Ron Paul: what will he be able to do at the convention?
|
|
|||||
|
55 votes
|
|
33% | |||
|
7 votes
|
|
4% | |||
|
11 votes
|
|
7% | |||
|
12 votes
|
|
7% | |||
|
12 votes
|
|
7% | |||
|
70 votes
|
|
42% | |||
Over the weekend, reports came in from Examiner.com (Wilmington, DE and their National
edition). They showed Ron Paul winning delegates in Missouri, Colorado
and Minnesota that everyone thought would go to Romney or Santorum.
Santorum then quit the race last week, and never said how he expected
“his” delegates to vote. The two Examiners seemed to think that many of
them would vote for Ron Paul and not for Mitt Romney. In any
event, Ron Paul knew that caucuses would select delegates, because
primaries were non-binding. Not only are those primaries non-binding;
they have no influence on what caucuses do.
The Colorado results are most interesting. Caucuses chose 36
delegates. Sources did not seem to agree on how they would vote. But
those who investigated the matter closely, realized what had happened. RealClearPolitics, for instance, says
that Mitt Romney had the most delegates. In fact, he “won” 13
delegates, against 6 for Santorum. The caucuses chose 17 others who did not pledge their votes. But where do their loyalties lie? Tom Mullen at The Washington Times thinks he knows. Todd King of Lewis, CO, one of those “unpledged” delegates, told Mr. Mullen this:
13 unpledged delegates, including me, will vote for Ron
Paul on the first ballot. One unpledged delegate will vote for Santorum.
The remaining three unpledged delegates, also known as the ‘delegates
at large,’ are the state GOP Chairman, the state GOP National
Committeeman and the National Committeewoman. Those three will likely
vote for Romney. They usually vote for the frontrunner so as not to make
waves.
So Ron Paul can count on as many delegate votes as Mitt Romney can,
or almost as many, depending on how the super-delegates vote.
Missouri Republicans changed their caucus rules,
under pressure from many who felt that the Republican “establishment”
wanted them to shut-up and let them do things their way. Ron Paul hopes
to “dominate” in Missouri when Republican voters there meet in caucus
this Saturday and in June.
The Ron Paul campaign flatly disputes the AP/New York Times delegate tally. In March they showed the true delegate strength as:
- Mitt Romney: 425
- Rick Santorum: 361
- Ron Paul: 225
- Newt Gingrich: 165
One commenter on that page explained how Ron Paul’s supporters get delegates:
This isn’t for sissies. You have to go to the meetings,
meet people and tell them your name so they’ll remember you when it
comes time to vote in delegates, etc. And frankly, it’s boring. I
listened to a long speech tonight and there were a million other things I
would’ve rather been doing (like reading on here or griping with my RP
friends on Facebook).
If those who support the other three candidates are less willing to
listen to “boring…long speech[es]” and forgo their “million other things
[they'd] rather [do],” then of course they’re losing delegates. They
leave the field to Ron Paul.
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/04/16...






















That's not being middle-minded. That's being a democrat parading around as a republican.
I only wish Paul had the chance to say "I went" to Romney instead.
The Civil Rights Act repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination. Although Paul was not around to weigh in on the landmark legislation at the time, he had the chance to cast a symbolic vote against it in 2004, when the House of Representatives took up a resolution "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Paul was the only member who voted "no."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
The general election has a different dynamic, which would give Paul the best chance against Obama. Paul would pull in the mainstream ABO Republican vote as well as the independent vote, the Libertarian leaning Republican vote, and even some crossover Democrat voters.
The Civil Rights Act repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination. Although Paul was not around to weigh in on the landmark legislation at the time, he had the chance to cast a symbolic vote against it in 2004, when the House of Representatives took up a resolution "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Paul was the only member who voted "no."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Here is an interview where Ron Paul answers questions about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Jim Crow laws:
The Civil Rights Act repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination. Although Paul was not around to weigh in on the landmark legislation at the time, he had the chance to cast a symbolic vote against it in 2004, when the House of Representatives took up a resolution "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Paul was the only member who voted "no."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Ron Paul is no racist, you simply misunderstand him.
"Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. (‘What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!’ one newsletter complained in 1990. ‘We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.’) In the early 1990s, a newsletter attacked the ‘X-Rated Martin Luther King’ as a ‘world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,’ ‘seduced underage girls and boys,’ and ‘made a pass at’ fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that ‘Welfaria,’ ‘Zooville,’ ‘Rapetown,’ ‘Dirtburg,’ and ‘Lazyopolis’ were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as ‘a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.’
"While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled ‘The Duke's Victory,’ a newsletter celebrated Duke's 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Republican Senate primary. ‘Duke lost the election...
"Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. (‘What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!’ one newsletter complained in 1990. ‘We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.’) In the early 1990s, a newsletter attacked the ‘X-Rated Martin Luther King’ as a ‘world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,’ ‘seduced underage girls and boys,’ and ‘made a pass at’ fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that ‘Welfaria,’ ‘Zooville,’ ‘Rapetown,’ ‘Dirtburg,’ and ‘Lazyopolis’ were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as ‘a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.’
"While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled ‘The Duke's Victory,’ a newsletter celebrated Duke's 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Republican Senate primary. ‘Duke lost the election,’ it said, ‘but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment.’ In 1991, a newsletter asked, ‘Is David Duke's new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?’ ‘The conclusion was that "our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom.’"
-----------------------------...
Ron Paul objected that Martin Luther King, Jr., had not made the kind of history that, for example, George Washington made. He also objected to what MLK Day had then become, and what it commonly was. Now I will say that Ron Paul badly mismanaged his "brand" back in the newsletter days. You'll notice that those newsletters are all shut down now, and have been shut down for awhile.
Now about David Duke: Mr. Duke did say some ugly things about members of other races. And if he had *not* said those things, then the *rest* of what he said would have been a good message.
And here is what "a more consistent package of freedom" really means: it means leaving no room for declaring members of any race a "second class of citizens." Racism is a form of collectivism and is not consistent with freedom. Paul knew this.
RCP Average 3/10 - 4/15 Obama +7.2
Rasmussen Reports 4/14 - 4/15 Obama +1
McClatchy/Marist 3/20 - 3/22 Obama +10
PPP (D) 3/15 - 3/17 Obama +3
Reason-Rupe 3/10 - 3/20 Obama +10
FOX News 3/10 - 3/12 Obama +12
http://www.realclearpolitics....