Did McCain campaign say he doesn't want Paul voters?

[acroso]

I coulda swore I saw him bantering about how he doesn't want us.

true?

[dsentell]

I recall this, too. . . .

Well, he doesn't have to worry about me! :D

[acptulsa]

I don't recall if they said more than they don't really expect to get any votes from us. There has been lip service, I think, to the effect that they wouldn't complain. I don't recall anything that wasn't pretty low-key.

[votefreedomfirst]

This is probably what you're thinking of: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/03/a_message_to_ron_paul_supporte.asp


but let me just say to Ron Paul supporters everywhere, and on behalf of the New Right (by which I assume Paul means the Jew Right), get lost.

There should be plenty of room for the Paulnuts in Obama's big tent.


That was written by Michael Goldfarb who was later appointed McCain's deputy communications director.

[Theocrat]

This is probably what you're thinking of: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/03/a_message_to_ron_paul_supporte.asp



That was written by Michael Goldfarb who was later appointed McCain's deputy communications director.

This is Reason #346 why we shouldn't waste our time trying to reform the Republican Party.

[acptulsa]

This is Reason #346 why we shouldn't waste our time trying to reform the Republican Party.

The Republican Party is kinda like Democracy. The only thing worse is any of the alternatives.

[Theocrat]

The Republican Party is kinda like Democracy. The only thing worse is any of the alternatives.

Nah. There's always a remnant of goodness preserved. You just have to have the audacity to hope for change (and I'm not talking about Obama). ;)

[Kludge]

This is Reason #346 why we shouldn't waste our time trying to reform the Republican Party.


Whoooooa! That was not expected from you. I thought I had you all figured out and then you throw this curve ball.


Do you think we should all be backing the Constitution Party, or work to eliminate parties altogether?

[Theocrat]

Whoooooa! That was not expected from you. I thought I had you all figured out and then you throw this curve ball.


Do you think we should all be backing the Constitution Party, or work to eliminate parties altogether?

Ideally, I think we should all support a party which is committed to nominating candidates of religious and moral integrity, possessing wisdom and knowledge of what sound government is, as started by our Founding Fathers. The GOP is nowhere near that aim now, so the closest party to that ideal is the Constitution Party, in my opinion.

[Jamsie 567]

McCain will lose because he does not have my vote MUAHAHA.

[Theocrat]

McCain will lose because he does not have my vote MUAHAHA.

As mainstream "conservatives" will say, a non-vote for McCain is a vote for Obama. I guess not voting for the lesser of two evils is more evil than voting for less evil. :rolleyes:

[acroso]

Anyone else have any quotes of mccain staffers saying they don't want Paul votes?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

This is probably what you're thinking of: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/03/a_message_to_ron_paul_supporte.asp

That was written by Michael Goldfarb who was later appointed McCain's deputy communications director.

The new right: preemptive war, big government spending, amnesty for illegals and "compassionate conservatiism".

You can thank the "new right" for all the more big U.S. House and U.S. Senate republican losses in November. Boy these people sure have made the party viable, between the 2006 and upcoming 2008 elections, huh? The American people just adore the republican party under the "new right", don't they? They won't be a minority party for at least the next 20 years or anything....

Thanks a heap "new right"!

[acptulsa]

Ron Paul's Party Repair: You fracture 'em, we fix 'em.

[Dary]

A vote for McCain is a vote for Obama.

[V-rod]

Obama is going to do a little worse than Kerry did in 04'.

Will be strictly a up or down vote for Obama, not a vote for McCain.

[StudentForPaul08]

Ideally, I think we should all support a party which is committed to nominating candidates of religious and moral integrity, possessing wisdom and knowledge of what sound government is, as started by our Founding Fathers. The GOP is nowhere near that aim now, so the closest party to that ideal is the Constitution Party, in my opinion.


Well as an Atheist, does this mean i am illegiable? do i not have 'good' morals? This talk drives me crazy. You talk about freedom and liberty that spew this. That is contradictory of our movement.

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

This is Reason #346 why we shouldn't waste our time trying to reform the Republican Party.

You're willing to let them win? I'm not!

[G-Wohl]

Ideally, I think we should all support a party which is committed to nominating candidates of religious and moral integrity, possessing wisdom and knowledge of what sound government is, as started by our Founding Fathers. The GOP is nowhere near that aim now, so the closest party to that ideal is the Constitution Party, in my opinion.

Religious and moral integrity? How does that kind of limitation at all align with our goal of minimizing government and enhancing personal liberties?

Why should we have to be religious in order to be proponents of the freedom movement?

Religious or not, one does not have to be a good ol' Christian (does that even exist?) to be for the ideals we stand for. You clearly don't stand for the same libertarianism and classical conservatism that the rest of us here do, because what you advocate with your Constitution Party is hatred, bigotry, and a strong antithesis of freedom, all fueled by "religious integrity."