RON PAUL PLANS REVOLT

Virtually all the nation's political attention in recent weeks has focused on the compelling state-by-state presidential nomination struggle between two Democrats and the potential for party-splitting strife over there.

But in the m">http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.shar...

eantime, quietly, largely under the radar of most people, the forces of Rep. Ron Paul have been organizing across the country to stage an embarrassing public revolt against Sen. John McCain when Republicans gather for their national convention in St. Paul at the beginning of September.

Paul's presidential candidacy has been correctly dismissed all along in terms of winning the nomination. He was even excluded as irrelevant by Fox News from a nationally-televised GOP debate in New Hampshire.

But what's been largely overlooked is Paul's candidacy as a reflection of a powerful lingering dissatisfaction with the Arizona senator among the party's most conservative conservatives. As anticipated a month ago in The Ticket, that situation could be exacerbated by today's expected announcement from former Republican Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia for the Libertarian Party's presidential nod, a slot held by Paul in 1988.

Nevermind Ralph Nader, Republican and Democratic parties both face potentially damaging internal splits that could cripple their chances for victory in a narrow vote on Nov. 4.

Just take a look at recent Republican primary results, largely overlooked because McCain locked up the necessary 1,191 delegates long ago. In Indiana, McCain got 77% of the recent Republican primary vote, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, who've each long ago quit and endorsed McCain, still got 10% and 5% respectively, while Paul took 8%.

On the same May 6 in North Carolina, McCain received less than three-quarters of Republican votes (74%), while Huckabee got 12%, Paul 7% and Alan Keyes and No Preference took a total of 7%.

Pennsylvania was even slightly worse for the GOP's presumptive nominee, who got only 73% to a combined 27% for Paul (16%) and Huckabee (11%).

As Politico.com's Jonathan Martin noted recently, at least some of these results are temporary protest votes in meaningless primaries built on lingering affection for Huckabee and suspicion of McCain.

Given the long-since settled GOP race, thousands of other Republicans in these states, who might have put up with a McCain vote, crossed over to vote in the more exciting Democratic primaries, on their own for Sen. Barack Obama or at the urging of talk-show host Rush Limbaugh who sought to support Hillary Clinton and prolong Democratic bloodletting.

According to a recent Boston Globe tally, Paul has a grand total of 19 Republican delegates to Romney's 260, Huckabee's 286 and McCain's 1,413.

The last three months Paul's forces, who donated $34.5 million to his White House effort and upwards of one million total votes, have, as The Ticket has noted, been fighting a series of guerrilla battles with party establishment officials at county and state conventions from Washington and Missouri to Maine and Mississippi. Their goal: to take control of local committees, boost their delegate totals and influence platform debates.

Paul, for instance, favors a drastically reduced federal go">http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.shar...

vernment, abolishing the Federal Reserve, ending the Iraq war immediately and withdrawing U.S. troops from abroad.

They hope to demonstrate their disagreements with McCain vocally at the convention through platform fights and an attempt to get Paul a prominent speaking slot. Paul, who's running unopposed in his home Texas district for an 11th House term, still has some $5 million in war funds and has instructed his followers that their struggle is not about a single election, but a longterm revolution for control of the Republican Party.

So eager are they to follow their leader's words, that Paul's supporters have driven his new book, "The Revolution: A Manifesto," to the top of several bestseller lists.

While Paul has consistently refused a third-party bid, he has vowed not to endorse McCain, a refusal mirrored by hundreds of his supporters who've left comments on The Ticket in recent weeks. And, no doubt, they'll flock back here today to spread the gospel below.

The fat lady may not have sung, but RP won't be elected president and probably won't even be on the ballot in '08.  Anything going on is pure disruption and positioning for the future.  Not that that is a bad thing, considering that the 3 choices today range from bad to worse.  I don't think he will run in '12 either.  We really need to find and develop qualified candidates.

Most of you know I supported him in spite of some reservations.  That is more an indictment of the poor quality of candidates than anything.  The fact that he could get no traction with the mainstream is also telling.  I would rather have seen him lose on the issue of the war and foreign policy than on general voter apathy about how much the govt takes from their wallets and where it goes.  The only ones who seem to know less about economics and liberty than the general public would seem to be the ones running for president.  Yet, for the most part, the candidates from the get go were wealthy and successful.  I wouldn't characterize any of them as ignorant or stupid.  I could have voted for anybody who had a clue about the economy, but in my opinion, they are all trying to get elected to destroy it.  Makes you wonder, eh? 

...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security... From The Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776

Wake up America!

FeedFwd said:

The fat lady may not have sung, but RP won't be elected president and probably won't even be on the ballot in '08.  Anything going on is pure disruption and positioning for the future.  Not that that is a bad thing, considering that the 3 choices today range from bad to worse.  I don't think he will run in '12 either.  We really need to find and develop qualified candidates.

Most of you know I supported him in spite of some reservations.  That is more an indictment of the poor quality of candidates than anything.  The fact that he could get no traction with the mainstream is also telling.  I would rather have seen him lose on the issue of the war and foreign policy than on general voter apathy about how much the govt takes from their wallets and where it goes.  The only ones who seem to know less about economics and liberty than the general public would seem to be the ones running for president.  Yet, for the most part, the candidates from the get go were wealthy and successful.  I wouldn't characterize any of them as ignorant or stupid.  I could have voted for anybody who had a clue about the economy, but in my opinion, they are all trying to get elected to destroy it.  Makes you wonder, eh? 

You are right, the fat lady hasn't sung... but she is warming up and I don't like the tune!

Hillary and Bill the lecher and the bullet dodger who weaves tall unbelievable tales.

Barack Hussein Obama who was caught on tape promising to campaign in all 57 states.

There just happens to be 57 Islamic States!

Just another misspeak or maybe some true insight into the man?

And then there is McCain courting LaRaza and talking 'Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

Ron Paul may not have big numbers, but he never got much of a chance to put forth his case in the debates either.

Go Ron!

I would like to submit that no candidate wins an election without voters. If Ron Paul has the voters, he will win. The idea of someone not being electible as a valid reason for not voting for them is just condescending rhetoric. Any candidate who can muster the voters they need to back them, is a force in politics and cannot be denied.

And lets face it. Ron Paul is against the illegal alien invasion. McCain isn't. That makes Ron Paul a more desirable candidate. All of the other issues can be argued over and blocked and counter blocked and marched for and so on and so forth, later. I don't want to have to do that with my country's sovereignty. I want it's scurity to be a done deal. That means not letting someone who is going to constantly try to slip things past us, ( like the current administration is doing), that chip away at our sovereignty.

In other words I would rather fight Ron Paul over the war than have to constantly fight McCain over our sovereignty. The war won't destroy our way of life. The illegal alien invasion IS destroying our way of life. If we fail to repel the invasion, all else is moot. We won't be arguing OUR issues, we'll be arguing theirs.

Mr. William Kent said:

I would like to submit that no candidate wins an election without voters. If Ron Paul has the voters, he will win. The idea of someone not being electible as a valid reason for not voting for them is just condescending rhetoric. Any candidate who can muster the voters they need to back them, is a force in politics and cannot be denied.

And lets face it. Ron Paul is against the illegal alien invasion. McCain isn't. That makes Ron Paul a more desirable candidate. All of the other issues can be argued over and blocked and counter blocked and marched for and so on and so forth, later. I don't want to have to do that with my country's sovereignty. I want it's scurity to be a done deal. That means not letting someone who is going to constantly try to slip things past us, ( like the current administration is doing), that chip away at our sovereignty.

In other words I would rather fight Ron Paul over the war than have to constantly fight McCain over our sovereignty. The war won't destroy our way of life. The illegal alien invasion IS destroying our way of life. If we fail to repel the invasion, all else is moot. We won't be arguing OUR issues, we'll be arguing theirs.

The border and illegal immigration is the most important issue we face and the most pressing. We already have a foreign country dividing our country in two East to West with the NAFTA Highway (TTC).

It has to stop quickly... now, starting with this election.

FeedFwd said: ... We really need to find and develop qualified candidates. ...

Did we not have good ones in, for example Mitt Romney?  What about Tom Tancredo?  And Duncan Hunter?

It seems the  problem is not the quality of those who come forward to dedicate themselves to the public interest.  It is more an issue of how news outlets pull the strings on the public's perceptions of them in order to advance their own favorites.

Maybe oil will have to hit $200/bbl to force people to unplug their TV's and rely on a transistor radio for their information.  That should withdraw the box office draw used to charm the public into supporting leaders that don't have their best interests in mind.  Yes, that's a stretch, but the visual media are the source of bad choices by those who cast their ballots, with few exceptions.

Mr. William Kent said:

I would like to submit that no candidate wins an election without voters. If Ron Paul has the voters, he will win. The idea of someone not being electible as a valid reason for not voting for them is just condescending rhetoric. Any candidate who can muster the voters they need to back them, is a force in politics and cannot be denied.

And lets face it. Ron Paul is against the illegal alien invasion. McCain isn't. That makes Ron Paul a more desirable candidate. All of the other issues can be argued over and blocked and counter blocked and marched for and so on and so forth, later. I don't want to have to do that with my country's sovereignty. I want it's scurity to be a done deal. That means not letting someone who is going to constantly try to slip things past us, ( like the current administration is doing), that chip away at our sovereignty.

In other words I would rather fight Ron Paul over the war than have to constantly fight McCain over our sovereignty. The war won't destroy our way of life. The illegal alien invasion IS destroying our way of life. If we fail to repel the invasion, all else is moot. We won't be arguing OUR issues, we'll be arguing theirs.

I am not sure Ron Paul is against the illegal invasion.  At one point he said a fence would be offensive; then he said he would secure the borders.  When asked what he would do about the illegals already here he had no answer.

One thing Ron Paul is firmly against is Welfare, for everybody, and that is the one reason he can never be elected.

 msbobbie. That is true to a certain extent. My point was that McCain is definately FOR Amnesty and Ron Pul has not actively endorsed such a position. Fact of the matter is I would prefer Tom Tancredo, but Tancredo has shown no interest in running. Paul has. I don't believe he has any more chance of winning than any other candidate at this point, but he IS the better choice, when matched against McCain, in that he already has an infrastructure, he has money, he has backers and hasn't shown an active interest in promoting amnesty. 

The Constitution party for instance is already on the ballot in all 50 states, if my info is correct. THEY would be a better choice than McCain. On the non-Democrat side of things, almost ANYONE is a better choice than McCain as long as they aren't actively for amnesty for illegals. 

Employers,

That was kind of my point.  There were 15-20 candidates or more in the beginning.  Out of them, less than a handful were truly independent from other controlling interests as far as I could tell.  Whether you believe the CFR is a conspiracy nut nightmare or something to truly fear, it is interesting that most of the prospects from the beginning had ties to it, even when they disagreed with each other's politics.  Romney supposedly had some ties, but to the extent that he was self financing his campaign and appeared to have had a genuine epiphany on some major issues, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.  I can't explain what happened to Tancredo and Hunter, but they got maybe a total of 1 delegate between them.  Though they were younger and more charismatic, they never even came close to Ron Paul's support.  And he was barely a footnote in the race, when it was decided.  The party has rules for selecting its candidates and McCain has secured the nomination.  It isn't formal yet, but it would almost require him to die or in the famous words of Edwin Edwards, "get caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy" to avoid being the Republican candidate this fall.

And after those guys and Alan Keyes, the well is pretty much empty when it comes to true conservatives with the visibility and stature and willingness to run.  The best proving grounds are the state houses.  But we have characters like Arnold the ineligible, Rick "good-hair" Perry, Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush... all going in the wrong direction IMHO.

This just in ...

By David Knowles
May 12th 2008 9:21AM

Calling St. Paul. Come in, St. Paul. It seems there may be some trouble brewing for this summer's GOP convention in St. Paul, Minnesota. You see, another Paul is looming large on the horizon, threatening to stir up mischief at the August coronation of John, the would-be Baptist of that new and improved sect of Republicanism--Bush-Lite, for lack of a better term. As Paul's supporters learned from Guy Fawkes, surprise is the name of the game.

From The LA Times:

Virtually all the nation's political attention in recent weeks has focused on the compelling state-by-state presidential nomination struggle between two Democrats and the potential for party-splitting strife over there.

But in the meantime, quietly, largely under the radar of most people, the forces of Rep. Ron Paul have been organizing across the country to stage an embarrassing public revolt against Sen. John McCain when Republicans gather for their national convention in St. Paul at the beginning of September.

Yes, he was dissed by Fox News, taunted by his rivals, scorned in the press, but Ron Paul is not ready to stop preaching the gospel to his followers. In fact, the proselytizing continues apace, and St. Paul's stage is set to provide the Texas Congressman with ample microphone time.

His supporters are quick to add that Paul never actually dropped out of the race. No, he does not walk alone. The secret army continues to grow. Witness the recent protest votes in Indiana, where 23% of Republicans voiced their disaffection with McCain. In North Carolina the number was an even higher 26%.

Another libertarian messiah-in-waiting, Bob Barr, entered the race president today, giving the disaffected a glimmer of hope on what, to them, seems a set of woeful ballot choices.

But back to the Paul faithful. What exactly do Paul's guerrilla warriors plan to do come convention time?

They hope to demonstrate their disagreements with McCain vocally at the convention through platform fights and an attempt to get Paul a prominent speaking slot. Paul, who's running unopposed in his home Texas district for an 11th House term, still has some $5 million in war funds and has instructed his followers that their struggle is not about a single election, but a longterm revolution for control of the Republican Party.

In short, they hope for nothing less that a coup, and we're not talking de Ville, either. And hey, look who's #1 on the New York Times Bestseller List. If you thought that Paul and his supporters would simply slip back into the Republican tent and make nice with John McCain, you were a tad mistaken. With all the potential turmoil, it's a good thing that bars will stay open until 4 a.m. during the convention. One gets the sense that a few of McCain's supporters will need a good stiff one after dealing with the Paul crowd.
Recent Comments

(Page 1 of 39)

Post your comments below

| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Most Recent | Next 20 Comments

Ron Paul is the only one left who actually wants to do the right thing when it comes to illegal immigration.  I think most of us came here to FS because illegal immigration is our top priority.

The Dems, including McCain, will give amnesty and continue to destroy us.

Bob Barr is Libertarian, a party whose own platform includes open borders and free crossing across the borders of both people and goods.   Libertarians want to end penalties for businesses who employ illegals.  To Libertarians, it seems, there's no such thing as an illegal immigrant.

Tancredo and Hunter are gone.  They aren't in the race.

Paul is the only one left.  I disagree with him on some issues, but my main issue is and always has been illegal immigration.  I agree with Paul on this issue.

Many things have changed over the course of this election.  Conservatives are left with nobody to vote for except a third candidate. 

We should all seriously consider voting for Ron Paul if illegal immigration is our main priority. 

Voting for McCain as the lesser of the evils will not accomplish anything.  A McCain victory is a huge loss for America.

msbobbie said:

One thing Ron Paul is firmly against is Welfare, for everybody, and that is the one reason he can never be elected.

 

 

So what you want is a welfare state????

READ THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO AND LEARN WHAT OUR COUNTRY HAS BECOME!
"....These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools.

Ron Paul will end ALL of these communistic socialistic programs that are alive and well in America today!!

Congressman Ron Paul
"If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we would have:  no federal meddling in our schools; no Federal Reserve; no U.S. membership in the UN; no gun control; and no foreign aid. We would have no welfare for big corporations, or the poor; no American troops in 100 foreign countries; no NAFTA, GAT, or fast-track; no arrogant federal judges usurping states rights; no attacks on private property;  no income tax. We could get rid of most of the agencies, and most of the budget. The government would be small, frugal, and limited."

Aaron Russo: "Is there a law that requires people to file a 1040?"
Congressman Ron Paul: "Not explicitly, but it's certainly implied."
Aaron Russo: "Well implied by force; but is there a law?"
Congressman Ron Paul: "I cannot cite a law, no, I cannot….you know if they think it's a law and they have all the guns; you know it's an authoritarian approach." {Taken from the movie "America: Freedom to Fascism"}

Mike,

Ms Bobbie doesn't support Paul and she has her reasons.  But I think you misunderstood her.  I think welfare is not the issue that keeps her from voting for him, but it is an issue that will keep him from getting elected.  Too many voters want to protect their welfare checks whether to them personally or their companies.  On top of that, there are too many elitist, bleeding heart liberals on a guilt trip or simply willing and desirous of spending somebody else's money to help the poor and make themselves feel good.

If I'm wrong, I apologize in advance for putting words in her mouth.

 ConcernedMom:

"Tancredo and Hunter are gone.  They aren't in the race."                  

Excuse me while I cry--no pun. What ateam they would have made.    

"Paul is the only one left.  I disagree with him on some issues, but my main issue is and always has been illegal immigration.  I agree with Paul on this issue."

Paul is the only one left. The key issue I disagree with him onis Iraq. He said he would withdraw immediately. So, I basically ignore him. Recently when McSnake got the nod, I called a Ron Paul number. The person I spoke to said that if RP were elected he would not immediately remove the troops from Iraq. He said that he would stabilize first. This is not consistent with what I first read about RP. Does anyone want to jump in and call or email and see if they get the same answer??? Some of RPs other positions seem good.

FeedFwd said:

Mike,

Ms Bobbie doesn't support Paul and she has her reasons.  But I think you misunderstood her.  I think welfare is not the issue that keeps her from voting for him, but it is an issue that will keep him from getting elected.  Too many voters want to protect their welfare checks whether to them personally or their companies.  On top of that, there are too many elitist, bleeding heart liberals on a guilt trip or simply willing and desirous of spending somebody else's money to help the poor and make themselves feel good.

If I'm wrong, I apologize in advance for putting words in her mouth.

This is just a thought, not a sermon; but....

What if you were not allowed to vote if you are on any type of government funded welfare, Or if you work for the Government, Or if you received government funding for your business, school, or organization????

I think that would have a dramatic affect on the voting system!!!!

Mr. William Kent said:

 msbobbie. That is true to a certain extent. My point was that McCain is definately FOR Amnesty and Ron Pul has not actively endorsed such a position. Fact of the matter is I would prefer Tom Tancredo, but Tancredo has shown no interest in running. Paul has. I don't believe he has any more chance of winning than any other candidate at this point, but he IS the better choice, when matched against McCain, in that he already has an infrastructure, he has money, he has backers and hasn't shown an active interest in promoting amnesty. 

The Constitution party for instance is already on the ballot in all 50 states, if my info is correct. THEY would be a better choice than McCain. On the non-Democrat side of things, almost ANYONE is a better choice than McCain as long as they aren't actively for amnesty for illegals. 

No one disputes that McCain favors amnesty, Ron Paul has "not endorsed such a position" and he has not denied one either.  The fact remains primaries are almost over and Ron Paul only has 26 of the 1191 delegates needed to secure the nomination and no chance of getting there without a "revolt" at the national convention by people who have been involved in the political process less than a year.  Even if they wangled the delegates from Romney (255) and Huckabee (275) they would not have half enough. 

The Constitution party WILL NOT be on the ballot in Oklahoma.  There will be no third party on the ballot in Oklahoma.  I know the Constitution Party is telling people "We are active in all 50 states" but that does not mean they will be on our ballot.  I cannot speak for the other 49, but I wish people would check it out.  The last I checked, I believe the Constitution Party only had about 60 registered voters here.  To get on the ballot they needed a petition with 50,000 +/- signatures by a certain date, that date has passed and to my knowledge no effort was made.