Maine Legislator Turncoat

[Feeding the Abscess]

Please show me when and where DeMint said Romney's healthcare should be taken nationwide.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Because right now, I do not think he "sucks". He is no Ron Paul, but I don't see him as my enemy.

As far as coalitions go, we work with several right now. The difference is that you accept them. Think about the Truthers, the open borders people, etc., etc., etc.

Also, for DeMint:

http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance285.html

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1110r.asp

DeMint voted for the loan program that gave us Solyndra lololol

And if we let our movement be run by Truthers, how far would we go? We must lead, not follow. Hopping in bed with the GOP and supporting losers like DeMint is following.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Wow. Thanks. I didn't know he'd done that.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Wow. Thanks. I didn't know he'd done that.

Since DeMint speaks highly of the Constitution in his new book, I think a look at his scores on "The Freedom Index" is in order before going on to his book.

DeMint has been a member of three Congresses as a House member and four Congresses as a Senate member.

In the House, DeMint’s first Congress was the 106th Congress of 1999-2001, where he scored a 65. His second was the 107th Congress of 2001-2003, where he scored a 61. His third was the 108th Congress of 2003-2005, where he scored a 46. Contrast DeMint’s scores with congressman Ron Paul, who scored a 95, 91, and 100.

In the Senate, DeMint’s first Congress was the 109th Congress of 2005-2007, where he scored a 50. His second was the 110th Congress of 2007-2009, where he scored a 79. His third was the 111th Congress of 2009-2011, where he scored a 98. His fourth and current Congress is the 112th Congress, where his score is currently an 80. DeMint’s fellow senator, Lindsey Graham, scored a 48, 53, 87, and 70. Contrast DeMint’s scores with congressman Ron Paul’s perfect 100 scores in each of these four Congresses.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

 

[RonRocks]

My god, look at the 4 posts replying to mine. You people have become caricatures of yourselves. Resorting to slippery slope arguments and insinuating that I want everybody to come into the liberty movement regardless of views. If somebody doesnt believe in small government obviously they're not part of the liberty movement. That isn't what we are talking about. But obviously you all get at the heart of what is the issue, you want to cut somebody out of the movement at a level of supposed "betrayal" (though I find that to be a stretch) that I don't want to cut them out. No, we are in fact talking about somebody who has promoted small government at the state level. We are talking about somebody who used his platform when the primary was competitive to endorse the smallest government candidate. We are talking about a LVMI educated public official, I mean how often do we EVER get that? What I am saying is that, yes, your standard that allows you to cut this man out of our movement based on one bad endorsement is inhibiting coalition building. Not "compromise", not "sell out", because that isn't what we're talking about. We are talking about legitimate coalition building that we need to be doing as a movement, and the MAJOR way to do that is to get our politicians in office! If there's a politician who wants to take up the liberty banner and has the small government rhetoric and record to back it up, I could give a damn less who they endorsed.

I think you're the one making slippery slope arguments here.

How do you not understand the distinction here. He turned on us when he is needed most. What don't you get here?

And growth should NOT be the primary objective, instead staying true to your principles should. And this guy.. at this time, when we should all be united to do everything we can to win, instead chooses to betray us. Loyalty counts for a lot.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Thanks. I stand corrected.

 

[Occam's Banana]

My god, look at the 4 posts replying to mine. You people have become caricatures of yourselves. Resorting to slippery slope arguments and insinuating that I want everybody to come into the liberty movement regardless of views.

Says the fellow who can't perform the simple courtesy of actually quoting from any of the posts to which he's responding.

In one fell swoop, you get to accuse 4 posts of logical fallacies & of making "insinuations" - without having to bother with pointing any of them out. Nice.

If somebody doesnt believe in small government obviously they're not part of the liberty movement. That isn't what we are talking about. But obviously you all get at the heart of what is the issue, you want to cut somebody out of the movement at a level of supposed "betrayal" (though I find that to be a stretch) that I don't want to cut them out. No, we are in fact talking about somebody who has promoted small government at the state level. We are talking about somebody who used his platform when the primary was competitive to endorse the smallest government candidate. We are talking about a LVMI educated public official, I mean how often do we EVER get that? What I am saying is that, yes, your standard that allows you to cut this man out of our movement based on one bad endorsement is inhibiting coalition building. Not "compromise", not "sell out", because that isn't what we're talking about. We are talking about legitimate coalition building that we need to be doing as a movement, and the MAJOR way to do that is to get our politicians in office! If there's a politician who wants to take up the liberty banner and has the small government rhetoric and record to back it up, I could give a damn less who they endorsed.

Look, you know what? I actually agree with (almost all of) the general sentiments you express here. I really do.

The problem is not one of whether or not this guy is "really" a small-government advocate. It is not one of whether the fact that he took some courses at LvMI is nice or not. The problem is not that Ron Paul's chances of getting the Republican nomination are (or may be) slim to none.

The problem is this: the Ron Paul campaign's strategy hinges on gathering as many delegates as possible, in order to achieve two goals (as RP himself has explicity declared numerous times). The first (short-term) goal is to win the nomination. The second (long-term) goal is to demonstate the movement's strength in no uncertain terms & to make serious inroads into the party (especially at the state & local levels). No matter what anyone thinks of the first goal's chances of coming to fruition, the second (and IMO, ultimately more important) goal still stands. This is NOT just about winning the nomination.

By so visibly withdrawing his endorsement of Ron Paul & giving it to Romney on the very eve of a critically important state convention (and they're all critically important - every single delegate counts), this guy has demonstated that he is a "player" - same as just about every other politico out there.

Either his change-of-endorsement will make a difference or it won't.
If it will make a difference - well, there you go. Guilty as charged - case closed.
But if it won't make a difference, then what possible reason could there be for flip-flopping at this particular time? Why not just keep mum & wait (as so many others in this thread have pointed out)?

 

[speciallyblend]

Thanks. I stand corrected.

hey le, how is texas going? i see threads but i figured you might be in tune a lil more. i know somethings cannot be said but how do you feel?

 

[liberalnurse]

I posted this in another thread yesterday. POS made the news already. An article from the Guardian.

"Nevertheless not all Paul's supporters think he should press on to Tampa. On Friday, Maine state representative Ryan Harmon urged Paul supporters to back Romney at the state convention on Saturday. "Now is the time for us to come together and unite as conservatives," he wrote in an email to supporters."

 

[kathy88]

I posted this in another thread yesterday. POS made the news already. An article from the Guardian.

"Nevertheless not all Paul's supporters think he should press on to Tampa. On Friday, Maine state representative Ryan Harmon urged Paul supporters to back Romney at the state convention on Saturday. "Now is the time for us to come together and unite as conservatives," he wrote in an email to supporters."

Can you post a link?

 

[WilliamC]

I think you're the one making slippery slope arguments here.

How do you not understand the distinction here. He turned on us when he is needed most. What don't you get here?

And growth should NOT be the primary objective, instead staying true to your principles should. And this guy.. at this time, when we should all be united to do everything we can to win, instead chooses to betray us. Loyalty counts for a lot.

Principles are the main issue.

I don't know about anyone else but I'm trying to follow the example Ron Paul sets myself. Coalitions are fine for narrow, specific objectives but for the core group of supporters who actually want Ron Paul's policies implemented more than they want to either just 'beat Obama' or 'get any Republican elected' principles are of the utmost importance.

Now if Ron Paul were to some how see fit to join Romney as VP then we have a clear indication that Ron Paul thinks he can actually advance our cause in this position. Same thing for Rand Paul as VP so long as Ron endorses the move. But I don't think that is going to happen, very very low probability event.

Far more likely Ron Paul will get saddled with Romney as VP.

Personally, I'm going to take the same vow that the Cadets at West Point do; "I will not lie, cheat or steal nor will I tolerate those that do".

So if I encounter someone willing to lie about their support of Ron Paul in order to become a bound delegate for another candidate I would reject that. If I encounter someone who has given their word to vote a certain way due to being bound by their County (the voters of whom they represent) and then, without being released or unbound from that pledge, go back on it, I would reject that. If I encounter someone who as a Ron Paul supporter that has gained a position of authority in their Republican Party (as I have done so) then uses this position in an attempt to cheat the rules to suppress the honest efforts of supporters for another Republican candidates I would reject that.

I've never known of Ron Paul to lie, cheat or steal to advance his goals. If any of us, his die-hard supporters who are turning out in droves to support him, think they can better achieve our goals by doing so then I will reject them based on this and seek to remove from you from any influence you may have.

Like Thomas Paine said, and I completely agree with, "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

I'm not ashamed to associate myself with the above principles and I will abide by them in all my political dealings.

 

[brenton]

What I am saying is that, yes, your standard that allows you to cut this man out of our movement based on one bad endorsement is inhibiting coalition building. Not "compromise", not "sell out", because that isn't what we're talking about. We are talking about legitimate coalition building that we need to be doing as a movement, and the MAJOR way to do that is to get our politicians in office! If there's a politician who wants to take up the liberty banner and has the small government rhetoric and record to back it up, I could give a damn less who they endorsed.

sry, not "my" politician. if you endorse romney over ron paul, you're a traitor and undeserving of the freedom movement's support. if you can't publicly stand with dr. paul who has been going at this virtually alone for 4 decades, then you are a coward/just another politician. idk who said it above me, but they're right. if you endorse more of the same, you are not liberty minded.

 

[Occam's Banana]

f I encounter someone willing to lie about their support of Ron Paul in order to become a bound delegate for another candidate I would reject that. If I encounter someone who has given their word to vote a certain way due to being bound by their County (the voters of whom they represent) and then, without being released or unbound from that pledge, go back on it, I would reject that. If I encounter someone who as a Ron Paul supporter that has gained a position of authority in their Republican Party (as I have done so) then uses this position in an attempt to cheat the rules to suppress the honest efforts of supporters for another Republican candidates I would reject that.

+rep. That's exactly how it ought to be - for everyone.

I would actually have more respect for Harmon (or less disrespect, anyway) if he had just endorsed Romney to begin with.

Instead, he pulls an 11th-hour "flip-flop" attempt to yank the rug out from under us at a critical point in the delegate contest.

After that little stunt, it is beyond me why we should be expected to regard him as "one of us."

 

[liberalnurse]

Can you post a link?

How Ron Paul's far-reaching delegate strategy is starting to pay off

Paul has quietly slogged on in the GOP race longer than any of Mitt Romney's other challengers – but it's not just vanity

Paul Harris in New York

guardian.co.uk,
Friday 4 May 2012 12.53 EDT

Ron Paul speaks at the Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Hall in Pittsburgh
Photograph: TJ Kirkpatrick/Corbis

He may be the last man standing, but Ron Paul is not campaigning like a lost cause.
All this week the quixotic Texan congressman has been hitting the stump in California notching up four days full of campus visits and fundraising dinners for his never-say-die 2012 presidential campaign.
Yet there is no realistic chance that Paul can win the contest. He has still not won the popular vote in a single state and, with the exit of Rick Santorum last month and the withdrawal this week of Newt Gingrich, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is certain to be the Republican nominee.

But behind the surface facade of what looks to critics like an exercise in vanity campaigning, the libertarian-leaning Paul has a serious plan to win influence that is beginning to pay off. Underneath the radar Paul's self-professed "delegate strategy" appears to be working and could yet provide him with the means to be a force at the Republican convention in Tampa in August.
The strategy centres around the fact that the GOP race is based on collecting delegates that are sent to Tampa and who then pick a nominee there. The method of selecting those delegates, and who they back, varies from state to state and sometimes has little to do with the "popular vote" contest that the media, and most members of the public, actually pay attention to. Instead those delegates are often selected by complex series of precinct, county and state conventions.

Paul's strategy relies on using his campaign's enthusiastic followers and impressive organisation to dominate the complex and time-consuming delegate selection process in ways the Romney campaign struggles with. That means in some states the number of delegates Paul gets often far outweighs the percentage of people who voted for him in the state's caucus or primary. "It is working more effectively than many people would have thought likely a few months ago," said Professor Josh Putnam, a political scientist at Davidson College who also runs the Frontloading HQ blog that tracks the delegate process.

The impact of the delegate strategy is now becoming clearer. For example, in Massachusetts, delegates nominated by Romney make up less than half the total, despite him winning the popular vote in the state with 72%. Indeed Paul could get about 16 of the state's 41 delegates, despite getting just 9% of the vote.

In Minnesota, Paul picked up perhaps 20 of 24 delegates available at the congressional district level despite the fact that the state's popular vote was won by Rick Santorum. In Iowa – where the popular vote win was first given to Romney and then to Santorum – Paul now looks set to win the actual delegate count. In Louisiana Paul supporters made 74% of delegates emerging from the state's congressional district caucuses. That ensures they will dominate the coming Louisiana state convention that picks the delegates to send to Tampa. Paul's supporters are also waging a strong and successful campaign in Colorado and other states, like Nevada.

Paul's staff make the point that his tactics are entirely within the rules. The Paul campaign is simply exploiting a complex system and his own supporters' enthusiasm, they say. Doug Wead, a strategist and senior adviser to the campaign, said that Paul's aim was simple. If they manage to control the delegations of five states at Tampa then they will seek to nominate Paul from the convention floor as the rules theoretically allow.
That will force a vote between Paul and Romney. While the Paul campaign understands that it still will not win such a vote, it believes a display of delegate muscle will allow it to express its views on issues like the Federal Reserve, cutting government spending and foreign policy. "It is to make a point and promote the message," Wead said.

Nevertheless not all Paul's supporters think he should press on to Tampa. On Friday, Maine state representative Ryan Harmon urged Paul supporters to back Romney at the state convention on Saturday. "Now is the time for us to come together and unite as conservatives," he wrote in an email to supporters.

Romney's camp is unlikely to be happy with Paul's strategy, either. Modern conventions in American politics are designed to be carefully choreographed affairs with a united party getting fully behind the nominee. Every delegate that the Paul campaign collects raises the prospect of embarrassing the campaign.

A threatened nomination for Paul from the convention floor – even if it had little chance of success – could be a PR headache. But even if the Romney camp and party leaders succeeded in blocking such a move in Tampa, as Wead conceded they could, Paul's delegates would likely be angry enough to still create a sense of disunity with protests and abstentions.

Wead said the Paul campaign was not out to hurt the party, but merely seeking a platform for its views and as such was in talks with Romney aides on how to ensure Paul's delegation would be happy. "Our intention is not to be malicious. We have no reason to hurt the greater cause," Wead said.
Putnam said that a sizeable Paul delegation would result in the Texas congressman being able to influence Romney's policy platform, perhaps guarantee Paul a major speaking slot in Tampa and could even force Romney's team to consider appointing Paul or high-profile followers, like his son, Kentucky senator Rand Paul, to cabinet positions should Romney defeat Obama and become president.

"This is how an outsider candidate has an impact. We should tip our hands to the Paul folks," said Putnam. Paul still will not win in Tampa. But suddenly his decision to stay in the race starts to make more sense.

 

[Jodi's mom]

POS .

He's worse than that. I'd allow a POS on my carpet before I'd allow a traitor in my home.

 

[akforme]

Well, you could make nice with the party leadership and become part of the Establishment, like Paul Ryan, and get heralded as a rising star, the future of the party with your face plastered over Time Magazine and adoring mainstream media journalists fawning over you, but compare what someone like Paul Ryan has actually been able to do for liberty versus the actions of our good doctor. Although Paul Ryan's piecemeal reforms have gotten party approval, they are castigated as "right-wing social engineering" by opportunists like Gingrich and languish in the Congress, blocked by obstructionist Democrats who scream bloody murder over shaving a fraction of a hair from the federal budget over an entire decade. Even though Ron Paul has often been a lonely voice in the wilderness for over THREE DECADES, look at the PASSION that his principles and consistency have been able to engender - not just support for such actions as targeting the Fed from even establishment candidates like Gingrich and Perry, but a real MOVEMENT that has the potential to reverse the damage wrought by far too much compromise over the years through the force of such a (dare I say RADICAL?) concept as liberty and actually return this nation to peace and prosperity.

Have you ever looked at Ryan's voting record? It's more statist then most in DC. He's the perfect politician, say's one thing, vote the complete opposite. I honestly think he's a liberal plant he's so bad.

 

[Jodi's mom]

Have you ever looked at Ryan's voting record? It's more statist then most in DC. He's the perfect politician, say's one thing, vote the complete opposite. I honestly think he's a liberal plant he's so bad.

I've been on Facebook too long. I keep looking for a "like" button. :o