Title: Federal Law Proves All Delegates Are UNBOUND! All Delegates Must See This! Source:
YouTube URL Source:http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=GiEbNncoSG0 Published:Jun 4, 2012 Author:matlarson10 Post Date:2012-06-08 13:10:45 by GreyLmist Keywords:Ron Paul, Delegates, Unbound Free Agents, Election Law Views:619 Comments:37
However, many states have laws that directly bind delegates to the voters' choices. Some states bind all delegates, some bind only part of the delegates.
In addition, delegates would have to want to spike Romney so bad that they would take Paul who as a former LP candidate against Bush I repels them almost as much as legal heroin (which RP has advocated in a debate this year).
So the point is ridiculous. If Romney suffered some massive scandal (like the discovery he secretly has a harem of 72 virgin Nordic wives), I still doubt the convention would pick Ron Paul as the nominee. It would be Santorum. Or it would be Jeb Bush or Mitch Daniels.
The Paul campaign has made it clear they do not expect to have even half the delegates needed to capture the nomination. Personally, I doubt that he'll have the plurality in five states' delegate counts to have his name placed in nomination on the first round at the convention. The GOP old guard worked hard to deny him two states.
But keep in mind, he qualified on one state in 2008. Had they not cheated him this years, he would have qualified in at least five, maybe seven states. That kind of growth is something to build on, particularly with a far more adept retail politician like Rand Paul taking the core of the Ron Paul movement over after Ron retires.
If Romney suffered some massive scandal (like the discovery he secretly has a harem of 72 virgin Nordic wives), I still doubt the convention would pick Ron Paul as the nominee. It would be Santorum. Or it would be Jeb Bush or Mitch Daniels.
There's speculation that Romney attended the recent Bilderberg meeting -- like other outlaw pols here in the past, such as Obama and Hillary; which is a criminal violation of the Logan Act prohibiting unauthorized, secretive meetings with foriegn officials. Evidence is stronger that Mitch Daniels and Kerry did. (Ref.) If so, all of them should be banned from our elections. Additionally, there's the question of Romney's eligibility for office, as with Obama. Insistent presumptions that his father was a citizen of this country at the time of his birth isn't enough evidence.
But keep in mind, [Ron Paul] qualified on one state in 2008. Had they not cheated him this years, he would have qualified in at least five, maybe seven states. That kind of growth is something to build on, particularly with a far more adept retail politician like Rand Paul taking the core of the Ron Paul movement over after Ron retires.
I agree that kind of growth is something to build on but disagree that Rand Paul taking over his movement after he retires is the way it should go. The movement isn't of concern to Rand so much as its value to him and his Neocon cadre as a self-promotion and publicity tool.
I agree that kind of growth is something to build on but disagree that Rand Paul taking over his movement after he retires is the way it should go. The movement isn't of concern to Rand so much as its value to him and his Neocon cadre as a self-promotion and publicity tool.
The only viable plan is to take the more mainstream but hardcore Paul supporters, combine them with the Tea folk and slice off as much of the evangelical vote as possible.
I have reason to believe that is the strategy for Rand. The evangelical clergymen don't like Ron all that much but they swoon over Rand. That didn't happen by accident.
It's easy to talk about winning a nomination but every nominee (other than sacrifice candidates like Dole and the Stain) has to assemble broad coalitions to support the candidate and his agenda to win the nomination.
The only viable plan is to take the more mainstream but hardcore Paul supporters, combine them with the Tea folk and slice off as much of the evangelical vote as possible.
I have reason to believe that is the strategy for Rand. The evangelical clergymen don't like Ron all that much but they swoon over Rand. That didn't happen by accident.
It's easy to talk about winning a nomination but every nominee (other than sacrifice candidates like Dole and the Stain) has to assemble broad coalitions to support the candidate and his agenda to win the nomination.
Really? Ron Paul has already assembled the broadest coalition of any candidate of any party because Ron Paul is a Statesman and not a politician-as-usual. Rand wants to be a RINO-Neocon politician and play those party politics as usual. Seems you do too, very unlike most Ron Paul supporters by my reckonings, but let's be clear on what Rand did. Many politicians don't publicly support or campaign for other politicians -- Presidential candidates or not. Like them, he could have simply abstained from doing so for Romney and it wouldn't have jeopardized his career or alienated his father's movement for the most part. So, why did he do it? Perhaps to demonstrate to the party puppeteers that what he has most in common with Romney is ruthlessness against the preliminary benefactors of their careers and, of the two of them, Rand is moreso because of his willingness to undermine his father's work, not just a generous business partner's.
I'm thinking that we don't even need a party at all to run Ron Paul as a candidate for President.
I'm thinking that we don't even need a party at all to run Ron Paul as a candidate for President.
Indy? Sure.
Except you still have to get on 51 ballots (general). To do that, you have to have something that looks like and functions like a political party.
We don't have national elections. All U.S. elections are state and local elections.
If he wanted, RP could flip and get the nomination of the LP and the CP. They came right out publicly and tried to tempt him in 2008 with it. And between the two, he would have been on all 51 ballots (in some places, twice).
But he wouldn't do it. The '88 run convinced him that just doing ballot access consumes far too much effort and money. You may recall how Buchanan ended up with the Reform party in 2000.
Besides, Ron Paul promised his wife in 2008 before he even started his run that there would be no more third-party runs for him. AFAIK, he has not rescinded that promise.
And since he's already announced his retirement, how does he suddenly burst forth to run yet another campaign?
Then you get to the states that have sore-loser laws, that forbid those who lost a primary or nomination from running in that state as a general election candidate (something that should be in all 50 states IMO). I hate double-dippers like Lieberman and Murkowski, almost as much as carpetbaggers.
We don't have national elections. All U.S. elections are state and local elections.
These are elections are for a Federal position, not State officials. If States don't want to comply with the Federal election regs of unbound delegates, they could be excluded from the vote counts.
I'm not talking about a third party run for Ron Paul this time, although I think that option is a good one. Ron Paul has already campaigned for the office of President. He wouldn't need to campaign again for a no-party run or a third party run. That's the first I've heard of such a promise to his wife about no more third party runs and don't know what the reasoning for that could possibly be but I think a third party option is a good one for him to consider, if necessary. I think a no-party run might be a better route and his wife probably wouldn't even object to that because it wouldn't be like a breach of promise thing.
These are elections are for a Federal position, not State officials.
We only have state delegates, selected and governed by the rules and/or laws of their state, and the ~120 unbound superdelegates (GOP honchos).
We may have a Federal Elections Commission but we do not have even a single federal election. Let alone federal convention delegates which sounds just plain silly.