Posted on 12/30/2011 12:41:42 PM PST by presidio9
With Representative Ron Paul performing solidly in Republican presidential polls – and near the top in Iowa – a recurring question nags at political wise-guys: Will the Texas libertarian’s corps of loyal and energized supporters be an asset to an eventual Republican nominee?
Or will they be a liability if that nominee is not named Ron Paul — meaning, they will vote only for Mr. Paul as a third-party or write-in candidate, or stay home altogether, which would probably help the prospective Democratic nominee, President Obama?
Based on discussion with a dozen supporters at candidate events across the state — including a Paul rally of about 500 here Wednesday night – the Paul Posse contains a considerable “Ron or I’m Gone” population.
Of those people interviewed, three said they would vote for the Republican nominee if it was not Mr. Paul, and two said they were not sure. But seven respondents said they would support only Mr. Paul in the general election – either as a write-in or third-party candidate (the latter of which Mr. Paul has not ruled out). Ideally, they said, he would be the Republican nominee.
“If the Republican Party is going to remain viable, it needs to nominate Ron Paul,” said Sean Curtin of Iowa City, who estimates that that “Libertarian-Constitutional” constituency that supports Mr. Paul makes up 25 percent of the Republican Party.
And if they don’t nominate Mr. Paul?
“I would not vote for anyone else,” said Eric Grote, who travelled to Iowa from Turkey, where he lives half the year,
(Excerpt) Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com ...
They couldn’t be party voters even if they wanted to be. The party has told them in no uncertain terms that they are not welcome in any republican coalition.
Got it. I don't like/trust/respect Mitt Romney either. Continued libertarian infiltration and support for Ron Paul, who is not a conservative (and not really pro-life) on this and other conservative forums seems guaranteed to present that choice. I agree that it sucks.
To be honest, I am not that interested in contrasting Mitt Romney (who I can’t stand) with Ron Paul. Dr. Paul does not seem to be taking votes away from Romney, and won’t be winning the nomination in any case. Let’s stick to comparisons between Paul and the remaining candidates, who Dr. Paul is attacking.
If you want to change the premises in that direction that is fine. Paul looked interesting at first at a great distance, given his Founder-esque noises on limited and curtailed central government. On closer inspection that is the bait wrapped around some really odd, LaRouche like personal tics and fetishes, some of which are downright dangerous if implemented, mostly through gross negligence.
On close inspection, he is not an acceptable candidate, and in that regard he joins Romney, albeit for very different reasons. With varying degrees of enthusiasm or disgust (sometimes simultaneous) I could support any of the others in the general.
We are probably not going to get a game changer POTUS this time around. Lower ticket races are always important - this time they will be crucial in every jurisdiction. That is my take anyway.
How do I get myself into these situations? A Ron Paul nomination will hurt Republican voter turnout more than Mitt Romney would. There: I said it. I'm talking Republican voters, not Conservatives.
Romney won’t get the nomination.
I say he's irrelevant.
From the article:
“Will the Texas libertarian’s corps of loyal and energized supporters be an asset to an eventual Republican nominee?”
in 1964 were the New York Governor’s and Michigan Governor’s liberal corps of loyal and energized supporters an asset to the eventual Republican nominee?
Paul is not going to get the nomination. He -might- win some primaries, indeed I hope he does win in Virginia given the fun and games over there, but he is not going to win the nomination.
Only if they’re driven to vote for Obama. I think the point of the article is that independents are otherwise unwilling to embrace the Republican party for a reason. We already know why they aren’t Obama supporters, since we aren’t either. There’s probably nothing that can be done about the “Ron or I’m Gone” people, but driving Paul supporters away makes no more sense than the all the mindless sniping that’s been going on between Perry/Cain/Bachmann/Gingrich/etc. If you can’t hold a political party together, then you’ve got no chance of being able to take back this country from the left, and the left will win by default.
Paul Voters and supporters are IDIOTS.
Where in The Constitution was the US federal government set up as a two party system? I must have missed that.
In which case, you will be responsible if Zero gets a second term.
You mean Rick Perry, right?
You couldn't possibly mean that Code Pink, blame-America, military-hating leftist Ron Paul, could you?
It was not, obviously. However, if you want to go third party, you'd better be sure you have an awful lot of company, or else you are effectively voting Democrat.
We don't yet have a nominee. It's much safer to try to take over the GOP than to try to found a new party.
It's very telling that you call him "Dr. Paul".
It is a trait exclusive to hard-core paultards.
I didn’t report you to anybody, including JmRob. I just merely pointed out that you are wrong.
You said that everyone on this forum needs to vote for Romney over Obama if it comes down to it, or they don’t belong here. You have been repeatedly slapped down on this thread by several, including JimRob himself.
Yet, you continue to assert that everyone needs to back the eventual GOP nominee, even if it’s Romney....not gonna happen....No Romney ever....
The anti Israel Paul and the Presisdent both are bigots and racists and anti semites and hate and will continue to destroy our once great nation quickly. And the useful idiots will oblige them is my guess.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.