Ron Paul Effectively Ending Presidential Campaign 745
New submitter Dainsanefh sends this quote from the LA Times:
"Ron Paul, Mitt Romney's lone remaining rival for the Republican presidential nomination, announced Monday that he would stop spending money on the party's 11 remaining primaries, in effect suspending his campaign. ... Apart from President Obama and Romney, Paul has raised more money than any other White House contender this year – more than $36 million. His calls for strict adherence to the Constitution and his no-nonsense manner have spawned a vocal and well organized group of followers, but not enough to give him a realistic shot at the presidency."
Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
The end of one battle, not the war (Score:5, Informative)
He's trying to put like minded people in as state GOP officers, and to amass delegates. And he'll keep doing that until all the primaries and caucuses are over this summer.
misrepresentative (Score:4, Informative)
He is not actively campaigning in the primaries because he is focused on the delegate process. He has a plurality of delegates in more than 5 states, so he will be on the ballot at the convention. If he stops Romney from getting the majority, then 2nd round of delegates can all vote for whoever they want to.
Nice twisting. (Score:5, Informative)
He stopped spending money on ads, and is diverting the money to the state conventions (where he's winning). It seems a logical stance to take if his goal is to win the delegate vote.
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
It's over in that there is absolutely no chance of anyone other than Romney taking the nomination.
The dream ends, not with a bang, but a whimper... (Score:1, Informative)
And, thusly, the hopes and the dreams of half of Slashdot's libertarian kook fringe, have been dashed...
Come on, all together now:
AAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Whoops.
Re:The end of one battle, not the war (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not completely familiar with US politics, but does this mean that he's going to continue running under a third-party ballot?
No. Nothing has really changed except not wasting money on campaign stops, which is very costly. He's still 100% in the race.
Many of his followers use the internet to their advantage - there's simply no point in reiterating the same points over and over when you can hop on Youtube or elsewhere and find plenty of information.
He's still on the Republican ticket, he's still pushing for the presidency, and most of all, he's getting precinct delegates to join the fight which has the GOP scared shitless. Win or lose the presidency, liberty-minded folks are taking over the Republican party conventions and will have a huge say not only in this election cycle, but the next on who becomes the nominee.
Ron Paul has refused to go into debt for his campaign, unlike his rivals. Unlike Romney who spends $40,000 per day of taxpayer dollars for secret service protection, he has refused it, even though he's legally entitled to it.
Re:Wrong (Score:0, Informative)
False. According to this website Romney has about ~300 confirmed delegates (keyword: confirmed) versus Paul's ~100 confirmed. That's it. Any other numbers you see are GUESSES, because those states have not held their delegate-electing conventions yet. http://thereal2012delegatecount.com/ [thereal201...ecount.com]
For example, Romney won the popular vote but Paul won the majority of delegates in Massachusetts. Those persons belong to Paul not Romney. (Of course it's possible Paul has no plans to push the issue... and will just let Romney have his delegates. We'll have to wait and see.)
Re:The end of one battle, not the war (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
The Paul campaign is redirecting their attention to the delegate strategy---which is turning out to be very successful. This is being discussed [dailypaul.com] at The Daily Paul. They predicted that the media would intentionally misrepresent this as Ron Paul ending his campaign, and they were right.
Re:Needs his organizers to stay on message. (Score:3, Informative)
As a small-l libertarian, I may agree with Paul on an number of issues. I will never vote for him, however, as he does not believe in the separation of church and state.
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nice twisting. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
>>>>>Paul has been gaining delegates and winning states (at least 8 so far)
It's now 12 states. After this weekend it will likely be 14.
>>Yes, I'm sure that all those delegates that are technically not bound to Romney will suddenly discover their deep and unabiding love for Paul
No need.
They already love Paul. There are already known Paulbots who got themselves elected in states like Massachusetts. The Paulbots versus the Romneybots is ~70% to 30%..... and we're seeing that same pattern in state after state.
>>I really wonder what will happen to all you Paul-fans when Romney gets the overwhelming number of delegates during the Convention
Nothing.
Because I'm expecting it. Yes I want Paul to win but I'm not naive'. I expect Romney to win the 1st round delegate voting ~60% to 40% (same result as Virginia when Paul/Romney ran head-to-head). The end. He's got the support of the RNC Leadership and they WILL make him win, no matter what it takes.
If it turns-out I'm wrong, and Paul pulls a miracle to win the convention, I'll give the guy $5,000 with a note, "I was wrong to doubt you."
Re:so what? (Score:2, Informative)
You like Ron Paul because he "talks truth", we like spazdor for the same reason.
Re:The end of one battle, not the war (Score:2, Informative)
>>>Paul has been gaining delegates and winning states (at least 8 so far)
It's now 12 states where he holds the delegate majority. After this weekend's conventions it will likely be 14.
>>>He never has and will not run as a "third-party" candidate
Except when he did. He quit the Republicans and ran as a Libertarian in 1988. That's when he discovered that 3rd parties don't have a chance in hell of winning the presidency, so he went back to the Republicans and started working *within* the party to steer things back to the principles of Goldwater and Reagan. (And also to push his main agenda: To reverse Nixon's decision to end the gold-backed dollar.)
Re:Needs his organizers to stay on message. (Score:4, Informative)
From everything that I've heard from Ron Paul, he adheres to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, nothing more (building huge wall) and nothing less (infringement on the free exercise thereof).
Re:so what? (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently you're referring to the notion that Ron Paul is a great admirer of Ayn Rand and/or follows her philosophy. I hadn't heard that before, and a brief search turned up no real support for that view*. Your post is at best woefully incomplete and at worst simply irrelevant. How you got so many up-mods is beyond me.
* One site [americanthinker.com] implies that Ron Paul's son Rand Paul was named in Ayn's honor, but his actual name is Randal and his wife shortened it to Rand from Randy. Another article [thehill.com] says "Dr. Paul has said he is a great admirer of Ayn Rand", though I was unable to locate any direct quote to support this statement. This article [alternet.org] is similar. I was unable to locate anything short of a few fringe views. Libertarians and libertarianism was apparently influenced by Ayn [wikipedia.org], but by no means exclusively.
Re:He's running for office in the wrong country (Score:3, Informative)
Dr. Paul's ideas would be fine for certain countries of Europe, like maybe Norway, Sweden, Finland, or Switzerland.
You must be living in the US... It shows, I'm sorry to mention, because of your comment's utter display in geopolitical illiteracy.
With respect to Scandinavia, you presumably ignore that they enjoy some of the highest standards of living, best education, best healthcare and best pensions in the world. Along with one of the highest tax rates. That's not exactly Ron Paul material, but they're quite happy with it.
As for Switzerland, you might be unaware that there's a rampant and growing "screw rich foreigners, they deserve to get taxed more" sentiment. As in an über-tax the blasted creeps who buy Swiss Francs as a store of wealth, screwing exports in the process kind of sentiment. Not precisely Ron Paul material either.
The truth is closer to this: one of Ron Paul's biggest fans in Europe in France's xenophobic extreme-right wing National Front leader Marine Lepen. And the poor curmedgeon desperately sought --and failed-- to avoid her when she visited the US a few months back.
Some commentators on this side of the pond are in line with Paul's ideas, mind you. They've been continually arguing in the past years that his views ought to be applied almost verbatim in Greece. But then, the Greeks recently had an election, and they'll likely do a new election shortly, from lack of a government majority. These may very well bring "screw the banksters, and the rich, we'll just default, expropriate and hang them" extreme-left wings to power, with "screw the banksters, and the foreigners, we'll just default, expropriate and shoot them" neo-nazis as one of the opposing parliament groups.
It's not a pretty sight...
Food for thought.
Re:The end of one battle, not the war (Score:4, Informative)
No. He never has and will not run as a "third-party" candidate.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Ron Paul ran as a "third-party" candidate for President in 1988 on the Libertarian Part ticket. So, while he may not run as a third party candidate this year (and I don't think he will), he has done so in the past.
Re:so what? (Score:2, Informative)
that supporting Ron Paul is completely untenable without self-deception, but that the Randian-Libertarian philosophy taken as a whole is.
The fact that you know so little about the topic that you assert that Libertarianism = Randianism leads me to believe that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I would love to see the proof that either Randian or Libertarian philosophy is "untenable". Of course you can't be bothered because you are just trolling.
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Informative)
If you think the Bush power-grabs were 'breathtaking,' go learn history. Go clean yourself of your ignorance. Wallow in foolishness no longer. You'll be utterly shocked when you see what Adams did.
There was essentially a 0% chance that Bush would declare martial law and stay in office. If you can't see then, then once again, go learn history.