Obama, and at one time their seal was on the White House site.

18) The Romney administration would not give thousands of guns to Mexico, to create the illusion that tougher gun laws are needed. (Fast and Furious)

19) Romney has no plans at decreasing our nuclear weapon stockpile.

20) Romney did not start his political career in the home of a domestic, unrepentant terrorist named Bill Ayers. One of COUNTLESS, anti-capitalist, anti-American people in Obama’s life.

21) Romney would be very unlikely to get numerous endorsements from Muslim groups from 2008 to present day as well as Hamas (yes-THAT Hamas)

22) The Muslim Brotherhood would not be working in the Mitt Romney administration

23) Romney would not appoint radical, anti-constitution judges to the Supreme Court.

24) Romney is not tied to voter fraud group Acorn (still around, just different name) and criminal thug unions.

25) Romney did not go on VIDEO, and say his cap and trade plans will cause electricity and all energy rates, REGARDLESS OF INDUSTRY, to SKYROCKET.

26) Romney will most likely NOT get an endorsement from the communist Party USA (cpusa.org)

27) Romney would most likely not get an endorsement from Columbian FARC Marxist terrorists.

28) Romney is not responsible, nor does he support those (Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, Maxine Waters, et. al.) who were involved with the COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT, which is what caused the LARGEST PART of our financial crisis.

29) Romney is not a student of the teachings of Saul Alinsky, the radical socialist “community organizer” whose book “Rules for Radicals” was dedicated to no less than Lucifer himself.

30) Romney would treat our ally-Israel, GOD’S PEOPLE, much better.

31) Romney would be very unlikely to have an ENEMIES LIST.

32) Romney would not travel around the world and bow and apologize to leaders of other countries, including those who are hostile to us!

dave_ross on May 15, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Comment pages: 1 2