Ron Paul’s “conservative movement” “suppressed” by Republican leaders?
Posted by zbigniewmazurak on September 30, 2012
The leftist media, always willing to attack the GOP and to cause divisions (or at least perceptions of divisions) within the party has joined paulbot sore losers in spreading the lie that Ron Paul and his supporters were “suppressed” and “mistreated” by “Republican leaders” and Mitt Romney.
“A mother of three in Ames, Wadsley was one of three electors featured in an AP story published early Thursday that noted some GOP electors were unsure they would vote for Romney if he won their states on Nov. 6. They had expressed frustration at how Republican leaders have worked to suppress Paul’s conservative movement and his legion of loyal supporters.”
Excuse me? Paul’s “conservative movement”?
Paul is anything but a conservative, and the same applies to his supporters.
Ron Paul is not conservative on anything except a few issues. Paul vehemently opposes a strong military and supports all defense cuts, even the deepest ones – including unilateral, massive cuts to America’s nuclear deterrent and its domestic missile defense system, the Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI). He even teamed up with Barney Frank to convene a panel of George-Soros-funded anti-defense hacks to propose deep defense cuts.
He doesn’t just oppose interventions abroad and alliances. He doesn’t just advocate the appeasement of all of America’s enemies. He opposes a strong military and supports any and all cuts to it, even the most savage ones.
He supports abortion on demand, state by state, and denies that the 14th Amendment protects unborn children. He supports gay marriage. He supports an open door immigration policy and opposes the border fence and E-Verify.
No, Ron Paul is not conservative, and neither are his supporters.
And they are not “legion”. Polling and the actual results of GOP primaries and caucuses have shown that they constitute a tiny minority of the party (let alone the electorate at large). How many GOP presidential primaries or caucuses has Ron Paul ever won? Answer: zero.
Which also disproves the myth that Mitt Romney has somehow “stolen” the nomination, or cheated, or won the nomination only due to GOP Establishment machinations.
Paulbot sore losers and their allies in the media (as well as gullible fools who blindly repeat what others tell them) are spreading such myths, despite the fact that Ron Paul lost because the vast majority of Republicans rejected him.
Ron Paul was invited to, and frequently asked questions during, all GOP presidential debates. He was on the ballot in all 50 states plus DC. Republican voters had an opportunity to vote for him – and the vast majority of them rejected him. He lost every GOP presidential primary and caucus.
Mitt Romney won the vast majority of primaries and caucuses, many of them by large margins, thus earning the delegates he had won. He didn’t steal, cheat, machinate, or do anything of the sort. (Such accusations are typically made by sore losers. Just ask Miss USA Olivia Culpo.) He won the primaries fairly and squarely.
So it is utterly ridiculous now for Michelle Malkin, AT writers, and other putatively conservative writers and bloggers to whine that Ron Paul and his supporters were “mistreated” or “cheated on”, or that the GOP “establishment” is now trying to change the rules to prevent a paulbot or conservative candidate from winning.
Yet, the rule in question – Rule #16 – would only provide that delegates are to be awarded to candidates proportionally to the share of the vote they earned in the primary/caucus, and that a delegate elected to vote for (i.e. pledged to) a certain candidate must vote for that candidate (and not for someone else). But this is intended solely to ensure that candidates will receive exactly the number of delegates they have earned at the ballot box, and not one delegate more or less.
I repeat: the point of this is solely to ensure that each candidate receives as many delegates as he has earned at the ballot box, and no delegates more or less than that. In other words, to make sure that every vote will count exactly for what it was meant to count. In other words, to make sure that candidates elected to represent Mitt Romney/Marco Rubio/Paul Ryan don’t betray the people who elected them and vote for Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul instead.
And that is the real reason why paulbot sore losers oppose this new rule. They know that unless they become a sizable bloc, if not a majority, in the party, they can’t win any primary or caucus and will never win a GOP presidential nomination. They know that unless they convince a majority of GOP voters to their views, they can’t win.
But paulbot sore losers can never win fairly, so rather than play by the rules and win fairly, they’re going to wreak havoc at conventions and/or exploit loopholes in existing rules to cheat and vote for a candidate other than the one they’re pledged to. You can’t reason with such people.
By teaming up with these loons, Michelle Malkin and other pseudoconservatives have utterly discredited themselves.
DISCLAIMER: Neither this nor any other post should be viewed as an endorsement of Mitt Romney.