--------------------------
Posted on 04/01/2012 3:42:53 PM PDT by mnehring
Ron Paul's loyal band of supporters are just accepting now what many have known for a long time: the Texas congressman's White House bid is fading badly.
Paul's poll numbers are down and he has no chance of earning the Republican nomination. He is 29 percentage points behind front-runner Mitt Romney in a poll for Tuesday's Wisconsin primary.
Now, the main questions remaining are whether his followers will switch their allegiance to another candidate, and if Paul can still carry his libertarian banner into the Republican convention in August and beyond....
...He is unlikely to drop out of the race soon, but some of his backers may gravitate toward Romney in the vote for the nomination, Republican strategist Ford O'Connell said, noting that Paul and Romney have maintained cordial relations in the often bitter campaign....
...one thing for sure is that Ron Paul would rather have Romney than (Newt) Gingrich or Santorum,...
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Well, Meth is cheaper than Crack and easier to manufacture, from a raw materials standpoint.
I'd say the choice is clear.
Paul Tards don’t care about winning. That’s why Losertarians is an great name for their twisted ideology.
Fade? When did it shine?
PING
Serious question, no snark intended in any direction: why, as the article states, would Paul supporters favor Romney over Gingrich or Santorum?
Because Paul does and his supporters are sheep.
True. If you can stand to have a long enough conversation with a Paultard it will come down to, “But DUDE, he’s like going to legalize WEED”, and then, “The Federal Reserve is like really bad, EVIL in fact”. If you ask them why or what they think the Fed really does you will get a blank stare. Or, and this is true, what I got from one of them, “Dude, they’re like printing their own money”. This one still believes Paul is going to be our next President. I have a bet with him from several months ago if Paul doesn’t win the Presidency he’s going to buy me and a friend a dinner at a nice local restaurant. His parents are loaded so I may actually get to collect.
Has to do with principle, I think i heard someone say...
*********************
...And yet, if you ask what have we [the Republican Party] done, I think we’ve lost our way completely. Our rhetoric is still pretty good, but when we get in charge we expand the government… So if it means limited government, you have to ask the basic question: ‘What should the role of government be?’ “
“The Founders asked that question, had a revolution and wrote a constitution. And they said the role of government ought to be to protect liberty. It’s not to be a welfare state and it’s not to be the policemen of the world. How can you be ‘conservative’ and cut food stamps, but you won’t cut spending overseas? There’s not a nickel or a penny that anybody will cut on the ‘conservative’ side on overseas spending. We don’t have the money – and they are willing to start world wars.”
“So I say that if you’re conservative you want small government across the board – especially in personal liberty. What’s wrong with having the government out of our personal lives? We have to decide what ‘conservative’ means, what ‘limited government’ means – and I have a simple suggestion. We have a pretty good guide. And if we follow the Constitution, government would be very small and we’d all be devoted conservatives.”
As Dr. Paul lectured the big-government candidates on what a conservative truly is, Santorum, Romney and Gingrich could only stand in silence. What remains to be seen is whether or not the Republican Party actually still possesses a true conservative base – or if the base has actually shifted far to the left while preferring to wear the conservative label.
That may be, but still, why? I would think either Gingrich or Santorum would be closer to Paul than Romney.
I think the jist of this article is wishful thinking by rooters. Paul has virtually no common ground with Romney.
Oh? Grab "Liberty Defined". Paul has no problem with states 'experimenting' with individual mandate health care. He has no problem with States making abortion legal. He has no problem with States or local governments restricting 2nd Amendment rights. He takes the 'powers' statement in the 10th Amendment and reads that as States have the complete right to restrict fundamental individual rights (which is a slap in the face of original intent). You can find almost every RINO issue of Romney's and find Paul agrees with it, just on a State versus Federal level.
Ping to 13 to answer your question. (not to mention it has been reported often they are personal friends and Paul has stayed at Romney’s vacation home and used his jet before.)
It is clear that Ron Paul likes Romney better than the other candidates, but Ron Paul’s WA campaign made a deal with the Santorum campaign to throw their delegates to Santorum, not Romney.
RomneyCare is anathema to Libertarians.
Thanks!
I think that’s what Paul supporters want you to think. I was a alternate delegate at Clark Co. All week long my E-mail box has been filling up with “messages” from the Santorum campaign, But when I contacted the campaign they knew nothing about it and had made no deal with the Paulbots, Also they (Paul campaign) would get very upset when they called me and I told them I’d rather vote for 0bama than ron paul.
--------------------------
The Bellingham Herald Claims to have checked it out and confirmed it. They also had quotes from the GOP. I am not going to say Kirby, but someone on the state level, who said that it was going to cause problems at the state convention.
The Massachussetts Governor's White House bid is fading faster. Rombama is behind double digits in two current polls (per Fox News earlier today), and his unfavorable rating is skyrocketing- Romney vs Obama projection is that Obama wins FL, OH, and IIRC PA. Romney supporters are deserting faster than customers in a broke bank. What now, GOP-e, since all front runners have been de-throned?
I’ll tell you why BiblialChristian: Because libertarianism is a philosophy of “A law unto ourselves”: they want to do whatever they WANT free of government (and including laws based on Christian/traditonal ethics); therefore they are secular and anti-Christian. The philosophies that underscore conservatism is largely Christianity and then our constitution. THEY hate Reagan Conservatives, even more than secular Satist RINOS such as Mitt Romney.
I’ll give you a clue: IMO, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are two sides of the same coin. Think the character “Two Face” in Batman. -J.S.
thanks for that!!
Nazi Paul-tards are at it again....
What! WE DIDN’T WIN! THIS MEANS WAR! (Opps I forgot we are against war. Unless it is against Israel). But hey, how does this effect the drug laws? If Dr. Paul does not win, can I still, like, you know, smoke? The constitution don’t say a freakin’ thing about green-bud, man. (Or heroin). I am just like, exercising, like my constitutional rights, man! Dr. Paul, you da man! Don’t give up the ship! You like the only real man, man. If you do drop out, I am totally voting for Rand....
I disagree on this one.
Libertarians want the FEDERAL governement to stay out of it and let STATES decide for themselves.
Guess what? I am anti-abortion, Christian, ant-drug, and the entire conservative line. HOWEVER, I also believe that each state should decide for themselves and it is none of my business what the other states do. If people in Massachusetts want to legalize gay marriage or whatever then that is their business. If I want my state of Texas to restrict abortions then the federal goverment should stay out of it. That’s the way the country was created.
Yes, I am a tenther. I, like the founding fathers, believe that the powers of the federal government are few and limited. Social issues are reserved to the states.
If you think that everyone in the country needs to follow your belief system then you are going to invite all kinds of crazy federal ideas... like Obamacare.
No, most libertarians I’ve met want to just do whatever they want, and don’t really care if their policies affect our culture. They don’t care that marriage, life, and really the religious conscience objections of Christian professionals are protected. They don’t see the cultural implications of libertarianism. I will not force anyone to follow my beliefs in their personal life, but where government policy comes-Social liberalism (which is what a good deal of libertarians believe) cannot and will not work, and is largely against God’s law. Count me in following Christ, no matter the government we live under or how tyrannous, however I will not stand aside as “gay marriage” becomes the law of the land at least while I can warn/stand against it and other EVIL policies.
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.