Ron Paul Suspends Presidential Campaign….Kinda

Congressman Ron Paul announced today that he would no longer be seeking votes in states that have yet to have their presidential preference primaries.  However, he will be working on his strategy to maximize the number of delegates in the states that have already voted and who have not elected their delegates to the national convention yet.  From the Washington Times:

Mr. Paul said he will continue to work to win delegates in states that have already voted and where the process of delegate-selection is playing out. He said that’s a way to make his voice heard at the Republican nominating convention in Tampa, Fla., in August.

“Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted,” Mr. Paul said. “Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have.”

He did encourage his supporters to still turn out and vote.

Sock puppets, have at it.


  1. Engineer says:

    I’ll wait and see how the delegates go, but it looks like I’ll be voting for the Libertarian presidential candidate again.

  2. proudpaulite says:

    Ron Paul should be applauded for his efforts. He energized voters, motivated the grassroots people (including those that were against him), and has truly made a difference in the campaign. If you take the blinders off and look back over the entire Presidential cycle, you will see that many of the other candidates took on his talking points throughout the campaign. He may not be the next President, but it cannot be denied that he made an impact on the race.

    • Doug Grammer says:

      He ran to bring lots of people together at rallies. If you read between his lines, all he is looking for now are changes in the GOP platform. I think I said as much, once upon a time.

  3. Jimmie says:

    Why can’t he just run Millions in debt and extend the campaign? Can he borrow from the Fed at .001%? What if he Flipped and Flopped on bombing third world countries? He could gather support from the Neo-Cons. He could throw out his support for the Constitution and campaign on stripping more of Americans Natural Born Rights. He could do all the above, then Lie like a Persian Rug once he gets in there, and do the exact opposite of what his new platform would be. It works for all the previous Presidents no?

  4. HisIdeas says:

    Ron Paul did not suspend his campaign. He realistically assessed the many millions of dollars required to compete in campaigning, he decided he simply does not have the resources for that. Also Ron Paul does not have large donors as Romney has:
    Goldman Sachs $564,580
    JPMorgan Chase & Co $400,675
    Bank of America $364,850
    Morgan Stanley $363,550
    Ron Paul donors are individuals who feel strongly about his platform and donated small amount time and time again.

    One of Ron Paul’s contributions in this election season is he has educated many people.
    1) Question the role of federal reserve. Why a privately owned entity, i.e. FED, is controlling the entire system of money supplies? Printing money from thin air and pump in more debt when we have a debt crisis to begin with? Why does FED stand ready to rescue the Euro Zone with American taxpayer money?
    2) Why the federal govt chooses to not secure our own borders while so entangled in wars after wars in the middle east?
    3) The function of the govt is to protect our rights to life, rights to liberty and the rights to the fruit of our labor. But have we seen our liberty been invaded through the TSA and NDAA, etc.? Has the govt exercised strong conservative principles in spending cut and lowering taxation or just the opposite? Has more of the fruit of our labor been taken away? Before 1913, we did not have income taxes and we did not have Federal Reserve.

    Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence said: “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”

    May I ask all of you, are all these not valid concerns? Are those ideas so objectionable to you and there is no room in your heart and mind for them?

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      Truth is, they aren’t valid concerns. Most of the GOP old guard is concerned about ‘getting theirs’ and then dying off; dumping all over the future generations on their way to kick the bucket.

    • Doug Grammer says:

      “Ron Paul did not suspend his campaign.” He just admits that he won’t win. By the way, we did have the income tax before 1913. Do your homework.

      I am almost always up for a debate on just about any issue. That doesn’t mean I want Ron Paul as President.

      • registrar says:

        Yeah, they did have it. And it was ruled unconstitutional, and gotten rid of. Do your homework.

  5. HisIdeas says:

    You are right in pointing out prior to 1913, there was income tax. If you google “Ron Paul says federal income tax rate was 0 percent until 1913”, in politifact dot come, there is an article about this very topic.
    “First of all, Paul had a reason for mentioning 1913; the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified that year, legalizing a federal income tax, and Congress approved legislation enacting one. The 1913 law imposed a tax of 1 percent on income up to $20,000, for both individual and joint filers. However, exemptions from the tax — the first $3,000 of income for individuals and the first $4,000 for joint filers — meant “virtually all middle-class Americans” were excused from paying, according to W. Elliot Brownlee’s book, Federal Taxation in America. The law also put in place a graduated surtax on incomes above $20,000; the highest rate paid, 7 percent, applied to Americans making more than $500,000 (about $11.4 million in 2011 dollars).

    The 16th Amendment removed this barrier by authorizing Congress to collect taxes on incomes “without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

    In all regards, 1913 is a significant year in our nation’s history, by Woodrow Wilson’s own admission, “we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”

    And that resonates truth to every free thinking individual today. For Ron Paul, it is not the presidency that he is interested in perhaps, but rather, the ideas he advocates to be embraced by a freedom loving nation.

    • Doug Grammer says:

      I understand what happened regarding taxes in 1913 even if Ron Paul was there and I was not. The fact is we had income taxes a few times before 1913. They were ruled unconstitutional and then brought back.

      • Engineer says:

        Supporting something “ruled unconstitutional”.

        While not a big fan of income taxes, I realize the government has to have an income source from somewhere, and even I’m not sure that we’d make enough (even just using excise taxes, non-protectionist tariffs like Mr. Paul has suggested) to cover the military (although let’s be honest, with a military budget cut in half, we’d still have a larger budget than the rest of the world combined, except Russia and China and even then, both of their budgets would also be smaller than ours), let alone the multitude of social programs out there. Personally, if there is going to be a national tax of the populace, I’d prefer a national sales tax, that way “everybody” pays.

  6. debbie0040 says:

    Ron Paul help force the GOP field to the right and he forced candidates to address issues like the Federal Reserve they would not have address had Paul not been a candidate. Paul supporters are dedicated and motivated.

    However, I have heard that there is a strategy to use RNC Rule 38 and have delegates vote for Paul on the 1st round. The issue is that that Georgia delegates will not vote as a block. There are some committed to Gingrich and some committed to Romney and Santorum. There are even 3 that are uncommitted to any candidate. You have to sign an oath stating you will vote for the candidate that won your district/state allocation if you are a delegate unless the candidate to which you are pledged releases his delegates. I am a delegate committed to voting for Gingrich and if he releases his delegates, I will vote for Romney.. Any delegate that signs the oath/pledge then breaks it by voting for someone else in the 1st round unless released can and should face criminal charges.. There is a little thing called conspiracy…

    • registrar says:

      And any delegate that is released to vote for whomever they please, and then votes for Romney first chance they get, is NOT a true TEA Party Patriot, and is nothing more than a sellout to the GOP… Party over Principle.

      There will be two names on that ballot at the RNC — Romney and Paul. And ONLY Paul represents true TEA Party values. If you vote for the non-TEA Party candidate — you will have sold your TEA Party birthright for a mess of GOP porridge.

  7. NoTeabagging says:

    This seems weird to report a candidate as “dropping out” or Not seeking votes. If his name stays on the ballots, he is seeking votes. He may not be spending millions to remind voters of that fact. Did he remove his name from the ballots of the remaining primaries?
    The article does not clarify this. It seems a bit counter productive to have reports say you don’t want votes. Even a few delegates would seem worth staying on the ballot, especially if he is trying to garner more delegates at the convention.

  8. Jimmie says:

    Rules is Rules. At the National Convention are they under the RNC rules or Ga rules? Is it the GA state convention or RNC? Which has authority in the court of law? What Court of Law do intend to prosecute any delegate not voting for the Newt? I heard there is a sect that intends to vote for Santorum too. Should be interesting in Tampa!

    • Nathan says:

      People can do what they want. They’re grown adults (at least, their physical age is) and can disregard the warnings given by the Georgia GOP. The issue was stressed to me pretty hard that our state GOP rules bind delegates to the candidate and will be charged with a felony if they do not vote accordingly on the first two ballots or if the candidate releases his delegates. If folks want to take the chance, then let them. We’ve warned them about the consequences.

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      I wouldn’t encourage that. Best to leave the rule-breaking to the GOP power-brokers.

      I’ve got people telling me that they wouldn’t dream of trying to join the GOP after what they’ve done to Paul supporters across this country, and those comments don’t necessarily come from people who agree with the doctor.

      Follow the rules. Leave the GOP’s suicide to the GOP leadership; they’re doing a fine job so far.

      • Jimmie says:

        If they can break rules and laws why can’t everybody do it? It’s their world we just think we are part of it.

        • Doug Grammer says:

          Who in the Georgia GOP has broken a law? I’m not talking about publicly elected officials, I mean party officers. Give us names. I’ve seen rules broken and there is an appeals process in place.

          • HisIdeas says:

            March 10th, in Athens, GA, Athens-Clarke county GOP met to hold their county convention. County chairman Matt Brewster and nominating committee chairman John Elliot blatantly broke the rules of their own party when they improperly, and without a majority, passed delegate slates and adjourned the convention amidst cries for “division”, which is a call for a standing head count. With that, many sitting precinct delegates were disenfranchised, and the convention was improperly closed. When warned that their conduct was jeopardizing the status of the delegates and alternates for the entire county, the chair Matt Brewster directed all questions to John Padgett, who is the Secretary of the Georgia State Republican Party. Unfortunately, Mr. Padgett refused to answer questions and fled the scene along with the rest of the local GOP leadership.

            Apparently, this is not the first time that the Georgia GOP has alienated Ron Paul supporters. In a March 2011 speech given by Sue Everhart, Chairwoman of the Georgia State GOP, she apologizes to Ron Paul supporters for “shoddy treatment” in 2008. She also admits that pressure from an outside source was the reason that Ron Paul supporters were mistreated. During the same speech, Everhart holds up a copy of the Georgia Republican Party Rules, vowing that such treatment will not happen in the future.

            Google “Athens-Clarke County, GA Republican Delegate Fraud”, you will find a video which received 71412 views. As of today, the appeal from Athens-Clark has not been heard. May I also venture to say, this is far from an isolated incident across our state. Care for more evidence?

            • Doug Grammer says:

              I told you I have seen rules broken. I’m looking for an example of a LAW broken.

              I am very aware of this incident. I contacted about seven different Ron Paul supporters from Clarke County and three responded. I was told by them I would get the unedited full video from that day and have not received it yet.

              I have been told that the RP group in Clarke County said they would abide by a ruling of the county GOP in an appeal of the convention and they dropped the appeal. With over 20 pages of this video on google, I think they thought it was best to play the full victim card with no redress. There are processes in place to appeal rule breaking.

              I would call it an isolated incident In Georgia. There may be a total of 5 county and district conventions where things did not go as they should, but there would probably have been that many if Ron Paul was not on the ballot.

              Yes, please, I want ANY evidence where a LAW was broken.

  9. debbie0040 says:

    The RNC rules state voting in block. Georgia does not vote in block. Each state also has at least 3 delegates (State GOP Chair, Republican National Committeeman and Republican National Committeeman) that are un-committed so no state will be voting in block. The RNC rules also state that delegates are bound on at least the 1st round or until released by the candidate that won their Congressional District or State. There is nothing in the RNC rules that state delegates cannot be required to sign oaths affirming their support for the candidate they are pledged to..

    If delegates were allowed to vote for who they wanted to in the 1st round, then why even have a primary?

    Ron Paul supporters also think that they can delay state conventions hoping enough people will go home so they control the convention. That strategy backfired on them in Arizona this past weekend because once people grew weary and started leaving, it was a mass walkout of Romney delegates so they would lose a quorum. They lost the quorum and could not conduct business of electing delegates. Now the Arizona GOP State Committee gets to choose delegates. The Paul people accomplished nothing other than ticking off other delegates that were not Ron Paul supporters.. Yet, Paul supporters like those in Arizona moan and groan that they are not welcomed into the party after they pull stunts like they did this past weekend .

    • Doug Grammer says:


      Where do you get voting in block from? RNC rule 38 prohibits Unit rule. We report votes by state via Roll Call, but that doesn’t mean everyone in the state votes the same way.

    • registrar says:

      Debbie, you’re wrong. Many states require their 3 “super-delegates” to vote for whomever won the most votes in their state… INCLUDING GEORGIA. The State Chair, Committeeman and Committeewoman are BOUND in those states.

      And it wasn’t Arizona, it was Oklahoma.

      Care to be wrong about some more stuff? You’re on a roll.

  10. Jimmie says:

    All great information but we’re talking about GA. These other states and their actions have nothing to do with GA and what you perceive may happen. I suppose it goes with that whole collectivist mindset everyone seems to love so much.

    • Doug Grammer says:

      O.C.G.A. § 21-2-196. Qualification oath of delegates and alternates to national convention

      “Any person selected as a delegate or delegate alternate to such national convention shall file a qualification oath with the Secretary of State pledging support at the convention to the candidate of their political party or body for the office of President of the United States for whom they are selected to support. The oath shall state that the delegate or delegate alternate affirms to support such candidate until the candidate is either nominated by such convention or receives less than 35 percent of the votes for nomination by such convention during any balloting, or until the candidate releases the delegates from such pledge. No delegate shall be required to vote for such candidate after two convention nominating ballots have been completed.”

      Now you can figure out what the penalty may be for violating an oath on file with the SOS.

  11. Jane says:

    The Storm Troopers just want to cause trouble they do not care about Ron Paul or the rule of law or individual rights. They just want to cause trouble. A few hundred will come to columbus, but they will not get far.

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      Mam, I assure you, if it were at all possible for me to just go back home and be left alone by democrats and republicans, without them having the arrogance to think they can control my life by virtue of the fact that I might not vote (I mean, who would I vote for, if I don’t agree with either?), I’d gladly stay far away from politics and let you all play your silly little game of who-gets-to-tell-who-what-to-do-for-four-years.

      Maybe you ought to think about who wants to control whose lives before you start spouting off about “storm troopers.”

      Last I recall, the Nazis weren’t the ones who just wanted to go home and be left the f*** alone.

      But this political system which you all have pretty much let go to sh*t leaves me no real choice but to show up.

            • seenbetrdayz says:

              Oh come on. We end up doing this all the time. You and I end up asking each other questions that we each know good and well we really don’t care what the other person’s answer is.

              I’ll leave it to you to figure out. If these sorts of idiots we have in washington now stay there long enough, everyone is going to realize what the fight was all about.

              As for how I fight, I don’t really know. I’d like to be able to fight politically—I mean, that is the system our founders left in place for us—but you know, we’ don’t have a whole lot of options in these elections. If you get close to making changes, eh, someone changes the rules on you. But no matter, ‘how’ you fight isn’t nearly as important as ‘why.’

              • Doug Grammer says:

                If you plan on hitting me over the head with a chair, it’s very important to me how you fight. You also need to bear in mind that sometimes people will come on this site and not read everything that’s been said before. They may want to know what you will want to accomplish this weekend. Are you planning on screaming at the chair? Will you sing? Or do you have a list of people that you will try to get elected if they don’t come out of the nominating committee? I’m seriously interested to know what your agenda is.

                • seenbetrdayz says:

                  Relax, if I thought violence would solve this country’s problems, I wouldn’t have bothered showing up to the county and district conventions.

                  Of those options you listed, I doubt singing would accomplish anything, nor would breaking someone else’s chair by hitting hard-headed folks. So, no worries there, Doug.

                  I doubt the RP folks will win, but you know how I feel about “winning”. But, even if we did, I have to question whether or not it would matter. I mean, maybe the GA GOP would just do what the Nevada GOP did, which, when the convention voters didn’t rubber-stamp Romney like they wanted, they just created a “shadow state party” to circumvent the outcome. Now the RNC and Romney team is considering how to get these alternate party delegates to Tampa.


                  Like I said, you get close (or even win), and the rules get changed.

    • registrar says:

      Jane, you were right. A few hundred Storm Troopers who don’t care about the rule of law DID come to Columbus this week. But you were wrong, too — they DID get far. In fact, they were able to cram their slate down the throats of the rest of us.

      • Calypso says:

        “…they were able to cram their slate down the throats of the rest of us.”

        You mean the vast minority “of the rest of us”, right?

  12. HisIdeas says:

    All we want is a fair, transparent convention that follows the Roberts Rule of Order, which, is the “law” that governs those conventions. We do not want to see any rule breaking.

    Please remember, Ron Paul supporters are fiscal conservatives. If you are smart, you want to include them, not exclude them. If they are treated fairly, they will be on board to support the ultimate goal. If they are violated as have been seen in countless district or state conventions across the county (there is simply no deny of that), then it is a strategic mistake GOP would make come in November. Ron Paul supporters votes can make or break the final outcome. Ron Paul supporters love this country. That is the only reason they are motivated with their resources, time and engery.

    • Nathan says:

      Actually, you’re not totally correct. The convention rules and state rules supersede Roberts Rules of Order. I want to see a fair convention as well, but it’s not fair when people are rude to each other and the convention chairman. What a lot of Ron Paulers seem to do is go in to the convention and be disruptive and rude, talk over the convention chairman rather than listening to him, trying to filibuster their way into the majority by getting enough people to leave the convention floor, continually try to speak to the same motion time and time again during discussion when the rules do not allow for it, bad mouthing the folks who have been involved in the party for years, and then squawking about how they aren’t “welcomed” into the party with open arms after they put on a display like that. Of course, they then leave never to be spotted at another county GOP meeting or event until the next presidential election when they gripe and complain yet again. Now, I know not everyone is like that, but that’s just how things have seemed to play out this year. Heck, I’ve had a couple of folks in our local tea party say that they’re even disappointed to see these folks act this way.

      Look, it’s not your ideas we’re against. We don’t appreciate the seeming arrogance of folks who come around every 4 years to say that we’re doing everything wrong and then go away after we don’t roll over for you. I believe most counties have been accommodating and willing to work with you. Sure, a couple of counties probably screwed up, but how about the counties that did have civil and peaceful conventions? I have to say, I believe the TEA Party has done an excellent job in becoming more involved in the local party. Sure, there are the more strident folks that are disagreeable and who want to do things their way…every organization has that one person, but it’s been my experience that they have been constructive in building the party.

      Just as a reminder, if you don’t like how your county, district, or state GOP is ran, officer elections are next year. If you’re really serious, I expect to see a lot of you after November.

    • Doug Grammer says:

      What Nathan said.

      And there are a lot more people who don’t support Ron Paul but love their country as well.

  13. HisIdeas says:

    Our agenda is to have a fair convention so any participants no matter who they support, will come away agreeing it is after all a fair convention. Any participant will have their constitutional rights of voting respected. If they do not win by playing fair then they do not win. But rules should not be bent to meet certain group interests in an effort to exclude others. I can tell you the district 3 convention was conducted fairly but it was because if it had not been, we would have been ready for a law suit and immediate media publicity.

    Also please do not use police state strong arm tactics against your own citizens if their political view is not the same as yours. After all, it is not a crime to be dissenting. Discourse is healthy!

    By the way I like most of what Nathan has said. Thank you for your perspective.

    • Nathan says:

      I believe it will be a fair convention, but don’t confuse “maintaining order” with being “unfair”. I believe the 14th Congressional District convention was conducted fairly. Speaker Richardson was very gracious with the Ron Paul people. Some people didn’t get what they wanted, but I believe it was a fair convention.

      “Police state strong arm tactics”? Seriously? I’m sure there were incidents in a few counties and maybe even a few districts where people made mistakes, but you’re using an awfully broad brush to paint the GOP leadership as a bunch of thugs in order to get their way. I don’t recall ever intimidating (or being intimidated by, for that matter) a fellow delegate at the county, district, or state level conventions. As I’ve said before, Roberts’ Rules isn’t the gospel. The convention rules and state rules are superior to Roberts’ Rules. I don’t believe dissenting is a crime either, but, however, a minority of delegates trying to hijack a convention because they want to make some noise is disrespectful to everyone’s time. If you’re respectful to the convention, I’d say that you will be treated with respect. Just keep that in mind.

  14. HisIdeas says:

    Yes. “Police state strong arm tactics” – check out Cops Arrest Ron Paul Backers in Missouri Caucus Chaos because they want to document the convention in films or videos. This is one of the many examples. I am at work I have to find more for you during my break! Trust me, it is everywhere!

  15. Harry says:

    seenbetrdayz et al,

    I agree with Ron Paul on pretty much everything, but didn’t vote for him in the primary because the most overall viable candidate should be the nominee given that he represents basic GOP principles – which principles Romney does represent. In fact, only 6% of the primary popular vote went to Ron Paul which should give guidance that not more than approximately the same percentage of Georgia state and national convention votes should go to him. For sure I’d like to have seen him do better but it’s not realistic to expect. So if you choose to sit it out the election just because your perfect choice doesn’t end up on the ticket…that’s a problem for you and for us. I hope you reconsider.

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      If the GOP supports NDAA, then I’ve made a big mistake by even bothering to get involved, because that means we essentially have two parties united in their efforts to erode the Bill of Rights.

      I’m still trying to figure out the inconsistency within the GOP.

      This is a party that says that the government has no place in managing our lives in regard to healthcare, and then at the same time, gives that very same government the go-ahead to end habeas corpus (really, it started with the Patriot Act under Bush, but, I can’t say that in a room full of republicans without them looking at me like I just killed a baby elephant—at some point, each of these parties stopped holding their own politicians accountable, and yet both the democrats and the republicans seem to think they have the credibility to be pointing fingers at each other).

      I don’t say this to be mean, Harry, but I’ve said it again and I’ll keep saying it:

      The GOP has a huge credibility problem. Whereas democrats can pretty much be expected to grow government, the GOP says it is for limited government controls and then acts in an entirely opposite manner to what they say. You guys have no idea how many votes you could be getting if the republican politicians you have in office actually ‘walked the walk’.

      And before anyone gets angry, that was my attempt at constructive criticism.

      • Doug Grammer says:

        I’ll tell you who has a credibility problem. SOME of the people who support Ron Paul. They say they are Republican in order to vote for him or attend conventions, but the second Ron Paul admits he is out in Tampa, we will not hear from or see these people for years. Unfortunately, some of them will sit at home in November and some of them will vote for someone other than the GOP nominee. I’m waiting for them to admit they are not real Republicans. That is who has a real credibility problem.

        For new people becoming involved and are wanting to change the party and work on other races, welcome welcome welcome. For the ones who want to make points of order that have nothing to do with the motion before the convention on the floor, please learn the rules. For the ones that wanted to elect more than 10% of the delegates for someone who won less than 10% of the vote, get real. For the ones who wanted to delay the convention and drag it out, please don’t come back.

        • David Lockhart says:

          Mr. Grammer:

          Your response to seenbetrdayz regarding the credibility of the GOP was well-crafted, thorough and altogether persuasive. Never mind that it did not address his concerns regarding the GOP’s credibility.

          In the case that amidst your rant against perceived troublemakers, you forgot his point, I’ll post it here for quick reference: “The GOP has a huge credibility problem. Whereas democrats can pretty much be expected to grow government, the GOP says it is for limited government controls and then acts in an entirely opposite manner to what they say. You guys have no idea how many votes you could be getting if the republican politicians you have in office actually ‘walked the walk’”.

          You completely ignored his accurate observation so that you could point out the credibility problems of (in your syntax) “SOME of the people who support Ron Paul.” Mr. Grammer, I do not fault you that you did not offer a rational explanation for why the GOP continues to voice support for limited government while, at the same time, it has consistently grown government. I cannot think of a good explanation, either. The only explanation I could offer would not be a good one; it would simply be this: the GOP does not really believe in limited government. It only publicly announces such a position because it has been effective in causing people to believe it holds that position and garners support for the party. You see, I don’t have a good explanation, either, but I did already admit that.

          I cannot fault the GOP or any other organization for failing to acquiesce to rabble-rousing outsiders who seek an outcome entirely opposed to the organization’s purpose. Accordingly, it stands to reason that the GOP would seek to limit the effectiveness of Ron Paul supporters who espouse limited government. What does not appear so clearly to me, though, is why the GOP seems the least bit interested in appeasing anyone with an inclination toward small government (unless my poor explanation regarding the party’s hypocrisy outlined above really is the truth–say it isn’t so!)

          Perhaps a healthy dose of honesty could set us on course, but I suppose we are just back to square one: credibility.

          • seenbetrdayz says:

            I appreciate your assessment.

            I think it is unfortunate that some Ron Paul supporters are turning others off before others have a chance to listen. I’m more than happy to stay involved and help Republicans hold their own accountable (which means it will help the honest critters to stay in office; FYI I actually rode to convention Saturday with a member of OWS who admitted that he doesn’t agree with everything that Ron Paul says, but he was inspired by the man’s integrity—integrity and consistency goes a LONG way in winning over support). But if the aim of the Republican party is to just support their own, blindly, then I might as well not be involved at all.

        • seenbetrdayz says:

          Mr. Grammer, I’ve already explained to you that I’m not a ‘real republican.’ What you consider to be ‘real republicans’ are dying off. Again, I’m not saying that to be gleeful, I’m saying that to inform you that unless the GOP can convince the independent voters (who decide elections) that it is SERIOUS about cleaning up its own inconsistencies, then it will never be able to solidify a majority and KEEP that majority.

          Otherwise, the vast majority of people such as myself will continue to bounce back and forth between parties in a desperate effort to try to retain as much of this country’s freedom as we can. That is my motive: Freedom. And doing so requires that sometimes I have to be open-minded enough to vote for a person, not a party.

          If the GOP would stop putting up with the hypocrisy in its own ranks, I assure you that you’d have no problem winning elections. Most Americans simply don’t want to be bothered by their government, and the GOP is much closer to that philosophy than the democratic party.

          Give them a real choice, and you will have real support. But, if the GOP wishes to continue doing what the majority of republicans believe is best for the republican party (by not replacing those who broke promises to restrain the government), OVER what is best for our country, then yeah, you’re not going to see people bothering to stay involved, because, who would want to be involved in that?

          It’s everything the GOP can do at the moment to keep lifelong members from throwing in the towel and going 3rd party.

  16. Jimmie says:

    He ave. 6-15% throughout the primary because of people like you. I spoke with at least 3 people a week this year that said I like Ron Paul but he’s unelectable, or he can’t win.
    Take some time and realize how damn idiotic that statement is.
    The GOP leaders and the MSM corporate media branded him unelectable and a kook very early in the 2012 primary. Even though 90% of the stuff the man speaks of is true. America doesn’t like to e told the truth. Heck, look at our fiat monetary system. The whole house of cards is gonna come tumbling down very soon. We’ll just add it to the RP list of I told you so’s. See most of ya’s in Columbus.

Comments are closed.