Huffpost: Can Ron Paul supporters take over the GOP by [temporarily] leaving it...

[lakefx]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-...b_1866221.html

This was posted on Facebook by Michigan U.S. Senate Libertarian Candidate Scott Boman, Who like Johnson, began by running in the republican primary, got 0 attention, then joined the LP.... He also helped with the RP campaign in the Grand Rapids area.

Anyway, its a good argument. An argument for how a vote for Gary Johnson = Ron Paul in the end, by swinging the election of the president with our numbers. I believe this argument also implies voting for Ron Paul as a write in, in states where it counts, is equally effective.

Highlights:

"I recently polled the 13,000-strong community of Blue Republicans, all Ron Paul supporters, to find out for whom they intended to vote for President.....An overwhelming 66% said they would be voting for Gary Johnson -- the Libertarian candidate who shall be the only candidate other than Obama and Romney on the ballot in every state (absent yet more GOP mafia tactics). Sixteen (16) percent will be writing in Ron Paul, even though most don't expect their vote to be counted, and Romney will attract the votes of a negligible 6%. (Margin of error +/-4%.)"

"....More importantly, right now, millions of Paul's supporters who are against the status quo have an even deeper revulsion of the party that should embrace them, the GOP, than of the other party whose politics are even more antithetical to their own. The RNC's disenfranchisement of Paul's supporters have made large numbers of them feel in their gut that the "lesser of two evils" is really more "evil" than "lesser", and a vote for the Republicans would be something like buying a "thank you" gift for the man who just burgled your house. "

"....A large Johnson vote beamed into American homes on 6 Nov. may do more to get people Googling his views and seriously considering the possibility of something other than the two-party system than any campaign ads he can make or money he can spend. And if his vote exceeds the margin of victory of the winner, and the pundits point out that Ron Paul's following is mostly responsible, the Paulites will have ceased to be politically marginal, by definition. "

[ClydeCoulter]

A voice in the wilderness get's a bullhorn?

[moostraks]

The RNC's disenfranchisement of Paul's supporters have made large numbers of them feel in their gut that the "lesser of two evils" is really more "evil" than "lesser", and a vote for the Republicans would be something like buying a "thank you" gift for the man who just burgled your house. "

I love this part! It is so perfect a comparison to my revulsion towards the GOP. I saw their office here in Niles and I just felt my stomach churn over associating with them. In contrast the Obama office does not cause the same reaction even though his policies are currently more relevant. I think there is a disconnect as I am not morally accountable for a party with which I am not associating. I think the devil I don't know scares me more than the one I do. If one goes to the lengths Romney (as the figurehead for the puppet masters) has openly and without shame and gets rewarded how much more dangerous is he in office? Well I think I would rather not find out...

[No1butPaul]

I love this part! It is so perfect a comparison to my revulsion towards the GOP. I saw their office here in Niles and I just felt my stomach churn over associating with them. In contrast the Obama office does not cause the same reaction even though his policies are currently more relevant. I think there is a disconnect as I am not morally accountable for a party with which I am not associating. I think the devil I don't know scares me more than the one I do. If one goes to the lengths Romney (as the figurehead for the puppet masters) has openly and without shame and gets rewarded how much more dangerous is he in office? Well I think I would rather not find out...

Isn't it funny how the GOP miscalculated?

[FSP-Rebel]

As of right now, Johnson isn't on the ballot in Mich. The Atty gen and sec of state have found some archaic rule to keep him off thus far which doesn't make much sense since R-money is basically conceding our state by pulling his ad money. So, I won't be voting for prez. Boman has ran for Senate here as far back as I can remember perhaps riding on his name which happened to be the same name as a recent Detroit Red Wings coach. I'll probably vote for Hoekstra, even tho I detest him, just to hopefully knock of Stabenow.

[parocks]

Yes, this is a common argument, it's been around for months, and it's one that really does, or should win the day.

However his version is a little off.

I'm planning on voting for GJ, basically for the reasons he stated.

I wouldn't argue not in favor of Libertarian, but True Conservative. The idea is to send the message to Romney and the GOP that it's "True Conservatives" who kept
Romney from winning certain states, not "Libertarians"

To win, we need True Conservatives. So, our message is that Ron Paul, (in this case) Gary Johnson, and others are True Conservatives, and Romney is a Liberal, just like Obama.

The poster boy is someone who supported Ron Paul in the Primaries in 2008, and didn't like McCain, but voted Republican in the fall of 08, because of Sarah Palin, who is a True Conservative. That person supported Ron Paul in the Primaries in 2012, and doesn't like Romney, and Ryan isn't enough of a True Conservative. The GOP must nominate a True Conservative like Ron Paul, or else True Conservatives will stay home, and the Liberal GOP candidate will lose.

(There's no point in arguing whether Gary Johnson or Sarah Palin are True Conservatives. It's not relevant to the argument we're trying to make.)

[The Free Hornet]

The poster boy is someone who supported Ron Paul in the Primaries in 2008, and didn't like McCain, but voted Republican in the fall of 08, because of Sarah Palin, who is a True Conservative.
...
(There's no point in arguing whether Gary Johnson or Sarah Palin are True Conservatives. It's not relevant to the argument we're trying to make.)

Your point is that Sarah Palin is a "True Conservative". My point would be that she is a useless sack of $#@!. As to the thread's point, Romney won't be getting my vote.

Sarah Palin is a prohibitionist. Another drug warrior hypocrite:

When she ran as the Republican nominee for vice-president in 2008, Palin admitted to using marijuana in her youth but said she opposed making marijuana because of the “message” it would send to her children.

http://blog.mpp.org/prohibition/sara...rmer/06152010/

And I don't care that maybe she doesn't want herself or the other stoners locked up. What offends me is that she would lock up the productive people who grew, processed, and transported that plant so that she could get her inflated head high.

This tells me all I need to know about Sarah Palin and big government and a total lack of respect for capitalism and our civil liberties. National policy based on whatever-the-$#@! message she wants to send her kids?! The hell with her.

[lakefx]

Your point is that Sarah Palin is a "True Conservative". My point would be that she is a useless sack of $#@!.

I Lol'd.


Gary Johnson and Sarah Palin would agree that humans wear shoes. Maybe. And I believe their supporters might agree on less than that. True NEOconservative =/= True Conservative have little in common. Perhaps a real neocon, next to neocon light, McCain, made her look principled. Principaled in the same way a candle looks bright next to a glow stick.

Priorities, dare I say in this order:

End Endless wars. Shut off the foreign aid. Return our troops to their families.
Abolish the Fed.
Dismantle massive chunks of the federal government
Pay off the debt
Abolish the IRS and the income tax
Return healthcare and retirement to the People.
Let people live their own lives, they way they want to live them.


The two parties in charge today, in their current forms, cannot and will not take this path. In the meantime, we've got some energy and we are going to put it to use in November. A show of force, as the author suggests, is an excellent next step. Gary Johnson is the only one with ballot access strong enough to make a dent in the general who's willing to even talk about the items on that list...if they are albeit, watered down and politically palatable. We need as many Paul supporters, Independents and our finest freinds voting AGAINST Evil, not falling in lock step. Votes for Ron Paul, if counted, help too.

[TheGrinch]

Wow, this is a very good article that everyone should read, and what I've been trying to say for a while but couldn't have possibly said that well.

Showing our numbers is more important to changing the discourse than is the candidate that is our vehicle, as long as he stands for the issues we're fighting for.

If they allow Dr. Paul as a write-in, then write him in, if it's just Gary, then vote Gary, vote Roseanne, I don't care that much as long as we send the message that we're here to stay!

[parocks]

Your point is that Sarah Palin is a "True Conservative". My point would be that she is a useless sack of $#@!. As to the thread's point, Romney won't be getting my vote.

You didn't read the post did you?

It said clearly here:
(There's no point in arguing whether Gary Johnson or Sarah Palin are True Conservatives. It's not relevant to the argument we're trying to make.)

It doesn't matter. The idea is to separate Palin fans from Romney. To try to get Palin fans not to like Romney. And it's done by calling Palin a true conservative, and Romney not. To lump together Gary Johnson and Sarah Palin - to Sarah Palin fans. To get Sarah Palin fans to vote for Gary Johnson, by saying those 2 are equal, and Romney the unacceptable Liberal.

[parocks]

Wow, this is a very good article that everyone should read, and what I've been trying to say for a while but couldn't have possibly said that well.

Showing our numbers is more important to changing the discourse than is the candidate that is our vehicle, as long as he stands for the issues we're fighting for.

If they allow Dr. Paul as a write-in, then write him in, if it's just Gary, then vote Gary, vote Roseanne, I don't care that much as long as we send the message that we're here to stay!

They don't really have to stand for those issues either. They just have to be said to be for those issues, for conservativism, etc.

[parocks]

It's an argument that you make. The idea is to get Palin supporters to move from Romney to Johnson, by being nice to her and calling her a conservative. She has more fans than Ron Paul and Gary Johnson put together, so I picked that name, because those people are numerous.

And you didn't read my whole post, where I didn't want to argue whether those people were actually conservatives, just that we could make the argument for a purpose.

I Lol'd.


Gary Johnson and Sarah Palin would agree that humans wear shoes. Maybe. And I believe their supporters might agree on less than that. True NEOconservative =/= True Conservative have little in common. Perhaps a real neocon, next to neocon light, McCain, made her look principled. Principaled in the same way a candle looks bright next to a glow stick.

Priorities, dare I say in this order:

End Endless wars. Shut off the foreign aid. Return our troops to their families.
Abolish the Fed.
Dismantle massive chunks of the federal government
Pay off the debt
Abolish the IRS and the income tax
Return healthcare and retirement to the People.
Let people live their own lives, they way they want to live them.


The two parties in charge today, in their current forms, cannot and will not take this path. In the meantime, we've got some energy and we are going to put it to use in November. A show of force, as the author suggests, is an excellent next step. Gary Johnson is the only one with ballot access strong enough to make a dent in the general who's willing to even talk about the items on that list...if they are albeit, watered down and politically palatable. We need as many Paul supporters, Independents and our finest freinds voting AGAINST Evil, not falling in lock step. Votes for Ron Paul, if counted, help too.

[TheGrinch]

Parocks, methinks you may be overestimating the Palin constituent. Most people realize that she's a total moron about politics (sorry, would ignorant be a kinder word? She has no business in politics she knows nothing about but talking points).

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Huffpost: Can Ron Paul supporters take over the GOP by [temporarily] leaving it...

The real question they're asking:

Huffington Post: Can we trick some Ron Paul supporters into hurting the GOP in November, because we're Democrats for Obama?

Realize that the Huffington Post cares not one iota about Ron Paul, his supporters, or the Republican Party (outside of defeating all three.) Articles from them with fake concern or support for Ron Paul supporters always has some ulterior motive.

[TheGrinch]

The real question they're asking:



Realize that the Huffington Post cares not one iota about Ron Paul, his supporters, or the Republican Party (outside of defeating all three.) Articles from them with fake concern or support for Ron Paul supporters always has some ulterior motive.

Of course it does. That doesn't mean that people like maddow have not been truthful about how the gop has treated TD however. It just means they're opportunisitc.

Actually, did you read the article? I thought it was spot on and not partisan, but rather antipartisan.

[parocks]

Parocks, methinks you may be overestimating the Palin constituent. Most people realize that she's a total moron about politics (sorry, would ignorant be a kinder word? She has no business in politics she knows nothing about but talking points).

I'm going based on about 2 year old polling data. The point is - a lot of people were pleased with Palin in 2008, and they aren't in 2012, at least that's the story.

Too Liberal was ok in 08 because of Palin, not ok in 2012. That's the argument to make. There's a difference between making an argument to accomplish something, and the actual truth of the matter. Maybe that's "spin".

[lakefx]

It's an argument that you make. The idea is to get Palin supporters to move from Romney to Johnson, by being nice to her and calling her a conservative. She has more fans than Ron Paul and Gary Johnson put together, so I picked that name, because those people are numerous.

And you didn't read my whole post, where I didn't want to argue whether those people were actually conservatives, just that we could make the argument for a purpose.

To a Palin conservative... Gary Johnson is a Liber[al]tarian nutjob. I don't believe Palin (teo)conservatives are unplugged from the matrix enough to make this argument. Rallying behind Romney while gritting their teeth would be about all we get, I'm afraid. I hope I'm wrong. Perhaps Palin is a gateway drug...but I've been told there's no such thing is that either!

[parocks]

To a Palin conservative... Gary Johnson is a Liber[al]tarian nutjob. I don't believe Palin (teo)conservatives are unplugged from the matrix enough to make this argument. Rallying behind Romney while gritting their teeth would be about all we get, I'm afraid. I hope I'm wrong. Perhaps Palin is a gateway drug...but I've been told there's no such thing is that either!

Well, the idea is to make that case. Someone mentioned that we don't want to take full credit if Romney loses.

The core idea is to say if Romney loses, that Romney lost because he was not conservative enough. So whatever method to get that message out - "not voting for Romney - he's not conservative enough" hammer that message, and try to make it stick.

Because that's what happens every year. Liberal Republicans vs Conservative. And we benefit if the case is made that Liberal Republicans = losing.

[The Free Hornet]

You didn't read the post did you?

It said clearly here:
(There's no point in arguing whether Gary Johnson or Sarah Palin are True Conservatives. It's not relevant to the argument we're trying to make.)

Reading and believing are not the same. I saw no reason to mention Sarah Palin.

The idea is to separate Palin fans from Romney. To try to get Palin fans not to like Romney. And it's done by calling Palin a true conservative, and Romney not. To lump together Gary Johnson and Sarah Palin - to Sarah Palin fans. To get Sarah Palin fans to vote for Gary Johnson, by saying those 2 are equal, and Romney the unacceptable Liberal.

You had the most unbelievable foul disgusting ideas during the convention. IIRC, it was deleted from the server and the memory chips were scrubbed with bleach. However, a copy of the filth survived. The notion that Gary Johnson and Sarah Palin are in any way equal or to be discussed as such is just slightly less offensive. To everybody!

And another thing...

WE WILL NOT BE SHARING A TENT IN FEMA CAMP!!!

[parocks]

Well, my point never was that Sarah Palin was a true conservative, just that votes could be gained by appealing to people who voted for McCain in 08 because of Palin. And I was pissed off during the Convention. I was pretty shocked at how we kept getting screwed, seemingly every single day, with something newer and more ridiculous. I think we did do some damage. The post convention bump was small.

In addition, when they're doing everything they can to shut us down because they're worried about something awful, it creates a less than fun vibe in the room. And that was certainly the case at the RNC. If they're on edge, prepared for the worst (and laying out the worst for them in explicit detail on an open forum is as clear and direct about the possibilities as can be) they aren't having much fun at all. And they weren't. It was a weak and feeble convention. It was orderly, however, which made doing anything difficult.

[sailingaway]

The real question they're asking:



Realize that the Huffington Post cares not one iota about Ron Paul, his supporters, or the Republican Party (outside of defeating all three.) Articles from them with fake concern or support for Ron Paul supporters always has some ulterior motive.

you are kidding? The author of this piece STARTED Blue Republicans.

However, whether it was individually counted for him or not, I'm writing in Ron Paul. It DOES show as none of the above,m even where it is not 'counted' which is a lot closer to how I feel than voting for a candidate I don't want, or I might as well vote for Romney, whom I also don't want.

It doesn't show 'our' numbers to vote for Romney, or Johnson, as far as I see it.

[TheGrinch]

you are kidding? The author of this piece STARTED Blue Republicans.

However, whether it was individually counted for him or not, I'm writing in Ron Paul. It DOES show as none of the above,m even where it is not 'counted' which is a lot closer to how I feel than voting for a candidate I don't want, or I might as well vote for Romney, whom I also don't want.

It doesn't show 'our' numbers to vote for Romney, or Johnson, as far as I see it.

I have a freaking Roseanne Bar campaign I'm pushing as a joke, but there are some of us who IIRC have seen our votes not be counted (or at least publicized, unless you can show me what the % of write-in voters in GA was in 2008, because I never saw anything about my vote for Dr. Paul).

I applaud you for being on the ball enough to initiate a write-in campaign there and I wish I had done the same, but dammit, my voice is not going to be ignored this election. Gary Johnson isn't going to be president anymore than Ron Paul is, sorry to say, so at this point, however you can have your voice heard for your issues, then do it. It's a protest vote that speaks much louder volumes than no vote.

I understand your aversions to him, but you have to understand that whatever can better show our numbers on our issues is in our best interest. We aren't going to get what we want this cycle, so you have to be smart about what's best for your situation in your state. I hope you can respect that this isn't all or nothing. We have to work together.

[sailingaway]

I have a freaking Roseanne Bar campaign I'm pushing as a joke, but there are some of us who IIRC have seen our votes not be counted (or at least publicized, unless you can show me what the % of write-in voters in GA was in 2008, because I never saw anything about my vote for Dr. Paul).

I applaud you for being on the ball enough to initiate a write-in campaign there and I wish I had done the same, but dammit, my voice is not going to be ignored this election. Gary Johnson isn't going to be president anymore than Ron Paul is, sorry to say, so at this point, however you can have your voice heard for your issues, then do it. It's a protest vote that speaks much louder volumes than no vote.

I understand your aversions to him, but you have to understand that whatever can better show our numbers on our issues is in our best interest. We aren't going to get what we want this cycle, so you have to be smart about what's best for your situation in your state. I hope you can respect that this isn't all or nothing. We have to work together.

I just have a complete disconnect with you on the notion that votes for Johnson shows my support for RON PAUL. None of the above is better, imho.

[TheGrinch]

I just have a complete disconnect with you on the notion that votes for Johnson shows my support for RON PAUL. None of the above is better, imho.

If you can show me where my vote even counted as "none of the above" in 2008 in Georgia, then I'll be more than happy to write-in Dr. Paul again. Otherwise, that doesn't show my support for Dr. Paul either, and in the public view is the same as not voting at all.

And you know as well as I do, that this doesn't just begin and end with Dr. Paul. This is about bringing our views into the public discourse. So like I said, if you can write in Dr. Paul ad have it count as anything, then do it. If not, then I don't care if you vote for Johnson, Roseanne, anyone pitching anti-establishment and pro-liberty ideals, as long it shows our numbers in support of those who are taking a stance on issues we care about. That only helps to show that we care about the issues, not just the man.

(ETA: actually it does show write-ins and votes for Dr. Paul. See below)

[sailingaway]

If you can show me where my vote even counted as "none of the above" in 2008 in Georgia, then I'll be more than happy to write-in Dr. Paul again. Otherwise, that doesn't show my support for Dr. Paul either, and in the public view is the same as not voting at all.

I will look it up later today, but I am not trying to pressure you to vote differently than you want, I'm just explaining my own thought process.

And you know as well as I do, that this doesn't just begin and end with Dr. Paul. This is about bringing our views into the public discourse. So like I said, if you can write in Dr. Paul ad have it count as anything, then do it. If not, then I don't care if you vote for Johnson, Roseanne, anyone pitching anti-establishment and pro-liberty ideals, as long it shows our numbers in support of those who are taking a stance on issues we care about. That only helps to show that we care about the issues, not just the man.

I don't think Johnson or Rosanne do that better than 'none of the above', in fact from my perspective that would falsely say I find THEM acceptable, which I don't. It depends on if you like them, of course. Since I don't, voting for them would falsely say I DID like their views, imho. I will look up how undervote is counted later today, in GA, but I have some stuff I have to get done this morning.

[surf]

As of right now, Johnson isn't on the ballot in Mich. The Atty gen and sec of state have found some archaic rule to keep him off thus far which doesn't make much sense since R-money is basically conceding our state by pulling his ad money. So, I won't be voting for prez. Boman has ran for Senate here as far back as I can remember perhaps riding on his name which happened to be the same name as a recent Detroit Red Wings coach. I'll probably vote for Hoekstra, even tho I detest him, just to hopefully knock of Stabenow.

how can you not vote for Scotty Bowman? imagine if he got an edorsement from Calvin Johnson

[hrdman2luv]

You didn't read the post did you?

It said clearly here:
(There's no point in arguing whether Gary Johnson or Sarah Palin are True Conservatives. It's not relevant to the argument we're trying to make.)

It doesn't matter. The idea is to separate Palin fans from Romney. To try to get Palin fans not to like Romney. And it's done by calling Palin a true conservative, and Romney not. To lump together Gary Johnson and Sarah Palin - to Sarah Palin fans. To get Sarah Palin fans to vote for Gary Johnson, by saying those 2 are equal, and Romney the unacceptable Liberal.

Has anyone seen Palins Facebook page to see how much opposition Romney has amongst her supporters? I think I'll go check it out.

OK, I checked it out a little bit. And the only thing she has on her FB page about Romney, is a congrats for finally picking a VP. LOL..........

Now onto see what her supporters say.

[parocks]

Has anyone seen Palins Facebook page to see how much opposition Romney has amongst her supporters? I think I'll go check it out.

OK, I checked it out a little bit. And the only thing she has on her FB page about Romney, is a congrats for finally picking a VP. LOL..........

Now onto see what her supporters say.

There are a lot of opportunities for quick hits like "Romney is not Conservative" over on the Palin Facebook. It's easy and it's something that could have a positive effect. Arguing about whether Reagan was Conservative as a candidate seems like a time kill. But going onto Palins site and reminding everyone that Palin won't be the nominee in 2016 if Romney wins might be useful.

[TheGrinch]

I will look it up later today, but I am not trying to pressure you to vote differently than you want, I'm just explaining my own thought process.

I don't think Johnson or Rosanne do that better than 'none of the above', in fact from my perspective that would falsely say I find THEM acceptable, which I don't. It depends on if you like them, of course. Since I don't, voting for them would falsely say I DID like their views, imho. I will look up how undervote is counted later today, in GA, but I have some stuff I have to get done this morning.

Don't know why I didn't look at this before (hit + on other and it actually shows Ron Paul and not just write-in): http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2008&fips=13&f=0&off=0&elect=0&minp er=0


If this is accurate, then I retract what I said. That is good enough for me to write in Dr. Paul, even if they may just throw it out (we are talking politicians and diebold machines after all)

Little did I know in 2008 how many of you were out there. God bless you all! No one but Paul (with the disclaimer that it's still not about the man but the message )