The madness of Newt Romney

[sailingaway]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=376621

[Sola_Fide]

That was a great article.

[Carole]

Yes, that was an excellent article and precisely articulates what many, many of us who support Dr. Paul believe. Better to have the known enemy and make him as ineffectual as possible than to have the "unknown" enemy from within ones own party who will not only lead us down the same path as Oblahma, but probably do it even more aggresively.

So I agree with the article that Newt Romney would be devastating to our country at this point, so devastating that I would rather vote for Oblahma than Newt Romney. Fortunately, I will not have to, I will be voting for Ron Paul as usual.

[Marky]

Ron Paul voted for Newt Gingrich's re-election for speaker of the house in 1997. Even after the government shut-down and turmoil Gingrich created in his first term...

That’s all you got? That he voted for Newt over Gephardt in ‘97? If this is some attempt at discrediting RP, it’s an utter failure.

[South Park Fan]

Ron Paul voted for Newt Gingrich's re-election for speaker of the house in 1997. Even after the government shut-down and turmoil Gingrich created in his first term...

That was merely a deal the Republican establishment forced Ron Paul to do in exchange for not backing a primary challenger, as they had done in 1996.

[sailingaway]

That was merely a deal the Republican establishment forced Ron Paul to do in exchange for not backing a primary challenger, as they had done in 1996.
and it was just a matter of making it an overwhelming vote, there was no real option.

But in any event, I don't think Gingrich's shutting down the government is what Ron has against him.

[low preference guy]

Guys.... you all know there is a "Non Vote" Option ... as Ron Paul has used many times when he dislikes either option. Atleast I hope you all know that...

Does this mean you will "Non Vote" when you have the option of choosing Paul?

[South Park Fan]

How do you "force" a congressman to do something?

Threatening to strip him of any committee assignments and back his primary opponent.

[TER]

Newt Romney idea is great. Thank you Congresswoman Bachmann.

[RM918]

Annu is obviously correct. Paul is in the bag for the establishment! This proves it. I guess the campaign's over, guys. Let's pack it up and go home. It was a good run, but unfortunately 40 years of consistency doesn't make up for voting Gingrich over Gephardt 14 years ago. We should've been campaigning for someone without any faults at all, like Romney.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Guys.... you all know there is a "Non Vote" Option ... as Ron Paul has used many times when he dislikes either option. Atleast I hope you all know that...

There wasn't anyone else seeking the speakership.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Gephardt was. Even if it was a single nominee -- he could still no-vote.

So Ron Paul was supposed to vote for Democrat Dick Gephardt to be the Speaker of the House in a Republican controlled body?

Again, Gephardt wasn't up for Speaker, he was nominated by the Democrats in the House to be their lead rep.

[low preference guy]

Gephardt was. Even if it was a single nominee -- he could still no-vote.

So, you're criticizing Ron Paul for voting for Gingrich... which you say is something Ron Paul did wrong, and at the same time, you are going to vote for Paul although he did something wrong. Does it feel good to have a mind so fucked up?

[TheTexan]

Ron Paul voted for Newt Gingrich's re-election for speaker of the house in 1997. Even after the government shut-down and turmoil Gingrich created in his first term...

This is a valid point and though it's a minor issue I'd like an answer as well. But spamming this point in unrelated threads is most certainly going to get you banned.

[RM918]

So, you're criticizing Ron Paul for voting for Gingrich... which you say is something Ron Paul did wrong, and at the same time, you are going to vote for Paul although he did something wrong. Does it feel good to have a mind so fucked up?

I'm actually going to agree that it's fine to have issues with someone and still vote for them, but Annu IS bringing it up in unrelated threads which I think is the strange bit. I personally don't have a problem with it - the system is utterly corrupt and even Paul has to play some degree of ball from time to time - but is there anyone else who'd really have done differently? They'd have been out of congress after one term, I find it to be pretty small potatoes on any level you consider it from.

[Jack Bauer]

How do you "force" a congressman to do something?

http://memegenerator.net/cache/instances/250x250/10/10443/10693898.jpg

[The Free Hornet]

This is a valid point and though it's a minor issue I'd like an answer as well. But spamming this point in unrelated threads is most certainly going to get you banned.

Is it valid? The House will have a Speaker but any particular bill need not get passed. Picking the lessor of two bad options is no big deal. Was there an option to vote, "No, we will not have a Speaker?". Also, if Ron was unwilling to run himself, what is his motivation to abstain from the vote? Also, the Speaker is still just one man and maybe Ron - who knows how the government works - was ensuring he gets on the right committees. Don't kid yourselves, Ron knows the system!

Also, his vote would not violate the constitution. Is there an anti-Newt clause? I know there ought to be but our forefathers didn't have that much foresight.

[TheTexan]

Is it valid? The House will have a Speaker but any particular bill need not get passed. Picking the lessor of two bad options is no big deal. Was there an option to vote, "No, we will not have a Speaker?". Also, if Ron was unwilling to run himself, what is his motivation to abstain from the vote? Also, the Speaker is still just one man and maybe Ron - who knows how the government works - was ensuring he gets on the right committees. Don't kid yourselves, Ron knows the system!

Also, his vote would not violate the constitution. Is there an anti-Newt clause? I know there ought to be but our forefathers didn't have that much foresight.

It's basically this whole 'lesser of two evils' thing. If RP has taught me anything, it's that if we accept the lesser of two evils in an election, the outcome will always be evil. Should always vote for someone who you think will do good things, and not fewer bad things.

But again, this is a very very minor issue. I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation for it, or even if there's not, and he just voted for the lesser of two evils... it's not a big deal.