« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Why is Ron Paul allowed to Continue Participating in Debates?

By: Leon H. Wolf (Diary)  |  January 9th, 2012 at 06:11 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Let us set aside for a moment the many crazy things that Ron Paul says and the ways in which they might damage the GOP brand. We’ve given people passes for saying crazy things before. I mean, I’m not thrilled to have the guy up there on national television representing the GOP in any form or fashion, but on the merits as far as his support, he deserves to be there no matter what sort of crankery he decides to subject the public to. The problem with Ron Paul’s continued participation in the debates is that, having used the GOP as a free publicity vehicle, he will not commit to refusing a third party run:

NASHUA, N.H. — Ron Paul inched further away on Friday from any unequivocal promise not to run under a third-party banner if he fails to win the GOP presidential nomination.

In a brief interview with The Huffington Post on Friday, Paul acknowledged he will have a decision to make if he loses the GOP bid come August.

In his conversation with HuffPost, Paul noted that he had won nearly as many delegates in Iowa as Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum had, and that he was likely to pick up a good share here in New Hampshire and — having hauled in $13 million last quarter — in other contests to come.

With many delegates in a bloc heading into the convention in Tampa, didn’t that mean he would remain committed to the GOP and not run an independent candidacy in the fall, even if he did not secure the nomination?

“I’ll decide that later,” Paul said while he was waiting for his son Rand Paul, a GOP senator from Kentucky, to finish an interview with the press.

Look, the reason that Ron Paul has gotten about a zillion free hours of media coverage over the last few months during the debates is that he is ostensibly running for the Republican party nomination. For the last 150 years, the eventual President of the United States has come from either the Republican or Democrat party, and so when the candidates from those parties have a debate, it is a media-worthy event. Ron Paul knows this, which I suspect is the only reason he is bothering to run as a Republican. I don’t know how much media time Ron Paul would have gotten this year running around as a third party candidate, but he wouldn’t have been given nearly as much nor as open a platform as he has gotten from his participation in the 93 debates that have been held thus far. That is to say nothing of the fact that his insurgent campaign against other Republicans in the various early primaries and caucuses is the only reason anyone would pay attention to him even apart from the debates.

Having thus used the GOP’s brand and standing to hoard a metric ton of attention for himself, the very least he could do, even if he could not bring himself to promise to support the eventual GOP nominee, would be to promise not to run against the GOP’s nominee under the banner of some other party – a concern which is not idle in this case given that Paul ran for President on a third party ticket in 1988. His failure to make this promise clearly and unequivocally should have long ago gotten him disinvited from any public forum featuring GOP candidates. Until he can make this promise, he is not a Republican candidate for President – he is a candidate for President who is acting as a parasite on the Republican party.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Bill S

    Not to promote my own diary or anything, but …

    “Politics As Entertainment, Endless GOP Debates Edition”

    :-)

    But seriously – what better TV draw than to have a kook like Paul on the stage? You KNOW the guy is gonna go off the deep end sooner or later. It’s like watching a hockey game for the fights.

    They sure aren’t airing those things as a public service. This is all about the $$$, and Ron Paul and his asylum-bound fan club brings the crazy every time. Guaranteed.

    • acat

      but yeah.

      Well.. that, and his presence means they don’t need to let actual libertarian-republicans like Gary Johnson in. “Sorry, we’ve got our libertarian-leaner for this debate.”

      Mew

      • Bill S

        .

      • timkellogg

        Glad I’m not the only one saying that.

    • jakeofalltrades

      There isn’t much substance left to work with, so they put on this show.

      In 2016, Simon will be a moderator on at least one debate.

    • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

      Ron Paul is a media gold mine. I think half the ratings for the debates are driven by people tuning in to see what crazy thing Ron Paul will come up with next. Every Circus needs a few freaks and Ron is a one-man side show. The MSM likes him because he will reliably trash Republicans and say things they would never have the guts to say themselves.

      To top it off, he feeds the racists stereotype that the MSM loves to promote. He walked out on another CNN interview today.

      As long as Ron Paul continues to deliver, the MSM will keep him there.

    • toothpick

      http://www.redstate.com/toothpick/2011/12/21/a-litmus-test-i-think-we-can-get-behind/

    • makemeday

      Let’s see, the most consistent constitutionally conservative candidate is lampooned on a conservative website because the so-called conservative media lampoons him.?… A man who will actually fulfill the Contract with America we were promised over a decade ago?… Really? Nice, so-called independent thinkers… If you all would actually take the time to listen to what the man says, instead of taking RINO commentators word for it, you might get somewhere… And how is his foreign policy ‘crazy’?… The President should only act after Congress declares it, according to the Constitution? Well then, your RINO butt can call your RINO congressmen and get them to declare war! You dont get to selectively enforce the Constitution… That’s what we are all so angry about with the current group of Congressmen… So, we’re only angry that they dont selectively enforce it the way you would?… Nice going, Hypocrites… Either follow the Constitution, or YOURE the problem….. Now call your Congressmen and apologize and then ask him how you can help to finish flushing the Country down the drain.

    • larryforrp2012

      This is great because you resort to the name calling and pushing Ron Paul supporters away then you wonder why they do not want to back your GOP candidate in the end. There is so much evidence talked about everywhere but you refuse to pay attention to it so the GOP deserves to lose again in the end. While you may feel better stooping so low to attack Ron Paul one thing is clear we are dedicated and you will lose again this election cycle because you are not intelligent enough to see it. Most people realize RP supporters are very dedicated and will go wherever he goes. He does not plan to run independent but if he does I go with him. And we represent the majority of the independent votes that the eventual GOP nominee will need to beat Obama. Heck, about 2/3rds of the Republicans do not want Romney to be the nominee. Now this does not mean the will defect for Ron Paul but what it does mean is some are now less like to go and vote now if he does win. The same is true if someone like Newt were to win, the reverse would occur. Now I do know that the parties say the process is ugly but in the end everyone comes together, but not everyone does. Maybe a majority. There is only one candidate taking the spending problem seriously who wants to cut a trillion of real spending in the first year and if no others can get behind that then they do not deserve my vote. Right now the only person is Ron Paul. So you can laugh at him for his foreign policy which represents on the list of issues important at like 3% which will lose in November or you can truly focus on the top three issues. Heck Obama is actually smarter than these other candidates and people like you because he recognizes these issues with the independents and is now talking more like a true conservative republican talking about making government smaller and spending less. It is like the two parties have swapped places and flip flopped on your principles and issues. But I guess that is to be expected if you keep promoting candidates who do this a lot while in office. If you are strong to stand your ground and you do not run away fro an opportunity to serve your country when asked to do so. Maybe if you can start to grasp some of this you might understand why we support Ron Paul with so much dedication even though it may seem so silly to you. Now I am sure many will start arguing like in so many blogs and I am not here to waste my valuable time when I have to promote my candidate at a sign wave in about 10 minutes. I am trying to give you a hint as to why we support him, issues are part of it, he does not flip flop, because things are so whack today a person who will not waiver on principles is important, we want real spending cut, and we want to make the federal government smaller. Really, if you go look at the principles on the gop.com website this matches the platform, it matches the highest concerns with Americans today, etc. If you do not like Ron Paul instead of wasting your tie talking crap on here you should at least understand why he has so much support and why they are so dedicated and then talk to you candidate’s campaign and tell them you want to talk about cutting real spending and not future spending, around the ages is no longer enough, and talk is cheap let’s make government smaller, etc.

      • gekster

        It is inflated support from paulbots like you inflating the polls.
        I’m guessing you are a stoner, so you are all in for him.
        Happy trails, and enjoy your short stay.

        • jakeofalltrades

          who don’t use paragraphs.

          • pttx333

            and theme always gives them away. They are a particularly obnoxious, crass, hateful, irritating bunch who will stop at nothing to slam anyone who doesn’t support Paul. And they will rip you to shreds if you mention Paul in a negative way.

          • avagreen

            Are ISP’s checked on us?
            Some sites do just to keep multiple account holders at bay.

        • pttx333

          my computer in the wee hours – there were flames coming out of it. ;-) There were some really nasty folks on here (I’m guessing dems and/or paulies) stalking me. I saw where you defended me – thank you, dear friend and son! I asked for mods help but never saw anyone get them “outta here.”

          Though I do think it is hilarious that they get so angry about you calling me Mom and me calling you Son – what are they mad about? Their ignorance is beyond belief! Shoot, back when my son was in high school playing baseball, he had a good friend on the team named Alex. Alex was the sweetest kid who was black, and he called me Mom, too! We all got the biggest bang out of that – even his Mom did.

          Anyway, guess we’re going to be overrun more each day with the idiots. Cockroaches would be more welcome.

          • pttx333

            MOM

            (that oughta get their goat, because I yelled it!)

          • gekster

            Woulda reply sooner, but had to start dinner.
            It’s up to the stove now for about an hour.

            Some of these people I file under the ‘know all and everything’ class.
            There’s one thing about them that is constant, since they ‘know all’ they can’t ‘learn’ anything.
            And like cockroaches, (good analogy) they have always been around since the dawn of time, and will suvive a nuclear blast.

            And I don’t know either why the hassle with the Mom thing.
            I just found myself typing it to you with out even thinking about it,
            kinda like it was meant to be.
            Either way, it makes me happy,
            And more importantly, it makes you happy.

          • Leon H. Wolf

            I have no idea what is going on here.

          • gekster

            I ain’t been called a kid in quite awhile.
            I think some of my grey hair just wen’t away. :)

          • pttx333

            with a reply – had to run a quick errand.

            Yeah, the gek and I are crazy “kids” – thank you, by the way, for calling me a kid! ;-) The background here is that I am a 71 year-old female, Perry supporter, mother-hen type who loves/hates politics. When I first came here (August, I think), I was this lost soul trying to find a decent site to voice my opinion and to gain knowledge that isn’t readily available. Scope and gekster so very kindly approached and welcomed me by leading and guiding me through RS rules, etc. After a time, gek asked if I would mind if he called me Mom. Well, talk about flattered – that is the nicest a woman can be called! Sooo, gek and I became son and Mom and will remain so. He’s my RS baby boy.

            Now, for whatever reason, some of the trolls/mobies/shills who come here to raise holy hades and insult everyone, spot us referring to each other as Mom/son and have made the most ridiculous comments about it. Of course, IMHO, everything they have to say is ridiculous. So is what I was referring to.

            As for the above-mentioned trolls, et al., I’m sure that you know they are becoming increasingly shrill, obnoxious, rude and so on. What happened in the wee hours this a.m. was there were a couple of the morons stalking and tag-teaming me – boy, was I livid. They seem to be particularly fond of harassing Perry supporters. ??? Now, if I had replied to them in the fashion that I wished, not only would I have been banned from RS, but from the entire internet as well. ;-)

            So … that is what these two “kids” are up to around here. Appreciate you even asking about it! Just wanted to give you a little background info, so now you will know just what we’re doing.

            Thanks for all you mods do! BTW, we still have several you-know-whats lurking/harassing here, but we’ll get ‘em nailed down. I’ve learned to spot ‘em a mile away.

          • pttx333

            the meal prepared okay?

            Yeah, the goofballs are something else. I don’t have a clue as to what they think they are accomplishing – which is NOTHING. I do know that they haven’t as clue as to the definitions of class, dignity, civility, debate, thoughtfulness, etc., since they are the polar opposite of all of those words.

            Yeppers, I comfy as everything for you to be son and me to be Mom. Works for me! Don’t care if anyone likes it or not …none of their bees wax!

            Mom

          • gekster

            And the wife said it was edible, which means ok to her.

          • pttx333

            that please jump in on my reply to Leon with whatever correction or addition you would like to make. Won’t hurt my feelings at all!

            Mom

      • Bill S

        But do it on someone else’s web site. Ron Paul supporters are not welcome here. Bye.

        • lineholder

          there’s another one just above this one in the thread…moniker name “makemeday” (???)

        • pttx333

          weyland and nolongerfor perry are particularly obnoxious, but more subtle with their words. There are others, but we’re trying to nail them down.

          Thanks!!!

  • lizzie

    the GOP.

    Besides, why would you trust anything from HuffPo?
    HuffPo is a journalism joke.

    Even The Nation had the sense to endorse Huntsman! And, I read neither, but read The Nation in 2005-06, and then cancelled because they caught the Israel-Derangement-Syndrome that has infected most of the useful idiots of the left, some of whom now support Ron Paul, especially with $$$.

    That said, I do believe that Ron Paul will NOT run on third-party line in 2012. He has said, and, other signs reinforce this, that he wants to change the GOP platform, and will not do anything to damage Rand Paul’s opportunity to run as a Republican in 2016 (or in 2012 if it is a brokered convention).

  • izoneguy

    Why is the GOP continuing these debates and letting the left stream media control the narrative?

    • justonevoice

      There have been far too many debates. What did we learn from Saturday and Sunday debates? Nothing. It was an opportunity for this candidate or that candidate to score rhetorical flourishes. And what did we get at the end? George S stating that Mitt is the weakest candidate to run against Obama? Good grief.

  • jakeofalltrades

    Accountants actually have methods for calculating the dollar value of good will he will have deducted from the GOP and transferred to himself, should he run third party.

  • explodinghead

    Ron Paul has a core of supporters that will doggedly vote for him no matter what. However, his support right now comes from cross-over voters in the open primaries, Operation reverse chaos types, fiscal conservatives, libertarians and anti-military types.
    The cross-overs,Operation reverse-chao- types and anti-military will all vote safely for Obama in the general. We might be able to hold on to some of the fiscal conservatives, and libertarians with fiscal conservative leanings, if we put up a fiscally conservative candidate.
    We cannot get rid of him, but if we can convince those who really care about spending that our chosen nominee will really cut spending, then having them watch debates with Ron Paul in them, might get them to listen to our other fiscally Conservative candidates and vote for them.

    • trickamsterdam

      a lot of it went to Paul. Haven’t seen specific exit polling in Iowa, but that seems to be what happened (Santorum got some of it too). Paul seemed to understand this by going after Newt, and now Santorum.. He wouldn’t be doing that unless he thought he could get some of those votes.

      I think there are guys like the dudes at Reason magazine that support Paul now, but will evetualliy support the R nominee. Yes, the cult-like Paul people may not vote, or might even support Obama.

      I understand why he threatens third party strategically…since he’s considered unelectable, some might not vote for him thinking they’d be wasting their vote…it’s almost a threat from him to them, saying “well if you don’t I may blow up the general election anyway, so you might as well vote for me now”.

      I agree w/ another poster that he won’t run third party because of Rand. If Ron ever got Pres Obama reelected the hatred towards the Pauls would be such they would be finished in R politics.

      I think you continue to let him debate so as not to irritate him and his followers…but one idea might be for all the other candidates to refuse to endorse him as nominee unless he agrees to endorse the eventual nominee.

      By refusing this deal he would basically be admitting he doesn’t think he can win, which I don’t think he wants to do…so he might take it.

  • justonevoice

    until I know who the runningmate is. If the GOP nominee chooses a pro-choice runningmate, I’m outta here. I don’t see why any candidate is required to commit to support the eventual nominee if they have fundamental disagreements with them. Newt has been very clear he is not committed to support whomever the eventual nominee is and he never gets badgered by the question.

    This is a made-up controversy. Few of us around here supoorted the NY special election GOP nominee when it went to a liberal.

    • Adjoran

      and merely pledging NOT to run third party or independent for the same office the same cycle.

      Several states have sore loser laws which would block Paul from the ballot, the LP is going with Johnson, so it is very doubtful he would qualify for enough ballots to cause trouble.

      Most of those who would follow him in such a betrayal are Paulbots anyway – they wouldn’t vote for any nominee except him and don’t even consider themselves Republicans. So it isn’t as if he is really drawing votes away.

  • armsr4hugs

    Are you willing to pledge 100% support for Ron Paul if he is the eventual Republican nominee for president?

    What’s that? An emphatic “no” prefaced by an expletive?

    By your own logic you may now turn in your GOP membership card.

    • Bill S

      Ron Paul is not a Republican. At best, he’s a libertarian, and realistically, he’s a crazed lunatic who wears a politician’s suit. He is the textbook example of a Republican In Name Only. He only wears the party title so he can get publicity for his whack job conspiracy theories.

      Not voting for Ron Paul in no way violates the “conservative in the primary, GOP in the general” rule since he isn’t Republican.

      • justonevoice

        Just wondering your thoughts on whether they are Republicans and whether they should resign from the GOP caucus in the Senate.

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          And both vote with the Party the vast majority of the time. When you do find them voting on a high profile issue against us, it is always after another high profile Republican Senator has taken the lead and declared against us. I’ve never been able to find an issue where either of them cast a deciding voted against us.

          Would I like to have more conservative Senators from ME? Sure. Frankly, given my druthers, I’d druther have more conservative Senators from my home state, Arizona. Hopefully we’ll get one down this year, Jeff Flake should handily replace the retiring Jon Kyl and that will be a major plus.

          With respect to Maine, I’ve heard lots of grousing about Snowe and Collins but I’ve yet to see a post – and I could have missed one – that offered up a credible conservative candidate as a replacement who both with the primary and have a good shot at the general. Got a name?

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            ** Ron Paul resigned from the Republican Party in the 90s and came crawling back. He never should have been allowed a seat in the Republican House Caucus.

            ** Paul wrote vociferously about his hatred for Reagan and Reagan’s policies relating to the Cold War. If Paul had his way, we’d still be dealing with the Soviet Union.

            Neither Collins nor Snowe have strayed off the reservation anything close to that.

          • justonevoice

            I don’t disagree that the Libertarian run was not a good move for Paul in 88, but I don’t see anything wrong with a libertarian-oriented Congressman caucusing with the GOP. His re-election in Texas was not a fluke — he kept getting re-elected.

            Would you also not seat Justin Amish, Rand Paul and Jimmy Duncan in the GOP?

            I still strach my head that “conservatives” around here are more welcoming to liberals like Snowe and Collins than to libertarians. I have significant philosophical differences with libertarians, but from a policy perspective I have far more in common with them than I do with the Maine liberals.

          • JSobieski

            is that we don’t have an alternative to Snowe or Collins.

            If you find someone who can win statewide in Maine, blog about the person. Otherwise, there is no reason to pick a needless fight.

          • kliff

            After Scott Brown was elected in order to stop Obamacare, Snow cast the 60th vote to enable the bill to go to the floor for discussion where only 51 votes were needed to pass the bill. Anyone think that it was coincidence that the state of Maine was granted a waiver from Obamacare?

        • Bill S

          In addition, they aren’t dangerous to the nation like the prospect of a Ron Paul presidency. As it is, Ron Paul is completely inert as a congressman – he hasn’t accomplished a thing, and he is constantly out of the GOP mainstream. RIght now the worst thing he’s doing is consuming valuable oxygen in the House chambers, although I suppose we could accuse him of contributing to global warming with his CO2 output.

      • deVere

        Guys like him were the mainstream of the party in 1940, and populated the “America First” movement. They had the same naive view of the NAZIs that Ron Paul has of the Islamo-fascists.

        While the management here says don’t go too far with anti-Romney-ism,, apparently anything goes in denouncing Ron Paul. Having heard him spouting Hamas talking-points in his own voice, I’d never vote for the man, but some of these extreme denunciations reflect worse on this website than on Ron Paul.

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          …

        • deVere

          But RP is in that general wing of the party. For good or ill, Republicans used to be isolationists.

    • Adjoran

      No one is asking Paul to support anyone, only that if he is running in the Republican primaries, to pledge he will not run as an independent.

      Several states have sore loser laws to block him getting on the ballot, but they all should.

  • eabjr

    The answer is NEVER….so, why pick on Ron Paul? These are not even “debates” and there is NO serious discussion about restoring any constitutional bearings with any of the candidates…good article once again from Michelle Malkin on this …http://michellemalkin.com/2012/01/09/the-abysmal-incompetence-of-the-non-romneys/

    • justonevoice

      was when Diane Sawyer said (slight paraphrasing but not much), “Let’s bring it down a notch and away from the Constitutional discussion.” My jaw dropped when I heard and it is a window into the insanity of these debates. That’s exactly what the media does not want: a focus on the Constitution. A focus on the Constitution would show it being ripped to shreds. There wasn’t even one question on Saturday night about whether the candidates support Obama’s new law allowing indefinite detention and repeal of posse comitatus.

      • Leon H. Wolf

        • jakeofalltrades

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    I can’t believe he would sabotage his son that way.

    • carolina

      at the convention. He is not going to run as a 3rd party candidate.
      I’ve read that he is goiing to focus on the caucus states as the easiest way to get a lot of delegates.
      I think his strategy is working.
      The platform negotiation is going to be very interesting.

      • acat

        It’s been a sop to the religious and SIVV types for almost as long as I can remember … and I’m no spring chicken.

        Let him and his kooks have it, the candidates sure aren’t using it!

        Mew

  • lightspeed

    on The Political Cesspool radio show in 2006. Supposedly he was confirmed to appear, but cancelled at the last minute. The Political Cesspool is a show run by white supremacists. They had David Duke on the week before.

    Check it out:

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/39664_Ron_Paul_Was_Scheduled_to_Appear_on_a_White_Supremacist_Radio_Show_in_2006

    http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/2011/12/26/ron-paul-and-the-political-cesspool-radio-program/

  • marktx

    Ron Paul’s threat to run as an independent in the general isn’t the first time a republican candidate has done so. John Anderson ran as an independent in 1980 against Reagan and Carter.

    While Ron Paul’s views and agenda are outside of the mainstream of republican thought, so too are some of the views of the front runner, Mitt Romney. It was Mitt Romney who ran for senate claiming that at one time he was an independent who opposed the Reagan/Bush policies. And as governor it was Mitt Romney who shook hands with Ted Kennedy after signing into law their socialized medicine scheme in Massachusetts.

    • acat

      And lost.

      Ron Paul ran as the Libertarian alternative to George H. W. Bush in 1988. And lost.

      What’s your point?

      Mew

      • marktx

        Anderson was a republican candidate, debated in the republican primary debates just as Ron Paul is doing now. Although it was many years ago, I don’t recall that anyone suggested to exclude Anderson from the primary debates. And as long as Ron Paul continues to run as a republican in the republican promaries, there is no reason to exclude him from the debates – no matter how unpopular some of his views are among the party.

        • acat

          Anderson’s career was over when he ran against the GOP.
          Ron Paul’s was not. … but should have been.

          Mew

    • larryforrp2012

      Yeah I have heard this before but it is not true. Actually it is the GOP that has changed. So far in the last 10 years we have been big spenders and preemptive wars. Even Reagan spoke against this and actually endorsed Ron Paul’s foreign policy back in the day.

      The GOP uses 9/11 to this day as to why they can not go back to the original principles when we have actually completed all of the objectives. So really now it is platform that is not willing to change back even though 70% of the country is against the idea. Probably why if you take the Ron Paul voters out of the Republican party why it continues to diminish in size. Just too hard headed to realize the facts.

      My prediction: GOP loses in November and instead of realizing the facts you will just blame Ron Paulers for the loss.

  • libertyatstake

    If Huntsman is at 1% nationally, and competitive in NH, he must have a dozen votes or so in every state that matters in the general.

    d(^_^)b
    http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
    “Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

    • renl57

      …that it’s just as likely that Huntsman will run as an Independent (not Libertarian) as it is that Paul will run as a Libertarian.

      It’s Jon Huntsman, not Ron Paul, who is the closest match this year to Anderson in 1980: Same “moderate” attempts to distance himself from the base of his own party. Same attempts to go to the left. Same favorable responses from the Left: Norman Lear and Doonesbury for Anderson in 1980, The Nation and The Boston Globe for Huntsman today.

  • targus

    Hello.

    Let’s face facts ? unbiased. This is how the process is going to happen from my vantage point. Ron Paul is doing good and Romney is doing good as well regarding primary results. Yet the anti-Romney candidates votes are splicing their own contention of delegates, ultimately giving Romney the win the GOP nomination in the end. I do not know the conclusion between Gingrich’s and Santorum’s concluding delegate count, but again being spliced — Romney overtakes the GOP nomination with this continued parsing. Gingrich needs to go after Santorum, but he will not. They respect each other, proving a bridge to Romney’s nomination. They both do not respect Romney however. Now, Ron Paul will have his absolute greatest strongest showing since any of his previous presidential attempts by far, WILL take it soon after Romney has the required delegate count and run as an independent candidate for the general election and TRY at the general election. Now, with three presidential candidates, Obama is re-elected with the greatest popular vote and the majority of electoral votes when Paul sucks the juice out of the great percentage of Republican Romney votes and even some of the Democratic Obama votes as well. Turn out will be poor from Conservative/Republican voters, when in advance these Conservative/Republican voters know Paul is an independent candidate on Election Day– their chances for a Conservative/Republican president are severely diminished. Paul in 2012 like Perot in 1992 will be the spoilers for the Conservative/Republicans. 4 more years for President Obama. The Republican party will be highly criticized and even attempts will be made after the general election to rid of or transform the Republican party. The great USA will be transformed forever more.

    Paul will NOT think twice for Rand?s future presidential hopes way out in 2020 or longer. He will be an independent very shortly after Romeny gets the GOP nomination to keep his dedicated followers.

    I believe this is the most credible outcome ? unfortunately.

  • nycmiddleman

    RP has done more than ANY of the current GOP crop to get the general public excited about economic issues, the constitution, small government and the idea of individual liberty. I am completely floored at the treatment he’s getting here. It’s like some kind of sad high school bullying. Why with the venom? It’s so? “Left”

    Sure, his foreign policy is a tad “off.” He may not be YOUR idea of “the perfect conservative.” But he’s better than a lot of our candidates on a lot of the important issues. He absolutely belongs in the debates. All 50 of them. And probably more so than, say, Huntsman or Newt.

    I am NOT a Paulite by any means. But wow do you all sound like a bunch of bitter ninnies.

    Take it down a notch? Jeesh.

    • marktx

      …to exclude RP from the debates. In fact, if the goal is to keep RP from running as an indy, forcing him out of the debates will only make his decision to run that much easier.

      A better idea might be figure out how to keep a bog government guy like Mitt Romney from winning the nomination. Imagine if Ron Paul had won the New Hampshire primary. Even though RP will never be the republican nominee, if he could defeat Romney in New Hampshire, that would have done serious damage to Romney.

  • Scope

    but it may very well not in fact be Ron running in that race. It may very well be Rand Paul that will run and pick up Ron’s supporters. Hey, there were many here that thought that Rand was very reasonable and rational. He siad in NH that he has presidential aspirations. This morning on CNN, he just kept going on and on, and would not allow anyone to interrupt his tirade for Ron’s Civil Rights positions. It’s all about property rights, and if a white doesn’t want a black, or a Chinese, or a Mexican in their establishment, they shouldn’t be forced to have them there.

    Ron is not worried at all about a third party run ruining Rand’s future, Rand is right there all the way.

    • JSobieski

      As the field gets winnowed down, he wants to make sure that he is in every debate. Paul’s “threat” is purely retaliatory.

      Rand is not going to third party either. Rand is actually a productive Senator.

      P.S. Goldwater was against the Civil Rights Act for precisely the reasons stated by Rand Paul. So were a lot of conservatives. Milton Friedman thought the Civil Rights Act was totally unnececssary.

      • Scope

        <a href="http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1734/rand-paul-no-barry-goldwater-civil-rights". Rand Paul is no Barry Goldwater and he argued today on TV that his father is all about “property rights” and if a property owner doesn’t want to serve anyone they choose not to serve they should be allowed to do just that. Rand and Ron sound like Jim Crow personified.

        • JSobieski

          Goldwater voted AGAINST the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which is why I mentioned his name.

          I realize that Ron Paul is Ron Paul and that Rand Paul is Rand Paul.

          My point is not to say that Rand Paul is a clone of Goldwater.

          My point is to point out the fact that Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act on the classic libertarian grounds of people being allowed to do what the want with private property, i.e. “the right of private persons to do or not do business with whomever they chose”.

          Next think you know, you will be trying to argue that Russel Kirk had an interventionist oriented foreign policy and that he supported the Iraq War.

        • JSobieski

          Fact 2: Goldwater did so on classic libertarian grounds as well as a states rights basis

          • Adjoran

            No such thing. The LP didn’t invent those ideas, they borrowed them.

            Goldwater was channeling Coolidge – before there was an LP at all.

          • JSobieski

            Goldwater’s reason for voting against the Civil Rights Act was based on the constitutional argument against the ability of the Federal government to “mandate” that a business owner serve any particular individual.

            Precisely what Rand Paul said.

            Ergo, the argument with Scope.

          • JSobieski

            nt

          • JSobieski

            attributing anything to the party.

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          telling that property owner that he HAD to serve a customer they chose not to serve.

          • JSobieski

            Goldwater believed that a public accommodations clause in a civil rights bill “tampers with the rights of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of property”; he asserted that the solution to ending segregation was to emphasize that it was “morally wrong” and “economically bad.”

            http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ht/43.1/br_1.html

          • JSobieski

            on an individual citizen.

          • trickamsterdam

            Fed Judge (can’t remember his name, but Limbaugh talked about him and admired him, on a show maybe a few weeks ago) as a reason he ruled the individual mandate constitutional.

            I think conservatives are going to lose (in the SCOTUS) because it’s sort of a bizarre argument that the Fed Gov can order you to sell something, but can’t order you to buy something.

            I’m obviously not saying it’s the exact same thing, but it’s too close. To me, either both are constitutional or neither is.

            BTW – Just as there could be incentives to get people to buy insurance (w/out a mandate), there could have been incentives for businesses to desegregate. For example, tax incentives for non-racist businesses, government refuses to due any sort of business w/ segregationist companies, etc.

          • renl57

            …it was the customers.

            White segregationist customers would refuse to patronize a business if they saw blacks in it. They would refuse to eat in a restaurant if there were blacks eating at the table next to them. And that added up to far more revenue than any tax incentive on the business could have compensated for.

            The Civil Rights Act eliminated the *option* that white people had to patronize only segregrated businesses. White segregationists could no longer say “Let’s find a restaurant that’s whites-only” because there weren’t any anymore.

          • trickamsterdam

            Liberals would say “now people don’t have the option of being uninsured”. And “it’s for the public good”.

            Even though I’m a conservative leaning libertarian, I don’t think either argument (by the Fed Gov) is crazy.

            It’s just, when you let yourself be bullied into saying the civil rights bill is settled law (even though liberals will defend KSM’s “rights”, and expect not to be judged for it) than you open up a situation where 45 years later you get an individual mandate for health insurance. For the “public good”.

            I still think either both laws are unconstitutional or neither is. And I don’t even think it’s going to be 5-4. I think we lose 6-3 or 7-2.

            Otherwise the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Law simply doesn’t make any (or at least much) sense

        • JSobieski

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJyWWM9OHKA

          You can start viewing around 2 minutes in.

          Goldwater specifically opposed the part of the law that required private property owners to serve anyone. He opposed the constitutionalithy of the law.

      • clowngirl

        He is showing utter contempt for the GOP.

        If he isn’t willing to legally commit himself to not running third party he should be nixed from all future debates.

        It’s utterly ridiculous that he’s being allowed to hold the party hostage and to use GOP resources to raise his profile so he has the ability to hurt the GOP as much as possible.

        I would go further and kick him out of the Republican Party if he isn’t willing to commit to not running third party this year.

        One would presume that Dennis Kucinich couldn’t run as a Republican just to disrupt it’s primary and draw attention to his issues – why can Ron Paul.

        • JSobieski

          Its the media that keeps asking, and his answer (I have heard it several times) consists of “not ruling it out” but not “thinking about it” and “anticipating it”.

          Since most Republicans say they would never vote for the guy, I am frankly surprised that he doesn’t use the third party threat—but he doesn’t and he won’t.

          Not. Going. To happen.

          • conservativemusician

            Paul saying he is?not ruling it out? but not ?thinking about it? and ?anticipating it? is not a firm denial. He also still refuses to come right out and say he would support the eventual nominee, so I’m not convinced he is not seriously thinking about it.

            Have you also noticed that Paul is the only candidate that is regularly asked this question? I think it is because everyone knows he is crazy enough to do it and he will take significant votes away from the eventual nominee. Most won’t vote for him as you say, but he still has a significant number of rabid supporters, enough to pull a lot of votes away from whoever wins the nomination. This makes him very dangerous.

            Paul is retiring from Congress this year, so I’m sure he wants to go out with a bang. What better way for him to make a statement then to muck up the entire process. He has the potential to the modern day Ross Perot if we’re not careful.

          • acat

            which is one reason why I’m not losing sleep over Gary Johnson grabbing the Libertarian nomination… it keeps a relatively organized third party apparatus away from Luap Nor.

            Anything that makes his life harder I’m all for.

            Mew

          • JSobieski

            It will not happen.

          • conservativemusician

            Because Ronulans certainly think Paul should “go rogue”.

            http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48726

            (h/t Human Events)

          • JSobieski

            (1) Did Ron Paul go rogue in 2008?
            (2) What would make 2012 different?

            Factors supporting an independent run
            Ron Paul is going to retire, so why the heck not

            Factors against
            He will have quite a few delegates at the convention
            Given his strong showings, he gets more attention as an R than a non-R
            His son is a sitting US Senator with a potentially great career ahead of him
            He wants to take over the Republican party, and is starting to think that he can do so—he wants to be George Washington 2.0, not Ross Perot 2.0

            Unless treated with severe disrespect, he will not mount an independent run.

  • justonevoice

    I went to a debate party in Chicago Saturday night that was organized by some grassroots GOPers. The crowd was mostly supportive of Ron Paul. I’d estimate there were 200-300 people crammed into the bar and I was amazed. When was the last time you went to a sports bar to watch a political debate? Just as I was thinking, “wow, what excitement and energy in this crowd” there was a guy who walked up to me and said “I think you and I may be the oldest people in this crowd.” I agreed. There may have been 5 of us over 40. The bulk of the crowd were in their 20s. So….where do you want those 20-somethings to go? Do you want them to fade into the wall and never be active for small government? Do you want them to go to the Libertarian Party? I know from the comments that they aren’t going back to the Democrats because they are intellectually committed to limited government.

    The GOP has a youth movement, if it can keep it.

    • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

      They were enablers of racism and anti-Semitism.

      The youth will come around when they understand what a fruit loop Paul is, or they’ll go be stoners or skinheads.

      • renl57

        …to a Big Government Social Conservative candidate like Santorum.

        Or to some retread like a McCain or a Gingrich.

        The problem is that none of these candidates has offered a vision that can excite young people about their own long-term future.

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          elected officials, and ESPECIALLY the leadership of the Party, the issue with “young people” isn’t that someone can’t offer them a vision that excites them. The problem, and this is by no means a new problem, is that kids are don’t have a foundation of experience from which to make decisions and given a choice between retail politics and chasing tail, well, there’s just no choice.

          We see this at Redstate. We get kids bouncing in here making pronouncements that their opinions – and they’ve gone on at length by the time the pronouncements start – are perfect because they are honor students or they read peer reviewed studies or they did volunteer work for a summer. In the meantime, they’ve never had a job, never even given a thought what it’s like to make a payroll and if they need money they call home.

          Are there “youth” – vision of “My Cousin Vinnie” – who can get excited about politics, sure. But they’re sure not found at Ron Paul rallies and wouldn’t waste my breath on them. When push comes to shove, they’re not worth the effort. Some will come around and some will stay stoned and end up in an OWS camp and think they’re changing the world.

    • fellowgeorgian

      Are Liberals in their 20′s. Confused in their 30′s. Conservative in their 40′s! There is definitely a disconnect in society of looking to the elders for respect and guidance, Sorry to be so harsh but the next generation gets what they DESERVE!!!!!!!!

      • renl57

        …in the 1980s.

        Conservatism was cool among young people back then–because they saw America getting stronger and the economy getting better.

        Even liberal Hollywood picked up on that mood, with movies like “Top Gun.”

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          world around in the 90s didn’t they.

          Insert a NSFW comment here. And remember, Obama was a kid in the 80s.

  • turningtables

    Hey Leon,

    How’s things over there to the left of me tonight?

  • justonevoice

    on this site the past month or so!

    P.S. I like your tag line — a lot!

  • http://www.wakeupamerica.com/constitutionalbelievers constitutionalbeliever

    We as Americans need to understand what the difference is between the truth and the Worlds Military Industrial War Complex Regime?s Propaganda! That same Military industrial War Complex Regime that President Eisenhower warned us about on January 17, 1961 AD to date almost 51 year ago. As Americans we are still ignoring this warning, So Now They Are ?The Powers That Be? Either you believe this or not, What you see in most of the political spectrum is all just an illusion created by ?TPTB? to keep the people of the world entertained with the puppet shows just enough to distract you so ?TPTB? can work on the agenda of the One World Government or the New World Order. And They Will Not Stop Until We Are All Enslaved! With the exception of a few palliations that openly try to warn us, when they mention this very old clich? ?The Devil Is In The Details?, Congressman Dr. Ron Paul is the only candidate left that will Not perpetuate their evil agenda, by returning back to the Foundation of this Great Nation. Returning Back To the Divinely Inspired Creation, The Constitution of The United States of America!
    Now, you can help make the corrections to Our Republic, Help Save Our Constitution!
    When the people fear the government, that?s Tyranny!
    When the government fears the people, that?s Liberty!
    All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing!
    Now Is the Time for All Good Men and Women to come to the aid of Our Country!
    Make the Difference and Take a Stand with other Good Men and Women.
    Info @ www.wakeupamerica.com/constitutionalbelievers
    If We Don? WAKE UP AMERICA Now!!! This Is Our Future Now! http://www.infowars.com/government-censors-document-revealing-plans-to-wage-war-on-americans/
    This Future is already here! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6nchQl9JDg&feature=bulletin
    America is on the precipice of demise! http://www.inflation.us/videos.html
    Take Care and GOD BLESS The Whole World!
    Sincerely
    Mr. Harris
    ConstitutionalBelievers@hot.rr.com

    • weyland

      …is divinely inspired, the why did it need amendments?

      PS: Stay off the caps-lock, and stay on your meds.

  • dirlie

    he is polling at 1% in New Hampshire. He should have been excluded from the New Hampshire debates. Of course not having to debate would actually be good for Perry

  • stumpy

    Alabama 21 – LSU 0, Roll Tide! 2011 National Champions!

  • thosjefferson

    Ron Paul at least supports capitalism. I’d rather hear from him than Newt Gingrich.

    http://www.clubforgrowth.org/news/?subsec=7&id=1008&v=pr&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClubForGrowthPressReleases+%28Club+for+Growth+%7C%7C+Press+Releases%29

    • pttx333

      n

      • Adjoran

        just like Obama.

        What a complete jerk.

        • pttx333

          her feet firmly planeted in concrete and with no second choice. But it is for sure that Newt is better than Ron Paul! He is a true, certifiable lunatic!

          • mccoypauley

            If you really believe a progressive is better than a socialist, then America is in huge trouble.

          • pttx333

            You call Newt a progressive and, I guess, Perry is a socialist? Is this what you are saying? Your message is jumbled here.

            FYI, America is already in HUGE trouble with b.o., and that is precisely why I am supporting Rick Perry!

      • thosjefferson

        I don’t support Ron Paul, but I’d rather see him nominated than watch Newt and Obama compete for the title of the greatest anti-capitalist in the history of American Presidential campaigns.

        Newt wants to debate Obama, but what’s he going to say? Newt has become the face of anti-capitalism in a way Obama never could.

        That any so-called conservative, or even so-called Republican, still supports Newt makes no sense. He’s running to the left of Obama now.

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          but this one takes the cake.

  • asap100

    Liberals don’t like him all that much , common dreams runs as many anti Ron Paul articles as you guys … I assumed his support came from conservatives, can someone explain all this

    • renl57

      Ron Paul’s support consists of:

      Truthers

      Peaceniks

      People fearful of The New World Order

      People fearful of the NAFTA Superhighway

      People who think the problem with immigration is that Mexicans are biologically inferior to white people

    • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

      There are no shortage of stoner nut cases in the world.

  • http://torahperspective.com bfkidd

    You write about Ron Paul destroying the GOP brand, “Let us set aside for a moment the many crazy things that Ron Paul says and the ways in which they might damage the GOP brand.”

    The GOP brand is seriously flawed, needs to be exposed, and those who continue to propagate it need to wake up. Every other candidate running is a business as usual GOP operative who will continue to play “good cop, bad cop” with the democrats, and we will continue to see our liberty erode.

    The desperation I see in those who want to paint Ron Paul as a crazy is ridiculous. He is the only sane, honest candidate in the race, and most writers, pundits, and political hacks in radio, TV, and internetdom are still drinking the spoiled, poison Kool Aid of the failed and flawed GOP brand.

    Ron Paul 2012!

    • pttx333

      cc

    • cark

      As a life long Republican voting conservative, I can no longer support any of the GOP candidates besides Dr. Paul. I am tired of getting sold out by these guys once they are elected. Say what you will about Paul, the one thing nobody can question that he says what he mean and then does it. The rest of the people left in this race have no real intention of actually cutting govt. and each in their own way embrace big govt solutions.

      If there is no place left in the GOP for the a true fiscally conservative who authentically tries and follows the constitution (no matter what), who has shown he can not be bought by special interests and is committed to shutting down the FED printing press, then there is no place for me in this party either.

  • snappy101

    Ron Paul will not risk hurting Rand Paul’s career. If he runs as a third party candidate, the Republican Machine will take it out on Rand Paul. I think he’s very clever in leaving the door open to a third party run because maybe he’ll get the GOP to do some things his way just from the perceived threat of it.

  • bucksnort

    This is what I keep saying to myself everytime Ron Paul speaks. My support has been with Perry since day one. He is the only one that has the guts to tell it like it is. People like to keep their heads in the sand and believe the balony spewing from the lips of the other candidates. Wake up conservatives. Rick Perry can get this economy going again. He just got a grade of “A” on his plan. His debating skills are very good despite his oops moment. I would rather have a human as my potus. Look at his record. Look at his background. Look at his plan for America!

    • onenationundergod

      Have you even googled Ron Paul delegates to see the strategy? Have you even spent two seconds wondering why his supporters are the rudest in the field? Because many are democrats.

      If journalists in America….especially on the right…aren’t even willing to investigate what is so obviously happening on the ground in the Paul campaign…we cannot change anything.

  • travis690

    Why are all the other debate participants promoting the same big-government-oriented plans that they would offer us if they become President?

    The idea of a debate is, to paraphrase James Carville: “It’s the ideas, stupid!”

    Debates are supposed to be about the ideas, not about the personalities. So far, all the other candidates are expressing their ideas in the form of having government and business work together; ie, Corporatism. This is exactly what the Occutards are protesting against (even though they don’t use that word). So far, Ron Paul is the only one that is presenting ideas that don’t sound like they come from one branch of the Big Government party. This is why there aren’t any named Republican candidates that are polling above the current Occupier-in-Chief. Instead, the Republican party has done its best to distance itself from Paul’s ideas (not just the bad ones, but all of them).

    The last time a Republican candidate for President presented a message that was outside the safety box of Republican dogma was when Ronald Reagan ran for President in 1980. And we all know how successful he was, in spite of the Establishment trying to stop him. It was after his success that the Establishment said this would not happen again.

    And if the pattern holds, they’ll get what they wish.

    Unfortunately, the nation cannot survive a second term for Obama.

  • mattkpsu

    And I support Ron Paul. I’m tired of hearing the ideas of liberty and non-intervention are idiotic, especially from conservatives who should know better.

    I am so sick of seeing the modern GOP pushing an anti-science, anti-gay, populist agenda. Let’s cut taxes, allow 50% of Americans to pay 0%, then not cut spending to offset it, then borrow from China. Let’s start two wars on flimsy justification, that turns out to be faulty intelligence (at best). Then we put three candidates on stage who are theocrats, trying to push their religious beliefs onto others, in the face of the first amendment which bars the practice.
    The modern “conservative” seems to think that government “should not play a part in your life”, but then you have no trouble stopping a rape victim from getting emergency contraception. You have no trouble standing in the way of a medical doctor providing a willing patient medical treatment. You are fine with the federal government funding k-12 education, as long as your local school district gets a chunk of the $$$. You have no trouble waging a drug war which has led to the killing of thousands of people while not curbing drug use. And worst, you have no trouble wasting trillions of dollars in two useless wars that have weakened us and destabilized the middle east.

    Our party has badly lost its way and the only force to stop it is people like the Pauls. It took me until this year to see it, but now I see the light. We are not going away and we are not giving up on the Republican Party either.

    • Bill S

      Ron Paul supporters need not apply.

      The Daily Paul wants you.

      Buh-bye.

    • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

      Regardless, you’ve overstayed your welcome here. So long.

    • Caleb Howe

      … not messing around on blogs. You’re going to end up spending recess cleaning the erasers!!

    • z0iid

      @mattkpsu -

      I’ll respond to you, because you seem to be one of the few reasonable people in here (head not stuck in sand). But, I’m also addressing a few fallacies that have been repeated here.

      I support Ron Paul.

      I’ve never touched an illegal drug in my life. (i’m 29)
      Also never abused prescription drugs.
      Drink maybe one beer a month.
      No debt other than a small mortgage. (99k)
      Solidly middle-class. (65k+)
      Married. (to a woman)
      Don’t party.
      Don’t attend any rallies/protests.
      Didn’t attend college.
      Never been unemployed. (since age 11)
      Grew up in Iowa.
      Lived 7 years near San Francisco.
      Lived the past 6 1/2 years near Denver, CO.
      Get my information and base my political opinions from:
      http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm
      (not debates, not tv/newspapers/op-ed/co-workers/etc)
      Agnostic (don’t believe any religious/holy books are more than a mixture of historical fact combined with lots of exaggeration/storytelling)

      A few of my opinion(s):

      war on drugs is a waste (of time/money)
      anti-gay is a waste of political time/money (stay out of bedroom)
      anti-science is a waste of political time/money
      US troops in countries that are part of the UN – wasting money
      candidates that pander to popular opinion are bound to be swayed by special interest groups
      would support a streamlined, easier process for legal immigration – and allow all current illegals to participate in the process

      Does this profile fit the popular opinion on this site of a Ron Paul supporter? (the answer is NO based on the parroting in these comments, ie – not stoned, don’t depend on anyone else for my financial freedom, not a conspiracy theorist, welcome and encourage people from any country to have to right to live anywhere they please in the world …)

      I support Ron Paul, because he is Honest, not on a power trip, and truly wants this job so that he can attempt to make this country a better place to live.

      • jakeofalltrades

        Nazis coming out of the woodwork.

        • z0iid

          understand your logic.

          did you read my comment? because I didn’t say anything that was anti-semitic or “pro white”.

  • uncle_fweddy

    This isn’t the first time I’ve seen the Republicans field a large collection of candidates, wear everybody out, with the accusations, then nominate the weakest RINO of the bunch. So many times I’ve had to hold my nose to even get close to the voting booth; the last time–McCain–I had also to wear a blindfold, as well. Palin was a breath of fresh air, but not enough to clear the air of McCain’s stink. My vote, as so often happens, was not so much for the con–bite your tongue; McCain’s no conservative–Republican, as it was a vote against an even more liberal–in this case, the conntry-destroying muslim–Obummer. Now, it appears they intend to jam weak sister Romney the RINO, down our throats. My kingdom for another Ronald Reagan. Where, oh where, are the true patriots? If you stand up, we’ll support you.

  • celador2

    There is no topic to discuss just speculation that a candidate who won third in Iowa and second NH will run as a third party despite his denials. How much more energetic and upbeat to discuss his isses in their integrated form starting with the Fed reserve, funnymoney and the deceit of deficit spending.

    If anyone was worried about a third party challenge I’d look to TRUMP, the icon of RS. Interviews, book ads and he has moved his voter registartion to ‘Independent’,

    Not Ron Paul.

    It is up to free market forces of voters to remove a contender from the GOP pres contest but a debate is easier. I oppose signing pledges but to satisfy the fear, perhaps the RNC and GOP SC might gang on on Paul and say, ” SIGN or be removed from the ‘debate’ ” on stage sponsored by corporate media.

    Afterall to many the staged ‘debates’ ,controlled by hosts not candidates and their message, have become the sole standard for picking a nominee for many voters. Not all voters, though place that much credibility to the media ‘debate’ controlled by media, so you can have your rubber stamp format for all I care.

  • tjms

    to drain votes from the other non Romney candidates. It is part of their game and it will backfire. My college daughters and some friends did a survey of college repubs/independents and some friends of mine and myself have done door to door surveys of 4 different towns near by. The results were unexpected. Not to go to deep in all the details but, But between Mitt and Ron Paul,,among the university students Ron Paul huge winner, Between Mitt and Perry-15% less supported Perry than the Paul diff. The only other candidate to show a pulse was Huntsman but barely. And that is how they did the presidential match up with each candidate as well. On the towns survey-Mitt rec’d 25% except against Huntsman and Perry, there he got 23% and 18% in that order. Other than Mitts got R. Paul-30%,J.H.-42%,Newt-33%,Santorum-21%,Perry-54%. All other voters say they would either not vote,write in or 3rd party.Against Obama-Mitt 23%,Huntsman-18%,Newt-8%,Santorum-11%,Perry-65%,Paul-58%. Obama did best against Newt,Huntsman and Santorum in that order. Of course this was in TX so the Perry support is not surprising. We also asked,since being a TX thing if Perry drops out who would you support, answer-75% say vote to Ron Paul,rest write in, Obama or 3rd party. Reason mainly given only ones that will make a “real change” are Paul and Perry. The way it was worded was simply in voting would you support: Romney vs. each other candidate. And same with the presidential against each opponent. I know it isn’t a prefect poll but what we figure was a good sampling of regular communites and 1 private university and one public. I am NOT a Ron Paul supporter by any means but the GOP is playing a dangerous game and it could very likely end up a Romney against Paul primary if it keeps going this way. And that is exactly what they are hoping for. Most people were very nice about participating and insisted on us giving them the results as they say they are never called for the national polls and wonder. maybe more people could try this and see what you find in your areas. As I said this is TX so I am aware of some partiality for our governor, but that is how we vote if given the chance.