GOP Top Brass Discuss Strategies; What to Do About Paul and Returning to Core Values

[WilliamC]

Votes, delegates, money. That's it. It's all that matters now.

Quite concise.

 

[Sematary]

my ass....they want to stay in Iraq for 100 years.

We're better off with Democrats at this point if not Paul.

Why? Did the Democrats say they DIDN'T want to stay in Iraq? I don't remember any of them being able to promise that the troops would even be out by the end of 2013

 

[pcosmar]

Why? Did the Democrats say they DIDN'T want to stay in Iraq? I don't remember any of them being able to promise that the troops would even be out by the end of 2013

If Ron Paul is rejected and does not win the Presidency the country is screwed.
At that point it will not matter whether Bad choice"R" or "D" is in, why reward any of them for their failure. Send the GOP a message.

 

[Broadlighter]

Well we need liberty minded folks in the Democratic party too

Read my signature:

 

[michaelwise]

We could start a new party and call it "Republican Party 1.0"

 

[cheese]

bump

 

[michaelwise]

How about we call our new party Republican1.0 Party?

 

[susano]

bump

 

[AlexMerced]

we don't need a new party, but a bipartisan organization of sorts is a good idea, something like the Liberty Independence Alliance

http://libertyia.ning.com

 

[DaddyO]

If RP doesn't get it I will go back to voting for the Libertarian Party but I will stay registered Republican just to mess things up as much as I can in the future.

 

[Texan4RP]

30 year republican / was a neo-con and didn't know it

I have talked with my wife and she and I have always voted for the republicans but if Ron Paul does not get the republican nomination then we are going to write Ron Pauls name in. I am no longer voting for the lesser of to EVILs!

Then at from that point on I would be Independent and would definitely be looking at the Libertarian or Constitution party. I would also love to entertain the idea of Texas leaving the union and they can have Rick Perry, Kay Baily Hutcheson, and John Cornyn.

 

[Lord Xar]

I think they are "leaking" this info so that we get lax and capitulate our momentum in hopes of some type of positive payoff.

IF they were "REALLY" listening, they'd get behind us...

BUT, at least the NH GOP supported us.. there is that....hmm

 

[noztnac]

The writing on the wall is only going to get bigger!

 

[Xyrus2]

I vote for Ron Paul or I vote for NO ONE!

I'll write his name in. He is the only trustworthy candidate.

~X~

 

[RSLudlum]

Well we need liberty minded folks in the Democratic party too

Yes this is true and sparks a question: When did Kusinich announce his run for president and do you think Paul and Kucinich discussed their intentions before actually announcing, pure coincedence or ploy for a movement on both sides?

 

[AlexMerced]

Kucinich always runs, but yeah, only Ron Paul

 

[DrCap]

The republican party has been falling apart since Bush 41, I've expected they would find themselves in Bush 43, but obviously they have not.
In Illinois, even former republican strongholds are in shambles, scrambling to hold their seats...
Maybe it's a strategy of theirs to hand all the power (executive, congressional, judicial) to the democrats, and then, after the collapse, they step up to the plate.
It almost seems like they WANT to give up power.
The old guard is retiring from 'public service' as far as I can see.

 

[susano]

The people following the other repub candidates will follow ron paul if he got the nomination because they won't vote democratic, but the Ron Paul voters will leave if someone else is nominated. Without everyone currently voting for the republican party nomination they don't stand a chance against the democrats.

VERY GOOD POINT. Paleoconservatives will not vote for anyone but Paul, but nearly all Republicans would vote for RP against a Democrat. Right! Again, as we know, Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican who stands a chance of beating the Socialists.

I'm implore everyone, PLEASE write to your state GOP chair and tell them this.

 

[susano]

he is a republican, and hence why Fox news leans republican in every thing they do. Watch outfoxed

I've seen Out Foxed. I have also seen the FEC campaign contribution entries. Murdoch is supporting Hillary Clinton. He's made the maximum contributions. Guess that should tell that Hillary is a war monger.

 

[jasonuher]

we don't need a new party, but a bipartisan organization of sorts is a good idea, something like the Liberty Independence Alliance

http://libertyia.ning.com

All this talk of bipartisanship going on about how 'the two party system is killing us' is an attempt to further undermine the choices of the American people as the tax-and-spend party merges with the war party to become the tax-and-spend-on-war party.

What we need is not not bipartisanship, but tripartisanship, quadpartisanship, or even, dare I say it? decpartisanship!

The answer is not bringing parties together, it's breaking them apart.

If serious contention on a range of issues rises within the platform of a party, the answer is not to decide at a convention, it's to split into two parties. The political party process has come to a point where they try to be 'everything to everyone' which, while a good strategy for gaining initial customers (cause that's really what we are), is a terrible strategy for keeping them. What people need is choice, not a single party, not two parties, three at minimum, maybe more as the need arises.