Fox panel: GOP cannot win without Ron Paul's saying-so

[Liberty1789]

Hopefully this was not posted before...

Without the votes of Paul's young followers, the GOP mathematically cannot win.


http://youtu.be/_P4TwYmQ1oA

Hopefully the GOP is gradually realizing that and it is why Huckabee has granted him a friendly interview...

 

[Lucille]

The GOP had better nominate Paul then!

NOBP

 

[rcferdon]

Paul or no one.

 

[Article V]

Paul or no one.

Paul or nothing! By letting the ear hear "all or nothing" hidden in the phrase, it makes the phrase feel more familiar and thus more safe and acceptable to more people.

 

[jax]

i went to get my oil change today with my "ron paul is my hero" tshirt and the mechanic asked if i would vote for ron if he ran 3rd party. i said absolutely. he said, 'thats stupid, obama will destroy this country!". I said i vote on principle, no one but paul" and left. so i think everyone realizes that if paul doesent get the nomination, the gop is screwed

 

[Maltheus]

We must not act so brazen just yet. I had a number of Republicans ask me about that at a party function last Saturday, only to follow it up with, "and that's why I'd rather Obama win then you guys." Digging in, only encourages the other side to do so as well. But of course, when asked outright, I couldn't very well deny that I'd likely follow Johnson into the LP. It is what it is.

 

[sailingaway]

We must not act so brazen just yet. I had a number of Republicans ask me about that at a party function last Saturday, only to follow it up with, "and that's why I'd rather Obama win then you guys." Digging in, only encourages the other side to do so as well. But of course, when asked outright, I couldn't very well deny that I'd likely follow Johnson into the LP. It is what it is.

I agree this creates animosity. I think we need to see what's up. I would take Ron's lead and decide when the time came. But I have to say it would take something pretty good to be better than the satisfaction of voting for Ron -- whether he's the nominee on the ballot or not.

 

[Gary4Liberty]

f ine , let obama win again. Maybe we need 4 more years of Obama and then maybe people will listen. Paul or nothing. Newt is just a white version of Obama anyway, same for santos and romnuts

 

[sailingaway]

f ine , let obama win again. Maybe we need 4 more years of Obama and then maybe people will listen. Paul or nothing. Newt is just a white version of Obama anyway, same for santos and romnuts

I'd say Newt is the worst of the three, Obama, Newt and Romney.

 

[milo10]

That is from the Harris Faulkner post debate discussion. That entire piece was gold, and should be up on Youtube. While she stood out in particular, the entire panel was very fair to Ron Paul.

It was an odd glimpse into what a non-controlled media would look like. I don't even know if Harris was so much pro-Ron Paul as she was simply an honest newscaster who understood that he was a very important part of the discussion.

 

[Maltheus]

But I have to say it would take something pretty good to be better than the satisfaction of voting for Ron -- whether he's the nominee on the ballot or not.

I intend to vote for Ron. As a delegate. But I'll not waste my vote with a write-in in the general if he doesn't get the nom. A write-in is no better than staying home and will likely not even get counted. Johnson is mostly as good and the LP has a more welcoming infrastructure to work with. Making them viable is easier than convincing the cons.

 

[Butchie]

f ine , let obama win again. Maybe we need 4 more years of Obama and then maybe people will listen. Paul or nothing. Newt is just a white version of Obama anyway, same for santos and romnuts

I agree with this too, if 4 more of Obama is what it takes to "reboot" the party and get those old dinosaurs to wake up so be it, they laugh at us I'll be laughing when their party crumbles if they refuse Ron.

 

[Echoes]

Newt, Romney and Obama are the same Big Govt crap. Get it through your thick head GOP.

NOBP

 

[Gary4Liberty]

I'd say Newt is the worst of the three, Obama, Newt and Romney.

i had a nephew whos father caught hiim smoking at the age of 12. When the child threw the but on the ground to step on it his father objected "No dont waste it, finish it those are expensive" so he made him finish it, then he made him smoke another and another and another and another until the kid was so sick he was throwing up. That kid never smoked again. If Ron doesnt win despite our uncompromising votes and support for him, Im just saying maybe america needs to smoke the whole pack until they throw up, then maybe they wiill get the message.

 

[milo10]

I'd say Newt is the worst of the three, Obama, Newt and Romney.

I agree. Romney is pretty close to Obama, but may be slightly worse if the Republicans take the Senate in 2012, as there will be fewer checks on him. And both Romney and Gingrich will wrap up the Republican Party presidential seat until 2020. And if things are so bad by 2016 that Romney won't run again, it will be a harder weight to bear for another Republican.

Voting Libertarian (or some other 3rd party) is the path that makes the most sense if Ron can't secure the nomination.

 

[brushfire]

So I guess the GOP has a choice to make. Ron Paul, or Barack Obama... We already know how Newt is voting... How about the rest?

 

[milo10]

I intend to vote for Ron. As a delegate. But I'll not waste my vote with a write-in in the general if he doesn't get the nom. A write-in is no better than staying home and will likely not even get counted. Johnson is mostly as good and the LP has a more welcoming infrastructure to work with. Making them viable is easier than convincing the cons.

I agree, and if the time comes, we have to get this out there. A write-in for Ron will probably not even be reported widely, even if they do count it. It will just be "Other."

Much better to go with Johnson, or perhaps another third party candidate. A 10% Libertarian win on the popular vote would be absolutely stunning, and a clear message as to the direction things are heading in.

 

[dcjones]

This country will not recover without major changes, cuts, and free market policies that the RINO's will NOT do. We will be worse in 4 years with either Obama and Mitt/Newt. Although I do think Newt/Mitt would be better than Obama even if ever so slightly. But I would root for Obama because perception is key. Obama represents socialism, Mitt/Newt represents "free markets" (even though they are far from it).

If Obama stays at least the people will be ready for real change. If Mitt/Newt get in office, the uninformed public will think that we tried "free markets" again and it didn't work.

If Obama gets elected, in four years, we will see a true market type candidate like Rand Paul. If Mitt/Newt gets elected I see us swinging back to a socialist style candidate.

 

[doctorfunk]

I intend to vote for Ron. As a delegate. But I'll not waste my vote with a write-in in the general if he doesn't get the nom. A write-in is no better than staying home and will likely not even get counted. Johnson is mostly as good and the LP has a more welcoming infrastructure to work with. Making them viable is easier than convincing the cons.

Yes, I would rather vote for Johnson if Romney wins, and Obama if Newt wins. If Dr. Paul doesn't get the nomination, the best thing for the movement would be another 4 years of Obama and Rand running in 2016.

 

[MsDoodahs]

While I understand that NOBP upsets the average GOPer, their feelings are of NO concern to me. They will either nominate Ron Paul or they will suffer four more years of Obama.

I have zero regard for Republicans at this point - why would I be concerned about alienating THEM when they are doing their dead level best to alienate ME?