Heart Ache. The dream of a Ron Paul presidency is “smoked”

posted at 5:01 pm on July 15, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

Lest we forget, the Republican presidential primary is still going on. Well, sort of. Technically, anyway. And even in July there were still a few details to be worked out in accordance with the arcane rules of the party for this summer’s convention. One of those was whether or not Ron Paul’s name could be placed in contention for the nomination on the convention floor, giving the Texas congressman essentially a free ticket to speak to the crowd. This weekend, while few people were paying attention, it looks like the last nail was hammered in that coffin.

It looks like Ron Paul isn’t going to be officially nominated for the presidency in Tampa.

His backers failed to win a plurality of delegate slots at the Nebraska GOP convention Saturday, leaving the Texas congressman short of the support necessary to have his name placed into contention at the national convention.

According to national party rules, a candidate needs a plurality of the delegates in at least five states to have his name presented for the nomination – by falling short in Nebraska, the last state to hold its convention, Paul came up one state short.

As you will recall, while never in serious contention for the overall nomination, Paul’s supporters were incredibly effective in a number of states. It wasn’t just their ability to get out the vote, but years of experience with the byzantine rules of the caucus states and the ability to wring every last drop of support out of the local power structure.

Nebraska was bracing for the same “chaos” as it’s described in the article, but in the end it simply didn’t materialize. It would appear that too many of the adults in the room were well aware that the race was over, that it was time to get behind the nominee, and that to allow another stunt like the ones Paul’s people had pulled before would do nothing but embarrass the GOP. At this point it’s difficult to see what role, if any, Ron Paul will play at the convention now.


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 3

Blaxpac:

Just because Paul’s policies are not popular does not mean he lacks credibility. Look at the dunce who was elected; not only was he popular, he had no credibility. Your argument is that if he was meant to be president he would have been by now, or, I people liked him they would have voted for him to be POTUS. I don’t think this is reason to believe he couldn’t do a decent job. A majority of Americans elected a man purely based on popularity. Does that make him qualified?

(I would have quoted you but I can’t from my phone)

RDE2010 on July 16, 2012 at 9:36 AM

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 the President 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 TWO endorsements (second in 2010) 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 July 16, 2012 at 9:38 AM

That long list if for the “No difference between Obama and Mitt Romney” IDIOTS.

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM

That long list if for the “No difference between Obama and Mitt Romney” IDIOTS.

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM

OK! Where are the links proving ANY of that?

Would you like for me to probide links to news stories proving you wrong on most points here? One and three would face a tough challenge thanks to Romneycare, the Mass. health bill that relied on more Medicare which ALL TAXPAYERS In EVERY STATE pay into.

DannoJyd on July 16, 2012 at 10:11 AM

That long list if for the “No difference between Obama and Mitt Romney”

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM

There will be no real differences in policy between the two, just as there is no difference between Obama and Bush, or Bush and Clinton, or Clinton and Bush, or Bush and Reagan, etc.

Romney will just be a continuation of the same.

Dante on July 16, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Ron Paul is in the pocket of Big Tin Foil!!!!1!

Knott Buyinit on July 16, 2012 at 10:15 AM

So long and thanks for all the fish!

kirkill on July 16, 2012 at 10:20 AM

That long list if for the “No difference between Obama and Mitt Romney” IDIOTS.

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM

No claims that there is “no difference”. We claim that the differences are marginal, at best. And on that point, it’s very accurate.

lorien1973 on July 16, 2012 at 10:26 AM

That long list if for the “No difference between Obama and Mitt Romney” IDIOTS.

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM
OK! Where are the links proving ANY of that?

Would you like for me to probide links to news stories proving you wrong on most points here? One and three would face a tough challenge thanks to Romneycare, the Mass. health bill that relied on more Medicare which ALL TAXPAYERS In EVERY STATE pay into.

DannoJyd on July 16, 2012 at 10:11 AM

These are mostly well known facts. You can’t compare a Marxist-communist radical to Mitt Romney-sorry, but if you want anyone to take you seriously-just stop…no really, STOP. As for links-sure I could provide for most if not all, but you Paulbots are much the same as commie libtards when it comes to links: Either you flat out refuse to believe them or you refuse to read them-so what’s the point. One last thing-on Romneycare-there have been several articles covering some major differences.

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 10:30 AM

That long list if for the “No difference between Obama and Mitt Romney” IDIOTS.

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM

No claims that there is “no difference”. We claim that the differences are marginal, at best. And on that point, it’s very accurate.

lorien1973 on July 16, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Ummm…excuse me but I, and no doubt countless others, have seen you Paulbots use the EXACT PHRASE “There is no difference between Romney and Obama” over and over, which is the most asinine thing a human being could ever say.

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Ummm…excuse me but I, and no doubt countless others, have seen you Paulbots use the EXACT PHRASE “There is no difference between Romney and Obama” over and over, which is the most asinine thing a human being could ever say.

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 10:33 AM

I’m a Paulbot? News to me!

lorien1973 on July 16, 2012 at 10:34 AM

That long list if for the “No difference between Obama and Mitt Romney”

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM

There will be no real differences in policy between the two, just as there is no difference between Obama and Bush, or Bush and Clinton, or Clinton and Bush, or Bush and Reagan, etc.

Romney will just be a continuation of the same.

Dante on July 16, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Let’s put it this way: at the VERY LEAST we will have a chance at holding Romney’s feet to the fire…I’m at least optimistic on that. Does anyone think, after the last 4 years, that Obama gives a rats ass about any laws? Get over it folks-Paul is over, now let’s work first at stopping Obama, and THEN maybe we can transition to a conservative on the next go-around. If not-if you give Obama another 4 years, I, as MANY others, really don’t believe we will have elections-certainly not fair and honest elections in the future. The evil and corruption of Hussein the Marxist-communist knows no bounds.

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Ummm…excuse me but I, and no doubt countless others, have seen you Paulbots use the EXACT PHRASE “There is no difference between Romney and Obama” over and over, which is the most asinine thing a human being could ever say.

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 10:33 AM
I’m a Paulbot? News to me!

lorien1973 on July 16, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Congratulations-you’re in the minority.

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Let’s put it this way: at the VERY LEAST we will have a chance at holding Romney’s feet to the fire…I’m at least optimistic on that. .

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 10:38 AM

I can only hope that you will soon realize your folly and foolishness.

Dante on July 16, 2012 at 10:42 AM

That long list if for the “No difference between Obama and Mitt Romney”

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM

There will be no real differences in policy between the two, just as there is no difference between Obama and Bush, or Bush and Clinton, or Clinton and Bush, or Bush and Reagan, etc.

Romney will just be a continuation of the same.

Dante on July 16, 2012 at 10:13 AM

So you actually believe Romney will continue Obama’s Marxist-communist, anti-capitalist policies? His racist, anti-white, anti-Jew policies? And you think…LOL…Obama and Bush are the same? Wow that’s amazing. This is what we’re up against folks. Take note.

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Let’s put it this way: at the VERY LEAST we will have a chance at holding Romney’s feet to the fire…I’m at least optimistic on that. .

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 10:38 AM

I can only hope that you will soon realize your folly and foolishness.

Dante on July 16, 2012 at 10:42 AM

So let’s see, you (and your fellow Paulbots) are willing to risk another 4 years of the most destructive president of our time (if not all time) this radical Marxist-communist, yet I’m being foolish? Sure.

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 10:46 AM

1) Romney is not a Marxist-communist.
3) Romney does [not] want to “fundamentally change” America.
5) Romney would not have a bunch of socialists, Marxists, communists, and even two Maoists working in his administration
14) Romney would not advance the Gay agenda, the abortion agenda, and the Atheist agenda

Romney and Obama agree: Health care law’s individual mandate is not a tax

Mitt Romney has raised taxes on as many people as Barack Obama has


Why Did Gov. Romney Support The Individual Mandate?


WASHINGTON — One of the few individuals who worked on health care reform under both Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama said on Friday that the controversial individual mandate provision was virtually identical in the bills signed into law by each of them.


Romney Consistent in Support of Gay Adoption, Supports Letting States Decide

Thus yet again the AWE inspiring Danno Man does the work that ‘real Americans’ REFUSE to do.

DannoJyd on July 16, 2012 at 10:51 AM

You can’t compare a Marxist-communist radical to Mitt Romney-sorry, but if you want anyone to take you seriously-just stop…no really, STOP.

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 10:30 AM

I see litle difference between Marxist-communists and those who TAKE AWAY MY RIGHTS with their beloved Individual Mandate.

PLEASE DO tell us where the freedom is in ANY MANDATE, or perhaps YOU will be the one who is not taken seriously.

BTW, have you signed up as a GOP Grassroots Volunteer yet as I have for the fifth straight year?

DannoJyd on July 16, 2012 at 10:55 AM

So let’s see, you (and your fellow Paulbots) are willing to risk another 4 years of the most destructive president of our time (if not all time) this radical Marxist-communist, yet I’m being foolish? Sure.

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Obama hasn’t done anything differently from his predecessors. They’ve all grown government, they’ve all encroached upon our liberties, they’ve all ignored the Constitution, they’ve all given us more taxes, they’ve all increased the debt, they’ve all involved us militarily in matters that are none of our business.

And your solution is to vote for the same thing.

Dante on July 16, 2012 at 10:56 AM

So let’s see, you (and your fellow Paulbots) are willing to risk another 4 years of the most destructive president of our time (if not all time) this radical Marxist-communist, yet I’m being foolish? Sure.

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Obama hasn’t done anything differently from his predecessors. They’ve all grown government, they’ve all encroached upon our liberties, they’ve all ignored the Constitution, they’ve all given us more taxes, they’ve all increased the debt, they’ve all involved us militarily in matters that are none of our business.

And your solution is to vote for the same thing.

Dante on July 16, 2012 at 10:56 AM

No one denies that Bush hasn’t done some of these things, and that maybe Romney would as well. The difference being-is the levels they take it to. Hell I’d like to write-in vote for Ronald Reagan because he’s way more conservative than any of them…problem is he’s UNELECTABLE (dead, ran twice already) RON PAUL is NOT ELECTABLE. Either OBAMA or ROMNEY will be your next president. and he DAMN WELL might be our last. If you people can’t make the right choice, and refuse to believe there is a large enough difference to matter, then there is no hope for you.

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 11:17 AM

That is to say OBAMA may be your last, for those that couldn’t understand the typo.

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 11:18 AM

No one denies that Bush hasn’t done some of these things, and that maybe Romney would as well.

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Maybe?

Thanks for proving that you are too frightened to read the FACTS about Romney in the many links I supplied to you above.

DannoJyd on July 16, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Yes, Paul’s epic run is over. And it has been epic. Which is why the GOP really should give him a good speaking slot at the convention. He’s earned his respect, and his followers deserve their moment.

UnrepentantCurmudgeon on July 16, 2012 at 11:49 AM

No one denies that Bush hasn’t done some of these things, and that maybe Romney would as well.

And Clinton before them and Bush the elder before him. Oh and don’t forget Reagan increased debt, taxes, and gave illegals amnesty.

All Presidents have expanded government, debt, and ignored the Constitution. There are no Presidents that Conservatives can be proud of.

Romney said cutting $1 Trillion in govt spending in one year would hurt the economy. It the exact opposite. Cutting that spending would free up $1 Trillion in the real economy. What’s the point of getting him elected?

rndmusrnm on July 16, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Ron Paul is in the pocket of Big Tin Foil!!!!1!

Knott Buyinit on July 16, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Aces!

TerryW on July 16, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Yes, Paul’s epic run is over. And it has been epic. Which is why the GOP really should give him a good speaking slot at the convention. He’s earned his respect, and his followers deserve their moment.

UnrepentantCurmudgeon on July 16, 2012 at 11:49 AM

True. Wish he could be appointed as our chief Federal comptroller. Of course, he’d tick off a lot of Republicans, not just Democrats, with his management of finances.

I think if he had a more temperate foreign policy he may have at least been nominated.

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 16, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Dante is here with John Galt! All we need now is Pitchforker and we have ourselves a tinfoil hat “Pon Raul is our only hope” reunion.

Didnt you say Paul was going to win the nomination? Oh yeah, you did. Tell me again how his racist newsletters dont matter, how writing billions in earmarks makes him a conservative, how calling Bradley Manning a hero is accurate, and how Iran is not a threat.

Logboy on July 16, 2012 at 12:32 PM

No one denies that Bush hasn’t done some of these things, and that maybe Romney would as well.

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Maybe?

Thanks for proving that you are too frightened to read the FACTS about Romney in the many links I supplied to you above.

DannoJyd on July 16, 2012 at 11:34 AM

I love how you people find a fraction of similarities and consider Romney to be a Marxist-communist as well. Plain nuts. Following this logic, a lake and the ocean are both identical because they both have water right? and you use HUFFINGTON POST and the All Barack Channel as sources? LOL. I’ll give you a bit of credit for Cato. Bottom line…you and your people would rather take the train at full speed over the cliff, while knowing there are at least better odds at slowing it down. Good day sir, you aren’t worth my time any more then the average liberal. Again, folks-this is what we’re up against out there…we’ve got a lot of work to do to keep the Paulbots from helping to cost us the election again.

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 12:40 PM

I love how you people find a fraction of similarities and consider Romney to be a Marxist-communist as well.

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 12:40 PM

I love how you liberal supporting RomBots cannot show us where the freedom in a Romney supported Individual Mandate is. I also love how how you people keep working to get voters to look at candidates other than Romney. Indeed, you folks are most like Romney in that particular effort.

Ron Paul has already won majorities in over 5 states:

Iowa – 23 out of 28 delegates.
Maine – 21 out of 24 delegates.
Minnesota – 32 out of 40 delegates.
Louisiana – 27 out of 46 delegates.
Nevada – 22 out of 28 delegates.
Colorado – 18 out of 36 delegates.

Yet the GOP found a way to cast off these results thus proving yet AGAIN that the GOP Elitists SELECTED Willard.

OK! To date Willard has pissed off the conservatives, the Ron Paul supporters, and the members of the TEA Partys. How many more votes does Sketchy need to lose before you folks are happy?

0bama 2012: Because the GOP loves to lose.
Gary Johnson 2010: the Only Conservative In The Race That Excites Voters.

DannoJyd on July 16, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Didnt you say Paul was going to win the nomination? Oh yeah, you did. Tell me again how his racist newsletters dont matter,

Oh that’s an easy one. Another thing Paulbots have in common with liberals is that you can hate on “those damn evil Jews” all you want-and it’s not racist. If you attack any other group, it’s racist, but Jews are the exception.

how writing billions in earmarks makes him a conservative, how calling Bradley Manning a hero is accurate, and how Iran is not a threat.

Shhh…that’s supposed to be secret. Oh yeah the “tiny country” Iran…another thing Obama has in common with Paul-his attitude towards Iran. But then that’s also likely tied to his feelings towards the Jews-who cares if they get destroyed he figures.

Logboy on July 16, 2012 at 12:32 PM

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Let’s put it this way: at the VERY LEAST we will have a chance at holding Romney’s feet to the fire…I’m at least optimistic on that.

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Just so long as you’re ready to actually hold his feet to the fire. That you must realize that if Romney doesn’t change things seriously, you’re ready to dump the GOP. Also be ready for GOP cheerleaders to lambast you for daring to hold his feet to the fire. I saw and experienced that during BushW years. Its the biggest factor that pushed me away from the GOP.

oryguncon on July 16, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Let’s put it this way: at the VERY LEAST we will have a chance at holding Romney’s feet to the fire…I’m at least optimistic on that.

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Just so long as you’re ready to actually hold his feet to the fire. That you must realize that if Romney doesn’t change things seriously, you’re ready to dump the GOP. Also be ready for GOP cheerleaders to lambast you for daring to hold his feet to the fire. I saw and experienced that during BushW years. Its the biggest factor that pushed me away from the GOP.

oryguncon on July 16, 2012 at 1:34 PM

-Agreed, but we have to aim at the right balance. Should we go to far, we end up getting a bunch of people (independents, the uninformed) to go back to the commiecrat party. Hey, the Republican party has it’s share of RINO’s/progressives and elitists we all know that. But they DAMN SURE aren’t filled to the rafters-infested with socialists/Marxist/communists and every other anti-American radical under the sun. But again, I agree we shouldn’t make excuses for the Republican side either. See, some people (that would vote for Romney-but perhaps aren’t very well informed on who he is/what he’s done), are so simple-minded, that they would turn around and say something like “You guys wanted Obama out so bad, you got your wish, and now you’re complaining?”

Then they might reason to themselves, that “maybe Obama wasn’t really that bad” and that thought must never occur because it’s an outright falsehood. So there has to be the right balance. We also have to keep in mind the liberals will do much of our work for us. Also, no matter how much we take our own to task, it would never be enough to satisfy the circle-the-wagon hypocrites in the commiecrat party.

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 1:51 PM

CORRECTION:
See, some people (that would vote for Romney-but perhaps aren’t very well informed on who Obama is/what Obama’s done),

dave_ross on July 16, 2012 at 1:53 PM

dave_ross

You are a very, very misinformed person. Everything you’ve said is incorrect.

Dante on July 16, 2012 at 2:00 PM

You are a very, very misinformed person. Everything you’ve said is incorrect.

Dante on July 16, 2012 at 2:00 PM

But not you, Dante. No, you are the epitome of fact-based, reality-based arguments on Ron Paul. Deny, deny, deny. Still intending on throwing away your vote by writing in Ron Paul?

Logboy on July 16, 2012 at 2:25 PM

This story is wrong!

Ron Paul has won the majority of the delegates in 5 states already, even without Nebraska. This is classic mainstream media re-manufacturing of the truth. The only time they cover Paul anymore is merely to convince us he’s done and they jumped prematurely on this false story because the A.P. probably ran with it.

FROM BEN SWANN: http://www.facebook.com/BenSwannRealityCheck

I have been in touch with a member of the RNC Rules committee over the past 4 days and have been able to confirm a few FACTS about the nomination process.

1. For a candidate’s name to be placed into nomination at the RNC you DO need a plurality of delegates from 5 states.

2. Binding and Non-binding distinctions DO NOT have an affect on nominating a candidates name. If “binding” is allowable by rule, (it is not) it would only pertain to a vote taken on the nomination, not the process of placing a name in nomination.

3. The Ron Paul campaign HAS the majority of delegates in the following 5 states: Nevada, Maine, Minnesota, Louisana, Iowa. He MAY have the majority in Massachusetts and Colorado

fatlibertarianinokc on July 16, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Blaxpac:

Just because Paul’s policies are not popular does not mean he lacks credibility. Look at the dunce who was elected; not only was he popular, he had no credibility.

But that’s kind of my point: Ron Paul’s been in office for over 30 years…he ran for President at least 3 times during that stretch. How much further along has he gotten? He’s never broken over 30%, let alone 40% to be anything more than a spoiler in the fight.

Obama, whom people barely knew of, was able to smoke Paul quite handily. That’s not a good starting point if you want to win the race for Pennsylvania Ave

Your argument is that if he was meant to be president he would have been by now, or, I people liked him they would have voted for him to be POTUS.

The problem is: that IS the whole argument. If he can’t come *close*…and I mean DANGER close to be a threat to both parties, then he isn’t the man for the hour, period.

I don’t think this is reason to believe he couldn’t do a decent job. A majority of Americans elected a man purely based on popularity. Does that make him qualified?

No, it doesn’t. But it not being “fair” that personality is tied somewhat to policy. Doesn’t make it right or fair, but its part of our political system.

In spite of McCain, Palin helped energize the GOP base…in spite of Biden, people were energized to vote for Obama…personality does have a role. It’s up to the people to decide how much more personality should affect policy.

Like i stated, I don’t have a problem per se with a 3rd Party, but so far, the candidates put up have not motivated me to cast my vote for them.

Give the people a viable candidate, and they will vote for them every time. Keep giving them enough boring candidates and well, you see Paul back as he’s exiting the hall, right?

(I would have quoted you but I can’t from my phone)

RDE2010 on July 16, 2012 at 9:36 AM

No worries. Sorry I didn’t answer sooner!

BlaxPac on July 16, 2012 at 3:49 PM

But that’s kind of my point: Ron Paul’s been in office for over 30 years…he ran for President at least 3 times during that stretch. How much further along has he gotten? He’s never broken over 30%, let alone 40% to be anything more than a spoiler in the fight.

Obama, whom people barely knew of, was able to smoke Paul quite handily.

BlaxPac on July 16, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Your argument is disingenuous. Paul hasn’t run as the Republican nominee. If he had, I guarantee you he would have received over 40% of the votes. Obama didn’t smoke Paul, because he’s never run against Paul.

Dante on July 16, 2012 at 4:10 PM

If the Ron Paul supporters, along with the TEA Party membership were to get behind Two Term Republican Governor Gary Johnson, who today is the libertarian candidate for POTUS, neither Romney or the other liberal would win this year. Considering how the GOP Elitists [Romney included] has insulted both groups the chances of that happening are increasing on a daily basis.

Check out Johnson’s political stances. More republican politicians are following his lead every day which shows who the real leader in this years race is.

Johnson hasn’t been running for office for 4 years as 0bama and Willard have, yet today he is getting over 5% of the vote according to a Zogby National Poll. That percentage wil skyrocket once he begins to run ads in the media.

We are not locked in to having to choose between two liberals. We still have a choice this year. We need to choose wisely as has been proven by the past 4 years of enduring one liberal POTUS. Why settle for another one?

DannoJyd on July 16, 2012 at 11:11 PM

Steveangell is probably the wackiest commenter on this site, and that’s saying a lot. Yes, Steveangell claims to be LDS and says nice things about Mormons now and then.
bluegill on July 16, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Steveangell is definitely not LDS.

Mitt Romney served in the church as a Stake President, an office in the church hierarchy that requires the direct approval of the churches First Presidency. Angells insistence that Romney is literally and truly evil runs against the churches claim that the Prophet and his Counselors lead the church by direct revelation from God.

No Mormon would make such a claim as it constitutes an implicit attack on the foundational beliefs of the church.

Alberta_Patriot on July 17, 2012 at 1:02 PM

I guess he’s not “Smoked” after all!!!! RON PAUL WILL BE UP FOR NOMINATION! All you hater’s can keep on hatin’! Ron Paul 2012!

http://www.examiner.com/article/rnc-confirms-ron-paul-will-be-up-for-nomination

dom89031 on July 17, 2012 at 4:49 PM

I guess he’s not “Smoked” after all!!!! RON PAUL WILL BE UP FOR NOMINATION! All you hater’s can keep on hatin’! Ron Paul 2012!

http://www.examiner.com/article/rnc-confirms-ron-paul-will-be-up-for-nomination

dom89031 on July 17, 2012 at 4:49 PM

So the traitor/islamofascist mouthpiece Ron Paul will be pitting his 166 delegates against Romneys 1438 delegates and this is a cause for celebration?

You guys need higher standards.

Alberta_Patriot on July 17, 2012 at 5:28 PM

So the traitor/islamofascist mouthpiece Ron Paul will be pitting his 166 delegates against Romneys 1438 delegates and this is a cause for celebration?

You guys need higher standards.

Alberta_Patriot on July 17, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Whoa Whoa Whoa…Where are your Christian values? What’s with the Alinsky like name calling tactics? You sound just like the very liberals you despise. I guess if you don’t agree with somebody they are “islamofascist” or a “traitor”…you sound just like Keith Olbermann. Funny you should call the only man still in the race who served in the military a “traitor”. You so called “conservatives” on this site are a joke! You can’t be a conservative and at the same time maintain a foreign empire that outspends the rest of the world combined.

dom89031 on July 17, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Electing Romney would change little; Obama may indeed be a “communist/marxist”, but the policies that he has implemented over the years are pure Progressivism, which is the ideology to which Romney clearly subscribes.

Don’t think you’re going to be better off with a guy who agrees with Obama that the President has the authority to use the military to “disappear” American citizens. That sort of candid admission is evidence that the two aren’t really that far apart philosophically, after all.

cavalier973 on July 17, 2012 at 7:37 PM

If the Ron Paul supporters, along with the TEA Party membership were to get behind Two Term Republican Governor Gary Johnson, who today is the libertarian candidate for POTUS, neither Romney or the other liberal would win this year.

Sorry; I don’t vote for people who express support for antepartum infanticide.

cavalier973 on July 17, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Your argument is disingenuous. Paul hasn’t run as the Republican nominee. If he had, I guarantee you he would have received over 40% of the votes. Obama didn’t smoke Paul, because he’s never run against Paul.

Dante on July 16, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Exactly so. Ron Paul would arguably do better against Obama than Romney, because there is a very clear difference between Paul and Obama, especially in regards to foreign policy.

cavalier973 on July 17, 2012 at 7:40 PM

If you can’t see a con for a con you get conned.
Limerick on July 15, 2012 at 7:22 PM

So…you’re voting for Romney, then?

….
….
….
….
….

Heh, heh.

cavalier973 on July 17, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Heart Ache. The dream of a Romney Presidency is in the process of being smoked.

Unbelievable!

“The president has had the worst three months of any incumbent, due to the economy, since George H.W. Bush in 1992, and yet Romney has lost traction among key demographic groups in the vital swing states.” See:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-or-without-tax-return-release-pressure-on-romney-ramps-up-from-both-sides/2012/07/17/gJQAbuuBsW_story.html

Maybe RP could not have won, but anyone who make fun of RP while thinking MR is the night in shinning armor that’s going to rescue the GOP has their head up their a@@

RomanticIdeal on July 18, 2012 at 12:31 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3