According to the media narrative, Ron Paul lost in Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, and Maine.
According to the Paul campaign, the contests in those states have only begun.
“We’re trying to take delegates and delegations,” says Paul national campaign chairman Jesse Benton of the campaign’s strategy. “Obviously, we want to do as well as we can in the beauty contests, like Maine’s beauty contest, but the most important thing is that we’re electing a majority of delegates as Ron Paul delegates to state conventions.”
Advertisement
The Paul campaign calls Maine’s caucuses a “beauty contest” because the Pine Tree State’s 24 delegates aren’t bound. If delegates aren’t bound, those delegates can choose to vote for whichever candidate they please at the convention, even if their preferred candidate did not win the state. In other words, Paul could theoretically finish dead last in a state’s caucuses and yet win most or all of the delegates sent to the convention.
The campaign refuses to worry about backlash from the party if its plan succeeds, and Paul’s percentage of delegates at the convention is significantly higher than his percentage of votes.
“We think that’s the way a party should really pick its nominee,” Benton says. “We think that the activists that are most tuned in to the issues, most engaged in the process should be the ones selecting the nominee.”
Take Colorado, which will be sending 36 delegates to the convention. Of the four candidates, Paul finished last, with 12 percent of the votes. (In contrast, Rick Santorum received 40 percent, and Mitt Romney 35 percent.) But according to the Paul campaign, currently 50 percent of the Colorado county-assembly delegates are Paul supporters.
“We are confident in gaining a much larger share of delegates than even our impressive showing yesterday indicates,” said Paul campaign manager John Tate, in a statement after the Minnesota and Colorado caucuses and the Missouri primary. Tate gave a few examples to back up his claim, including the results from a precinct in Larimer County, Colo. Paul received 13 out of the 43 caucus votes cast for the top four candidates in the precinct. But there were also 13 county-assembly delegates elected by the precinct, and, according to Tate, every single delegate was a Paul supporter.
Right now, there are around eight to ten thousand delegates and alternates, according to the Colorado Republican party. That number will be whittled down to 36 through a series of contests in the state.
Colorado GOP executive director Chuck Poplstein says that it is possible the Paul campaign could get a disproportionate share of the state’s delegates, but notes that the campaign still faces plenty of hurdles. As the number of delegates shrinks, those still running to be one of the 36 will face increased scrutiny. “I think you’re going to see campaigns realize these rules, and try to smoke certain people out more and more,” observes Poplstein. “When somebody’s up there saying I want to be a delegate, they’re going to go, ‘Well, who are you voting for?’” And while delegates are not bound, they can pledge to vote for a certain candidate if elected a delegate to the convention.
Asked if the campaign can maintain its high percentage of delegates throughout the various states’ elimination rounds, Benton acknowledges that that outcome (meaning that 50 percent of the state’s total delegates would remain Paul supporters) isn’t “automatic,” but is confident that the campaign can pull it off. “If we continue to work hard and be smart and understand the process and keep our nose to the grindstone, it will happen,” he predicts.
While my positions are generally informed by libertarian thought, I'm getting tired of the maneuvering by the Republican Party's own Professor Frink. This latest plan has a lot of GLAVEN. It's weak tea though.
Every commentator from Hannity to Levin always refer to the remaining 3 contestants virtually counting Ron Paul as out of this race. I don't know why they reject him so fiercely as he is the most conservative by far of the candidates. For any fan of the Constitution, this is the guy. Repubs don't like that he won't attack this country or declare war on that one and this is precisely the problem with both parties right now. I hope these tactics work as the GOP should get exactly what it deserves for turning it's back on a respectable candidate that was leading the race at one point. seems disrespectful and beneath the morals of what this party should stand for.
Ummm...you better look again, sounds like you get all your info from Limbaugh and Beck, and never bother to see if their opinion on the matter is fact or not. Pauls foreign policy is essentially "speak softly and carry a big stick", the Obama/Bush/Clinton foreign policy is more like "shoot your mouth off at the bar, insult the other guys girlfriend, and then go get a gun out of your truck and shoot him after he punches you in the mouth" approach. I say this because Obamas foreign policy is exactly the same as his predecessors, sure they speak differently, but the actions are the same. So, let's clear some things up: Paul doesn't hate American or blame America for 9-11, Bringing troops and weapons systems home and placing them on domestic bases does not weaken defense, Being respectful of the soverignty of foreign nations is not a crazy peacenik ideal but rather a basic tenet of all foreign policy. Just because Obama and Paul sound alike when they talk foreign policy doesn't make their actual actions similar, the troops on the ground know the truth, and they overwhelmingly support Pauls foreign policy...so why don't you?
WW I: Wilson: Democrat.
WW II: FDR: Democrat.
Korea: Truman: Democrat. [Ended by Ike, a Republican.]
Vietnam: JFK/LBJ: Democrats. [Ended by Nixon, a Republican.]
More recently, it has been Republican presidents who have initiated war without the consent of Congress. The Old Right and the Founders opposed getting involved in foreign wars. The Neocons take a different approach.
You really shouldn't point out that Nixon ended Vietnam without first pointing out that he escalated the war after campaigning on ending the war. He also expanded the war into Cambodia without congressional approval, a move that destabilized their government and helped usher the Khmer Rouge into power. He also covertly assassinated Salvador Allende, the democratically-elected prime minister of Chile. Eisenhower covertly assassinated Mohammed Mossadegh, the democratically-elected prime minister of Iran, an ill-advised move of aggression if there ever was one. Both parties are tools of the military-industrial complex. Obama should give back his Nobel Peace Prize. Instead of playing the partisan blame game for how we got here, it's time to elect a true threat to the status quo. Right now that man is Ron Paul, but it doesn't have to be a republican.
No, you and the other candidates are classic wilsonian ex-democrats when it comes to foreign policy. Ron's foreign policy is that of the Old Right, back in the days of the GOP before the Neo Conservative, Irving Kristol invasion. What is radical about having a trim and mean national defense? George W Bush back in 2000 ran on nearly the exact foreign policy that Ron is running on, a foreign policy of non-interventionism-no international nation building, and a strong national DEFENSE, not a international OFFENSE. No one would attack us if we minded our own business and had all of our bases here in the homeland. How is that so hard to understand?
By the way, in case you didnt know, the military is a branch of the federal government. What if this "you cant touch this sacred cow" was applied to welfare entitlements? It is, by the left. This idea that military spending cant be cut is ridiculous, and goes entirely against the conservative view of the government size-the idea of small, limited government. The military of today is bloated and wasteful, just like the rest of the Federal Government. Its unfortunate that many on the 'right' believe in a "small domestic government'....but an enormous globe-spanning military. Its time to stop treating the military like the left treats welfare entitlements, as a sacred cow that cant be cut. Ron, like all of us, want a strong national defense, and we are tired of protecting the rest of the world at the expense of 5% of the world's population-us.
No, you and the other candidates are classic wilsonian ex-democrats when it comes to foreign policy. Ron's foreign policy is that of the Old Right, back in the days of the GOP before the Neo Conservative, Irving Kristol invasion. What is radical about having a trim and mean national defense? George W Bush back in 2000 ran on nearly the exact foreign policy that Ron is running on, a foreign policy of non-interventionism-no international nation building, and a strong national DEFENSE, not a international OFFENSE. No one would attack us if we minded our own business and had all of our bases here in the homeland. How is that so hard to understand?
By the way, in case you didnt know, the military is a branch of the federal government. What if this "you cant touch this sacred cow" was applied to welfare entitlements? It is, by the left. This idea that military spending cant be cut is ridiculous, and goes entirely against the conservative view of the government size-the idea of small, limited government. The military of today is bloated and wasteful, just like the rest of the Federal Government. Its unfortunate that many on the 'right' believe in a "small domestic government'....but an enormous globe-spanning military. Its time to stop treating the military like the left treats welfare entitlements, as a sacred cow that cant be cut. Ron, like all of us, want a strong national defense, and we are tired of protecting the rest of the world at the expense of 5% of the world's population-us.
1) Vetoing & Appointing Judges are very important to a
Constitutional Conservative as well as foreign policy.
2) You're assuming right = hawkish. Was it conservative to go into
Libya and Uganda?? Where's the "national interest"?
Paul wouldn't, Obama did, and that puts Obama to Paul's Left.
3) Since when does disagreement on one issue justify a media blackout?
Republicans have shown their true colors. In a time of high unemployment, permanently expanding deficits, permanent bailouts, stagnant wages, rising living costs, endless and aggressive wars, and assaults on civil liberties, republicans want to make sure this election is about putting women back in the kitchen, bashing gays, and bombing Muslims. They're going to lose to a vulnerable incumbent in the worst economy since the 30s, and they deserve it.
I don't recall any of the Republican candidates talk about "sending women to the kitchen", "hating gays", or "bombing Muslims". Supporting the right to life doesn't relegate "women to the kitchen". The support of traditional marriage does not equate to hating gays. And I don't think any of the Republican candidates want to "bomb Muslims" just for the heck of it. Think you have been watching too much CNN or MSNBC.
As a fan of the Constitution, I get annoyed by Ron Paul's misuse of it.
As a fan of Austrian economics, I get annoyed by Ron Paul fans spinning their monetary conspiracy theories as "Austrian economics" when its not.
As a conservative, I have to disagree with any claim that Ron Paul is the 'most conservative' when his looney views on drugs, marriage, being nice to Al Qaeda and open-borders-on-immigration are not conservative at all. But worst? .... his supporters dont seem to be Republicans or like Republicans when they say lies like ... "Repubs don't like that he won't attack this country or declare war on that one" ... That's not at all what's wrong with Ron Paul.
Ok, all of your claims are profoudly ridiculous and full of nonsense and untruths. But to say that he is for "open borders" completely proves that you are ignorant on what he actually believes should be implemented as policy. Ill just show how completely untrue your spoof.
Exactly how is his immigration policy that of "open borders" advocator? He actually sounds like the candidate with the toughest stance on immigration. Why should anyone take the rest of your baseless claims and blasphemy that you spewed if you fail to even research something that takes less than 20 seconds to do? You sir, are in desperate need of of a reality check.
Your profound and willful ignorance invalidates the rest of your illogical and bizarre rant that reaks of lies. Why should anyone believe the rest
People like you are the reason the GOP is dying a slow, but sure death. You refuse to welcome any newcomers to the party that disagree with you on a few issues. I myself am a life-long George W Republican, until I saw Ron Paul, in which I am now a Old Right republican. How dare you question anyone's political allegiance! You sir are a disgrace.
I like the way you attack him and say he doesn't understand the constitution OR Austrian economics. But fail to tell us why.
Personal opinion doesn't matter unless you have facts with it bro.
I bet you probably think Santorum is a "straight shooter" Lol.
It makes me laugh that the man who is itching to attack Iran and anyone whos ever communicated with them is what we in this country refer to as pro-life.
Supporters and non-supporters alike should be learning from the process and how it works. Too many people think their vote is a vote for their candidate, even in the general election, when it is really just a vote to sway or bind a delegate in a later vote.
I think if civics were taught more, or at all in some areas, the nuances of the system could be more appreciated and outcries over "popular vote" would be dismissed as the rabble that it is.
I just had a lengthy arguement with my sister over the Paul strategy. She feels it is underhanded to know the rules, and play the game. I likened her position to the Miami Heat complaining when they lost the NBA championships because the Mavericks scored points through free throws. The caucus delegations are the political equivalent of free throws. I contend that if your supporters are not willing to be delegates then that is no ones fault but your own. Also, if a voter for a certain candidate is not willing to be as involved as to go to even a county level convention for a few hours, then what is the chance that they'd spend hours knocking on doors in their neighborhood to turn out votes for their canidates campaign if they won the nomination? I think Pauls campaign is correct that those who are truely well informed and active members of the party are the ones who should be selecting the nominee, the caucus process works well to this end. Since Paul clearly has the most well informed and passionate supporters it stands to reason that he'd have the strongest presidential campaign, and be the most likely to beat president Obama especially since it is a forgone conclusion that the Republican nominee will not be able to match Obama dollar for dollar in the media.
Ron Paul is not doing that well in the polls against other GOP candidates, but he continues to do rather well in the polls vs. Obama. If we treat Ron Paul and his supporters with genuine respect and seek their alliance, they could well be the key to conservative victory in November.
That does not mean we must agree with every one of his policies; but are not big government bullying and wild overspending the two crucial issues in this campaign?
Follow
