RNC Shuns Ron Paul, Supporters Root For Romney Defeat

[Lex Concord]

Nothing false about my "dichotomy" at all. Ron Paul LOST because not enough voters agreed with his message.... PERIOD end of discussion. He may have the right message, but he is the wrong messenger. Besides he lost the race LONG ago, not recently so why the problem now all of a sudden at convention time?

That's the thing, he didn't necessarily lose the race a long time ago, and he didn't necessarily do it without help. Why all of a sudden at convention time? Maybe because (if you'd review the linked story in the OP) many of the delegates he didn't get screwed out of at the state level, he got screwed out of just now, at the national convention.

I have no beef with Ron Paul, or Johnson. It is this false premise that no one but their supporters has any intelligence, understanding of where we are as a nation, etc... and they and ONLY they understand and have the answers, sorry that is just a load of crap. And you guys wonder why you can't convince anyone to join your side. Continue to settle for 5% and continue blame it on everyone else, it's been working SO well for you so far.

If this is directed at me, you're barking up the wrong tree. There are plenty of folks that get where we are and disagree with Paul, Johnson, et al whom I consider to be intelligent and genuinely concerned about the direction in which the country is headed.

It is those who can participate in, condone, or even simply ignore the likely (at least in some cases) and consistent rigging of the game in the name of party unity who cause me to question their intelligence or at least their genuine concern for the country.

I go back to an earlier post. The winners get to write the history books, AND make the rules. Just the way life is. Besides, Ron Paul "died" long ago, can't remember the last time I've seen anything in the media about him.

Find someone like a Ronald Reagan to deliver the message THEN we could make some headway!

"The winners from last cycle get to write the history books AND remake the rules on the fly to ensure the desired outcome this time around."

FIFY

This is what happened...it didn't happen everywhere, but it happened enough throughout the primaries and caucuses to be of concern, and to make your dichotomy false. Paul may have won (per the rules) had the rules not been changed or simply ignored in the middle of the game (newsflash: Romney STILL not Republican Nominee). I think being on the ballot at the convention and having one's delegates seated "might" make a difference.

If you're waiting on this to be reported, you're likely also turning blue waiting for a MSM Romney love fest.

Quite honestly, it's not your citation of the idea that might makes right is often a reality that is so disturbing; it is the fact that you seem willing to accept it, warts and all, so long as it suits your preferred outcome.

I, for one, would be quite pissed about party officials playing shenanigans with the ballots or seating of delegates at the conventions, even had they occurred against the presumptive nominee, Mr. Romney. I believe in fair play.

 

[Lex Concord]

If style is BIGger than substance, we're hosed. Truth is truth, no matter how you package it. If you deny the truth because of how it's packaged, I've got nothing for you.

Sadly, in this country, reality shows that he is correct. Generations of Americans have been bribed, lied, and cheated out of their birthright, much of it through the "Godsend" of "free" public education that, at best, works to stuff minds full of facts for recall while rarely teaching one how to think (as opposed to teaching one what he should think).

The truth be damned, poison in a "sexy" package sells. Look at fast food, sodas, liquor, tobacco, Obama. It's human nature.

Hit on that one thing that gets 'em excited at the moment and the dollars (votes) will flow.

The trick is to package the slashing of the last 100 years of "sex" in a way that people will want to buy in and come back for seconds.

 

[Bapak2ja]

Somehow, I think it'll be the GOP that suffers most from this. I'm feeling more and more confident that we'll have more than two major parties in the future. And if that entails defections from the GOP and alienation of young voters, the GOP will lose influence.

Assign blame where you will, but the fact of the matter is that many former Republicans are seeing that the party just doesn't represent them.

No hard feelings on either side.

I see no reason to vote for the party that gave us Dole, McCain, and Romney. There is just no reason to continue the process of dismantling the republic the GOP has joined with the Democrats to accomplish so that their power is inviable. If enough of us abandon the GOP for a new party we may change things. GOP has just demonstrated they are not interested in principle, or change—just power.

If you want what we already have, and more, keep doing what you have always done. You will get more of the same. Enjoy it.

 

[firehawk1]

That's the thing, he didn't necessarily lose the race a long time ago, and he didn't necessarily do it without help. Why all of a sudden at convention time? Maybe because (if you'd review the linked story in the OP) many of the delegates he didn't get screwed out of at the state level, he got screwed out of just now, at the national convention.

Pointless argument, Paul lost and nothing IN THIS ELECTION CYCLE can change that. Vote your conscious whoever that might be. Simply because I happen to believe the most important issue IN THIS ELECTION CYCLE is to remove Obama from office doesn't make me a mindless GOP robot. I believe warts and all Mitt Romney has the best chance of doing exactly that.



If this is directed at me, you're barking up the wrong tree. There are plenty of folks that get where we are and disagree with Paul, Johnson, et al whom I consider to be intelligent and genuinely concerned about the direction in which the country is headed.

No that comment was not directed at you personally.

It is those who can participate in, condone, or even simply ignore the likely (at least in some cases) and consistent rigging of the game in the name of party unity who cause me to question their intelligence or at least their genuine concern for the country.

Again, Paul lost, if he had managed to get the majority of delegates then this would not have happened. If he now wants to whine about the outcome why did he run under the GOP banner in the first place? He had to know once the voters had chosen the nominee the GOP would want all to rally behind him/her. If he was within a few delegates of Romney maybe I could feel "sorry" for him. He wasn't so I don't, he knew what he was getting into, no way he was "blindsided" by this.



"The winners from last cycle get to write the history books AND remake the rules on the fly to ensure the desired outcome this time around."

FIFY

Same thing I said, just used different words.

This is what happened...it didn't happen everywhere, but it happened enough throughout the primaries and caucuses to be of concern, and to make your dichotomy false. Paul may have won (per the rules) had the rules not been changed or simply ignored in the middle of the game (newsflash: Romney STILL not Republican Nominee). I think being on the ballot at the convention and having one's delegates seated "might" make a difference.

See above. Why is the GOP wanting all to rally behind the nominee such a strange concept to some? Get back to me about Romney "still" not being the nominee thing in a week or so.

If you're waiting on this to be reported, you're likely also turning blue waiting for a MSM Romney love fest.

No I'm not waiting. As a matter of fact I can't remember the last time I gave the MSM a second thought. Well ok, I've watched Maddow a few times when I needed a good laugh.

Quite honestly, it's not your citation of the idea that might makes right is often a reality that is so disturbing; it is the fact that you seem willing to accept it, warts and all, so long as it suits your preferred outcome.

Again with the elitist mentality. You assume to know my "preferred" outcome? As far as accepting it's actually called being a realist, a smart person knows when and where to pick his/her battles. Trying to get through a brickwall with a toothpick while maybe honorable, is an exercise in futility.

I, for one, would be quite pissed about party officials playing shenanigans with the ballots or seating of delegates at the conventions, even had they occurred against the presumptive nominee, Mr. Romney. I believe in fair play.

NEWSFLASH...... Life's not fair, never has been and never will be ESPECIALLY in politics. All voters now must choose between Obama, Romney, Johnson, and whoever else in November and pull the lever. Time to move on from Ron Paul. He will NOT be the GOP nominee and it is a waste of time to sit on an internet forum complaining about that fact no matter what the opinion is of how that happened.

IMO, time to let it go and move forward, and stop looking into the past.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Yup.

And I know without a shadow of a doubt that I'm right.

We could have a Ronald Reagan/Milton Friedman ticket, and if they WEREN'T part of the GOP establishment, all the Romney voters would still vote Romney and laugh/point at Reagan and Friedman, and accuse all their supporters of helping Obama win.

Reagan wasn't the Party "insider" when he won the nomination in 1980. He had a clear message that resonated with the vast majority of the country. As I recall, he took all but one State in the General Election. So, yeah, I think you're wrong in your assumption. Of course, Reagan had laid the groundwork for his selection by the Republicans in the previous twelve years, culminating in his failed run at the Presidential nomination in 1976 - where he lost to the Party "establishment" candidate, President Gerald Ford.

I'm not sure what the differences between Ron Paul and Ronald Reagan were, but Reagan wasn't called "The Great Communicator" for nothing. He had some clear goals and managed to articulate them and inspire Americans of all types with his vision of America and when the Democrat-controlled Congress tried to steamroll him, he went over their heads to the American people and got his famous tax cuts that started the country headed toward 20 years of prosperity, despite Congress' continued penchant for spending every cent they could get hold of. For whatever reason, Ron Paul hasn't managed that.

 

[.45 Dave]

I wish I could "secede" from politics the way Paul supporters do; take my ball go home and pretend things aren't the way they are. Problem is, life and reality goes on whether they stand on their principles or not. And it will affect them.
To petulantly shun Romney because their candidate didn't get picked to go to the RNC party while America is in such dire straits is like cutting off your nose because it has booger while you're lying in the cancer critical care unit of the hospital.

 

[firehawk1]

I wish I could "secede" from politics the way Paul supporters do; take my ball go home and pretend things aren't the way they are. Problem is, life and reality goes on whether they stand on their principles or not. And it will affect them.
To petulantly shun Romney because their candidate didn't get picked to go to the RNC party while America is in such dire straits is like cutting off your nose because it has booger while you're lying in the cancer critical care unit of the hospital.

Ideologs can't see beyond their ideology. It's the all or nothing, my way or the highway, only I/WE have the answer, black and white world they live in. It is why they usually end up with nothing, and use everyone else as their scapegoat when affairs don't turn out to their liking.

 

[downzero]

We are not in the UK. In the US a "liberal" is basically a left leaning Democrat--and left of the traditional Democratic social justice system is clearly socialism. How old are you not to know this? Here, look it up. A liberal (as I obviously used the term) is not a libertarian.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism#Americas

I've heard this argument time and time again. Usage can rarely ever completely reverse the meaning of a word, and it certainly cannot divorce a word from its history.

The word liberal and liberty come from the same root because at their core, they are overlapping ideas.

Social democrats are not "liberals" nor is social democracy an extreme liberal ideology.

As I stated before, liberals throughout the world, including here in the United States, oppose 'Marxist' themed political parties. If you desire a wikipedia article to read, perhaps the one on "neoliberalism" would serve you better. Either way, trying to tell me that liberalism is actually illiberalism isn't going to persuade. It's not. And those of you who think that liberarianism is some extreme form of conservatism would be in for a big shock if the market were ever 'free' because an awful lot of your precious crony capitalism that exists currently would cease to exist.

 

[downzero]

If you want what we already have, and more, keep doing what you have always done. You will get more of the same. Enjoy it.

This sentence captures the essence of why conservatism is a failed ideology. Preventing change is not a strategy. It is, at best, a diversionary tactic.

Progressives love conservatives, because even if they can't get elected today, the conservatives will eventually **** off the masses by trying to preserve an ancient and outdated status quo, the electorate will elect progressives in the place of conservatives, and eventually--despite the existence of conservatives in minority--progressive policy will be enacted. The last 80 years demonstrate this almost exactly. Progressives will get almost everything they want in the long run. That is how we got an overbroad commerce clause, the New Deal, the Great Society, Obamacare, and all of their associated entitlements that will bankrupt and destroy this country if the rest of us do nothing.

Doing what we've "always" done just because it's what we've "always" done is a recipe for failure. That's why conservatism can never really counter progressive policy--because it's impossible to convince the electorate forever that the status quo > whatever progressives want.

Liberalism, or if you prefer, libertarianism, does not suffer from this problem. It is inherently an ideology that is equally open to the status quo or something radically different if the result is a society with more freedom and less government.

Conservatives continue to demonstrate that they will do anything to seize power, even if it means more government, bigger deficits, and more spending.

Until people wake up and realize that libertarians are not going to band together with the same religious whackjobs who want creationism in the public school system, farm subsidies, homophobia as a matter of public policy, and endless war, these discussions will continue. We are not interested in what the GOP is selling; we will not vote for them.

 

[hacksawfg]

Ideologs can't see beyond their ideology. It's the all or nothing, my way or the highway, only I/WE have the answer, black and white world they live in. It is why they usually end up with nothing, and use everyone else as their scapegoat when affairs don't turn out to their liking.

Are you are implying that ideologues are confined to third parties and none exist in the Republican or Democrat parties? Isn't that what got Mourdock chosen over Lugar, his refusal to compromise on anything not fitting the Tea Party agenda? Based on his comments, he seemed pretty black and white to me, but I guess as a Republican that's just makes him principled.

I don't know for sure if Johnson will be better than Romney. Everybody who voted for Obama thought he was going to be the second coming, but I don't think he's lived up to his supporter's expectations. What I do believe is that Johnson's track record as a governor is much better than that of Romney. I certainly believe he's been more consistent and forthright than Romney. From a freedom and liberty standpoint, I feel my Constitutional rights are better protected by someone who understands that the Constitution doesn't give authority to the government to restrict things like who can marry who, whether or not someone want to watch "obscene" materials, etc. If you say that makes me an ideologue, I guess that's your opinion. If the Republicans could get over their social agenda and really strive to make this a more free country, I'd come back to the fold. Not saying Johnson has THE answer, I just feel he has better answers than the other two parties this time. Unless something drastic changes, though, I don't see the Republicans or Democrats taking his kinds of positions anytime soon.

 

[Ted]

If style is BIGger than substance, we're hosed. Truth is truth, no matter how you package it. If you deny the truth because of how it's packaged, I've got nothing for you.

Unfortunately, looking good is better than doing good. It doesn't matter if truth and honor are at the heart of something, if the popular perception is otherwise.

Obama elected to the presidency is the prime example of such.

So yes, we're hosed.

 

[buckstopshere]

I wish I could "secede" from politics the way Paul supporters do; take my ball go home and pretend things aren't the way they are. Problem is, life and reality goes on whether they stand on their principles or not. And it will affect them.
To petulantly shun Romney because their candidate didn't get picked to go to the RNC party while America is in such dire straits is like cutting off your nose because it has booger while you're lying in the cancer critical care unit of the hospital.

I wish I could bury my head in the sand and keep voting for the establishment candidate and pretend that .gov will shrink, my rights will stop being violated, and our economy will take off once again. Problems, this is the life and reality I've voted for and it affects everyone

Early in the primaries, I heard a lot of folks talking about how it wasn't so much Ron Paul they didn't like but his supporters because of name calling and/or this notion that if you didn't agree with them you were stupid.

This thread is the same discussion that continues to be retreaded. The last several "discussions" have come down to Romney supporters calling anyone voting for Johnson "idiots" and this very thread is you are stupid if you don't vote for Romney.

The hypocrisy is thick.

Quite frankly, I don't give two craps how other people vote or whether or not my vote affects you. Voting is supposed to be selfish. You vote for who You think lines up the most with Your values. So, if you chose to vote unselfishly, that is your business.

 

[.45 Dave]

I wish I could bury my head in the sand and keep voting for the establishment candidate and pretend that .gov will shrink, my rights will stop being violated, and our economy will take off once again. Problems, this is the life and reality I've voted for and it affects everyone

Early in the primaries, I heard a lot of folks talking about how it wasn't so much Ron Paul they didn't like but his supporters because of name calling and/or this notion that if you didn't agree with them you were stupid.

This thread is the same discussion that continues to be retreaded. The last several "discussions" have come down to Romney supporters calling anyone voting for Johnson "idiots" and this very thread is you are stupid if you don't vote for Romney.

The hypocrisy is thick.

Quite frankly, I don't give two craps how other people vote or whether or not my vote affects you. Voting is supposed to be selfish. You vote for who You think lines up the most with Your values. So, if you chose to vote unselfishly, that is your business.

I respect your stance on this.

I do wish the Paul AND Romney voters would understand that it isn't about Romney OR Paul right now or Johnson for that matter, it is about defeating Obama. We don't know what Romney might or might not do--he's never been President. Neither has Paul or Johnson. We DO know what Obama has done and what he says he want to do. We've got to get rid of him before anything else.

 

[hornadylnl]

I respect your stance on this.

I do wish the Paul AND Romney voters would understand that it isn't about Romney OR Paul right now or Johnson for that matter, it is about defeating Obama. We don't know what Romney might or might not do--he's never been President. Neither has Paul or Johnson. We DO know what Obama has done and what he says he want to do. We've got to get rid of him before anything else.

So Obama is defeated this November. Now what? The best Republicans can do is tell me that we don't know what Romney might or might not do? This is just like DNR introducing a new species to rid us of a pest. Only problem is the new species comes in and rids us of the original pest only to become a bigger pest.

Brilliant leadership there Republican party.

 

[buckstopshere]

I respect your stance on this.

I do wish the Paul AND Romney voters would understand that it isn't about Romney OR Paul right now or Johnson for that matter, it is about defeating Obama. We don't know what Romney might or might not do--he's never been President. Neither has Paul or Johnson. We DO know what Obama has done and what he says he want to do. We've got to get rid of him before anything else.

And I wish that the voting block would understand that until you aim higher than the current guy scares me so objective 1 is getting rid of him, freedom slips away.

Why be so afraid? The POTUS is not the king, we are a free people whether the .gov wants to admit it or not.

When our principles become stronger and rate higher than our fears, we will once again accomplish great things.

I'm not scared of Obama. I'm not scared of Romney. I agree with Ron Paul and will settle for Gary Johnson and I feel good about my vote for Johnson.

 

[Bondhead88]

Why not vote for Gary Johnson?

While I cannot yet vote in the US if I could it wold not be for Gary Johnson even though I am a Libertarian.

The fact that he tried running for the GOP presidential nimonation and couldn't get anywhere makes me think some tings.

1) He knew he couldn't win a GOP nomination but used their platform to eventually give him press coverage when he ran for the Libertarian Party. If this is the case it is dishonest.

2) He thought he could win the nomination at first but once he saw he couldn't he left and tried taking people with him splitting the GOP. While I believe there needs to be a third party to replace the Republicrats this would be a position of poor moral character if he did this in this manner.

3) He didn't think he could win and he still doesn't think he can win (but like Ross Perot acted as a spoiler to Bush Sr) is determined to see Mitt Romney lose as a spoiler. If this is what he is doing then it shows poor moral character.

4) He's doing all this for media attention so he can write a book and go on the lecture circuit...seems like everybody is doing this so i can't blame him on this one.

I really would like to see a VIABLE third option. I just don't see Gary Johnson as the leader of that option.

 

[buckstopshere]

While I cannot yet vote in the US if I could it wold not be for Gary Johnson even though I am a Libertarian.

The fact that he tried running for the GOP presidential nimonation and couldn't get anywhere makes me think some tings.

1) He knew he couldn't win a GOP nomination but used their platform to eventually give him press coverage when he ran for the Libertarian Party. If this is the case it is dishonest.

2) He thought he could win the nomination at first but once he saw he couldn't he left and tried taking people with him splitting the GOP. While I believe there needs to be a third party to replace the Republicrats this would be a position of poor moral character if he did this in this manner.

3) He didn't think he could win and he still doesn't think he can win (but like Ross Perot acted as a spoiler to Bush Sr) is determined to see Mitt Romney lose as a spoiler. If this is what he is doing then it shows poor moral character.

4) He's doing all this for media attention so he can write a book and go on the lecture circuit...seems like everybody is doing this so i can't blame him on this one.

I really would like to see a VIABLE third option. I just don't see Gary Johnson as the leader of that option.

You clearly don't know much of anything about Gary Johnson.

 

[.45 Dave]

So Obama is defeated this November. Now what? The best Republicans can do is tell me that we don't know what Romney might or might not do? This is just like DNR introducing a new species to rid us of a pest. Only problem is the new species comes in and rids us of the original pest only to become a bigger pest.

Brilliant leadership there Republican party.

While you're waiting for the perfect Libertarian candidate to come on the scene, capture the hearts and minds of the American people and sweep to glorious victory in the White House, our freedoms are run off a cliff by Obama. No thanks!
I don't know what Romney might do, but I know what Obama has done. And, by the way, you're analogy might very well fit the Libertarian Party as well. Get rid of the old boy Repub/Dem network to be replaced by another that might be worse!

 

[jbombelli]

Anyone who thinks the GOP is suddenly going to come in and actually FIX things hasn't been paying attention for the last 30 years.

I have. And I finally realized how duped I was, and many yet remain.

Who here wants more TSA, more Patriot Act, more NDAA, and more debt?

Spin it how you want, that's the GOP. No matter what they say to get your vote, that's the history they bring to the table.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me a dozen times and I'm a ****ing moron who deserves everything he gets. Well, I won't be fooled again. If that means Obama wins, then I guess that's the price of fooling me so many times.

 

[Phil502]

Ron Paul, you mean the guy I voted for in the Primary, I thought he lost, I did not expect to hear too much from him now.

As far as the this is an important election, sure it is, although it reminds me of the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf Tale, remind me, what happened at the end of that story.