Response to the question: "Would you support one of the other candidates?"

[unknown]

Dr. Paul is asked this question repeatedly to imply two things:

1) That he will not have the most delegates/not be the nominee and

2) That once we get to the convention, we cannot recruit enough to win.

I think this question could be responded to in this way:

"At this point, we dont know who is going to be the nominee.

What I think should be asked is if they will support me. We will have a good number of delegates and depending on what transpires at the convention, will look to recruit more.

Some of the other candidates have started to adopt my principles in rhetoric of fiscal conservatism, smaller government, civil liberties and a more humble foreign policy. I cant tell you how sincere they are but these are ideals that I have championed for 30 years and people know I will keep my promises even after being elected".

 

[Defrauded]

I don't vote for the candidate, I vote for how he supports the Declaration of Independence,

and our Constitution. None of the other three seems to be sincere enough about them.

If Ron Paul isn't the nominee, I'll write him in again.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I don't think we can write-in a candidate in Louisiana, but if I can't vote for Dr. Paul I'll skip the POTUS election.

 

[pacelli]

If Ron Paul were all of a sudden to do a complete 180 degree turn in his policies, and adopt Romney & Newt's stances, I would VOTE AGAINST HIM.

I VOTE FOR RON PAUL BECAUSE OF HIS CURRENT MESSAGE. I vote for Ron Paul because of his record of voting with the CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS.

The media just doesn't seem to understand what Ron Paul stands for... it is not the man, it is the message.