GOP leader claims: Romney-Santorum-Gingrich unite to stop Ron Paul

Well, well, conspiracies do exist after all.  Thanks to the proliferation of cell phones you will hear Alex Hayes, director of mainstream Republicans of Washington State, making the claim that the Romney-Santorum-Gingrich campaigns have united behind a common slate of candidates in Washington State to block the Ron Paul machine from winning the delegates.   The apparent move on the part of the Romney-Santorum-Gingrich campaigns is to block citizens favoring Ron Paul from taking over the Washington State delegation to Tampa.

Is this true?  I am seeking to find out.

The good news for Ron Paul people is this, the Ron Paul grassroots campaign is indeed reshaping the Republican Party.  It may very well control the delegations in numerous caucus states which are now incorrectly portrayed by the media to be favoring other candidates.  In some cases, the only way it can be stopped is for all three campaigns to coordinate to prevent a takeover.

Contrary to the reports in the national media, the Ron Paul campaign will have far more delegates to Tampa than is now thought, most of them at the expense of Governor Romney but also some at the expense of Senator Santorum.  States such as Missouri, where Senator Santorum won a meaningless beauty contest, will see a sizeable Ron Paul representation, as will Minnesota, Maine, Colorado, Nevada and Iowa.  In Nevada, on the first ballot, the delegates, even if Ron Paul supporters, must vote for candidates proportionately as they finished in the Nevada Statewide beauty contest.  But they can vote their conscience on the second ballot.

In many other states, the delegations are Ron Paul delegates who are free to vote as they wish.  And many delegates now being chosen in states where other candidates won the primaries are actually Ron Paul supporters who will also be free if there is no first ballot victory for Governor Romney.

On the other hand, if Mr. Hayes is exaggerating or not telling the truth, if the Romney-Santorum-Gingrich campaigns have not agreed on a common slate, then you are getting a look at how political power brokers play backroom games to disenfranchise the majority of their own party.  You are seeing how people in power, cling to the little bit of power they have and are willing to lie or cheat to keep it.

Mr. Hayes calls the large Ron Paul groups as “savage.”  Listen to this little meeting and decide for yourself just who is the savage?

See below, media sees Romney-Paul alliance but the truth on the ground is very different as Romney-Santorum-Gingrich campaigns team up to try to prevent the state convention takeovers by grassroots Ron Paul supporters.

This update came soon after:

IN THE END WE DO QUITE WELL!

FYI about this Alex Hayes video. The following came from the original posted video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOZYQOzFT3Q

It had the following comment.

“This was my district (2nd). I actually got to count votes! We ended up sending 15 Paul, 15 Santorum, and 1 Romney. The Romney people were pissed! I’m not sure how the alternates worked out, but it was either 15 Paul, 16 Santorum, or vice versa. My wife and I are both alternates. I was so upset by the “Unity Slate” people and their disgusting bias that I used part of my speech to express how appalled I was at their behavior. They were very rude anytime a speech maker mentioned Ron Paul, and their “savagery” caused them to yell “time” and interupt well before the allotted time had run out. The Ron Paul people were all very civilized, in my humble opinion.”  – Brandon Clarke.

 

AND THIS AFTERNOON, THIS FASCINATING REPORT FROM HEIDE

This happened at my Caucus in Shoreline. The King County Chairman herself handed out what looked like official ballots only they were pink. I went up and asked her what they were and she said, “these are the delegates that the GOP supports.” (everyone one of them were Romney delegates) I said, “I’m new at this but isn’t this a little baised? ” She said rudley, “you don’t know what you are talking about, sit down” I then proceeded to let others know that this was strictly a Romney slate and it is not an Official caucus form and she got really mad and talked over me with the microphone. Sadly, Romney took 12 out of 22 the first round and all of the sheep Sant/Gritch people fell for it hook line and sinker. They followed the slates that the GOP chair told them to and in the end Romney had 19. Sant 2 Newt 1. Worked like a charm for them. Shady and unethical. They also filled the alternates with everyone who had been eliminated in the first round. This cannot be legal. I think the King co Chair women took advantage of people not understanding how a caucus is to be ran.

About these ads

166 Responses to GOP leader claims: Romney-Santorum-Gingrich unite to stop Ron Paul

  1. We suspect something very similar happened in Missouri, except it was mostly the Santorum campaign, and on the local caucus level the Romney supporters have worked with Ron Paul supporters to shut out Santorum and Gingrich. But the GOP mysteriously had slates of delegates with the same name (“Unity Slate”) at multiple caucuses…

    • papajair says:

      Obviously there were some Missouri caucuses which made the news, but I think it would be misleading to make a general sweeping statement about what happened in Missouri.

      I presided over our local county caucus, and we elected to avoid slates and proceed with individual candidates (that were present at the caucus) for the delegate and alternate positions. We voted not to bind any delegates, but required in their 1 minute speech to declare which candidate they supported.

      I do not recall that we had any Gingrich supporters, some Romney, some Santorum, but the majority were Ron Paul supporters.

      I received several compliments on the fairness of the way the caucus was conducted, but no complaints that people felt railroaded.

      • Heide says:

        Papajair,
        Here in Washington State, the County Chair Lori Setolo actually locked RP supporters out of the building (Redmond) so they could not vote on the final round. The chair we had (North Seattle) was her Best bud Mike Young, and we were not able to vote on slates. They took it over and ran with it. They also took the 1 minute speeches out. Only to have name, from and candidate name said. No discussions at all on reasons of support. Sounds like yours was a dream. We had 70+ RP people there and Newt only had 3 total. Romney and his Unity clan gave Romney 19 Santorum 2 and Newt 1. 3 people show up and they get a delegate? I understand the voting game but locking someone out of a building, or hiding ballots or handing out slates that appear to be official ballots should be jail time. We are not buying burgers here, we are voting on the future of our nation.

      • papajair says:

        Heide,

        Just curious did the caucus elect a caucus chairman. I realize each state’s party may be somewhat different, but I was nominated by someone who didn’t even know me and I won the vote between myself and the county chairman who was the only other nominee. I didn’t really want the position and I voted for the county chair, but that didn’t prevent the others in attendance from voting me in.

        For the nominations for delegates and alternates, I elected not to participate in the vote. They turnout was small on our rural county which is considered a predominantly Democrat county (although there are plenty of conservatives Democrats here).

        I was quite frankly astounded as I watched some the of videos of other caucuses in our state. Regardless of who I personally supported, I would have been madder than a wet hen, had out caucus been conducted with some of the abuses I saw at those caucuses.

  2. Mario Mano says:

    There ain’t a dime’s worth of difference between the three stooges aka Romney-Gingrich-Santorum. All 3 of them are corrupt crooks and lobbyist lap dogs. If it isn’t Ron Paul then we are not voting for any one of these 3 stooges. The GOP may have the means to commit outright election fraud in it’s own primaries/caucuses…. they won’t be able to replicate this in the General election. So keep up your shenanigans GOP, in the end you will loose anyway.

    By the way, I do feel that GOP commit election fraud in many of the key caucus states where Ron Paul had a good support.

    • Gary says:

      If Ron Paul isn’t in the running, then I’ll vote for Obama. If one of the three stooges become the nominee, they better include Ron Paul for vice president unless they want to lose big time.

      • JBT says:

        Do not vote for Obama. Vote for Ron Paul’s libertarian ideology which we stand for. Vote Libertarian Party. Vote Gary Johnson!

  3. Robert Glenn says:

    FYI about this video Doug Wead. The following came from the Origonal posted video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOZYQOzFT3Q

    “This was my district (2nd). I actually got to count votes! We ended up sending 15 Paul, 15 Santorum, and 1 Romney. The Romney people were pissed! I’m not sure how the alternates worked out, but it was either 15 Paul, 16 Santorum, or vice versa. My wife and I are both alternates. I was so upset by the “Unity Slate” people and their disgusting bias that I used part of my speech to express how appalled I was at their behavior. They were very rude anytime a speech maker mentioned Ron Paul, and their “savagery” caused them to yell “time” and interupt well before the allotted time had run out. The Ron Paul people were all very civilized, in my humble opinion.”

  4. John LiPari says:

    -GOP Election Fraud Against Ron Paul at Missouri Clay County 3.17.12 • Must See •

    -Voter Fraud Declared at Christian County, Missouri GOP Caucus

    -Missouri Caucus Goes Into Meltdown As Officials Commit Republican Voter Fraud

    -Breaking News: Athens-Clarke County, GA Republican Delegate Fraud

    -Hidden Camera Catches Missouri GOP Admitting They Rigged…. *HQ AUDIO*

  5. Tracy says:

    This comment was posted on the original uploaded video. Hope it’s accurate :-)

    “This was my district (2nd). I actually got to count votes! We ended up sending 15 Paul, 15 Santorum, and 1 Romney. The Romney people were pissed! I’m not sure how the alternates worked out, but it was either 15 Paul, 16 Santorum, or vice versa. My wife and I are both alternates. I was so upset by the “Unity Slate” people and their disgusting bias that I used part of my speech to express how appalled I was at their behavior. They were very rude anytime a speech maker mentioned Ron Paul, and their “savagery” caused them to yell “time” and interupt well before the allotted time had run out. The Ron Paul people were all very civilized, in my humble opinion.” Brandon Clarke

  6. [...] GOP leader claims: Romney-Santorum-Gingrich unite to stop Ron Paul « Doug Wead The Blog The good news for Ron Paul people is this, the Ron Paul grassroots campaign is indeed reshaping the Republican Party. It may very well control the delegations in numerous caucus states which are now incorrectly portrayed by the media to be favoring other candidates. In some cases, the only way it can be stopped is for all three campaigns to coordinate to prevent a takeover. Contrary to the reports in the national media, the Ron Paul campaign will have far more delegates to Tampa than is now thought, most of them at the expense of Governor Romney but also some at the expense of Senator Santorum. States such as Missouri, where Senator Santorum won a meaningless beauty contest, will see a sizeable Ron Paul representation, as will Minnesota, Maine, Colorado, Nevada and Iowa. In Nevada, on the first ballot, the delegates, even if Ron Paul supporters, must vote for candidates proportionately as they finished in the Nevada Statewide beauty contest. [...]

  7. QT2012 says:

    I watched the 2008 Democratic National Convention recently and people were able to abstain from voting, and some did. I don’t know if they found out something they didn’t like about the candidate they were bound to or what transpired exactly, but there were definitely abstention votes.

    A person should always be allowed to vote with a clean conscience. Always.

  8. lowgenius says:

    Amazing how people who cheerfully believe that a guy who wants to allow states the right to tell them who they can have sex with will scream “fraud” when that guy doesn’t get as many votes as they think he should.

    • Jo says:

      Is Santorum yelling fraud? Because Ron Paul doesn’t care who you have sex with…

      • lowgenius says:

        “there clearly is no right to privacy…in the Constitution.” – Ron Paul on the right to privacy

        “the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex” – Ron Paul on the right of states to tell consenting adults how they can have sex and with whom.

        “our founders did not intend a separation of church and state” – Ron Paul, directly contradicting the known and recorded positions of the founders and of the First Amendment

        “I think the immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pills” – Ron Paul, making clear that he considers sex outside of marriage illegal.

        Taken together: Ron Paul, community member, advocates the right of states to tell you who you can have sex with, and how, and under what circumstances.

        Individual liberty my foot.

      • annebeck58 says:

        Like many other “social issues”, Ron Paul wants to get the federal govt out of it, and leave the decisions to the states— where the PEOPLE have so much more input.
        And, these people want to knock out his supporters and in the end; Ron Paul. It’s too bad they really have no idea what they are fighting for– their OWN demise. Yet, fight they will, endlessly and tirelessly. Perhaps they need to stop watching the newz showz?

      • tex2 says:

        It is the Paulites who are fighting for our demise, particularly RP’s foreign policies.

      • QT2012 says:

        Yeah, because we all know having our troops in other countries saved us from terrorists entering our borders illegally, and taking lessons so they could fly airplanes into our buildings.

      • annebeck58 says:

        Thank you, QT2012; I could not have put that better, myself.
        I think Tex, here, is just an instigator. He likes to stir up trouble, even while stating opposing opinions to his own prior opinions.
        I would say; there is a troll in our midst. Who knows which candidate Tex2 supports? I don’t know this person is old enough to vote, is an American, and.or is (surely not) a Texan. Whomever Tex2 is, he or she is merely here to cause problems.
        Trolls should be taken out. No questions, no excuses; just adios!

      • tex2 says:

        So much for RP and free speech! LOL

    • annebeck58 says:

      WHOA, there; LowerIQ.
      You have made some crazy leaps from what Ron Paul may consider IMMORAL to his thinking same should be “illegal”.
      What you do not seem to comprehend about Dr Paul is this: He is for less federal governance, in order to leave the laws to the states. The rationale behind this is? The people of each state have a lot more say-so when it comes to state laws than they (we) have when it comes to federal laws.
      We can vote on STATE laws; we do not vote on FEDERAL laws. Yes, we vote-in those we hope would have our ideas and wishes in mind, but there is nothing forcing our representatives from voting how we wish they would.
      You should take back the majority of what you said as it’s simply not true.

      • annebeck58, you need to read up on some things.

        It’s incorrect and just plain grossly wrong to state/suggest as you have that Ron Paul is for the kind of government at the state level implied by your remarks.

        He’s not. If he was I’d have opposed him these many, many years…rather than support.

        Tyranny at the local level is NOT preferable to tyranny from the feds. It’s the same, it’s tyranny.

      • tex2 says:

        In other words, there is no 10th amendment? LOL

  9. Heather says:

    We should stop using words like takeover… The GOP should understand that we aren’t trying to take over and shut them out. I think it would be more advantageous to show them that we are trying to strengthen and grow the party by picking the only candidate on the people’s side. After all, they are just normal Americans; not untouchable, not immune from the over extension of the state. We just want to incorporate real conservative ideals back into the platform. They just need to open their eyes…

    • Aden Morris says:

      The sad thing is many of them don’t like the word ‘strengthening’ either. A good example is the woman in one of the latest Adam Kokesh videos who he interviewed who is ‘scared’ of the idea of people voting in the Republican party if they aren’t ‘true republicans’. I think a fitting title here(like what they’ve used against Paul’s foreign policy) is the “Isolationist Party”.

      I’m all for trying to renovate the GOP(hopefully more along the lines of ‘refurbish’), but I know there are some people who we can’t change and would rather jump ship than join us(I can see a new party being formed trying to be what the GOP is now if Paul ‘takes over’)

  10. KC Ted says:

    Vote rigging and dirty tricks, one state after another and they have the gall to accuse Paul supporters of anything? Disruption only occurs when people ask (beg?) for the rules to be followed. Romney’s supporters got a taste of it at St Charles MO. and they found it to be very bitter.

    Paul is a Republican and we supporters are Republicans. We have as much right to engage in the delegate process as anyone else. If we follow all the rules and the delegate selection process follows all the rules, and Paul wins the most delegates, then that’s how it goes. It’s called the people’s choice. Any other process usurps the people’s choice and all patriotic Americans should be livid.
    Much like the Romney supporters in St. Charles when dirty tricks worked against them.

    For those who feel rigging is okay, because it’s “for the good of the party” or “good for America” need only to wait their turn until it’s used against them. Then they will feel differently.

    Shenanigans, dirty tricks, “unity slates”.. Let’s call it what it is. Fraud. Democrats are equally as corrupt in their process, as seen in the last election in Obama vs Clinton.

    Regardless which party engages in fraud, it undermines the will of the people and erodes at all of our freedoms.

    • annebeck58 says:

      Thank you for a spot-on analysis.
      Now, if this chair for the cited caucus thought he did nothing wrong, why was he doing this in “secret”? Why were the ballots given out only to those not voting for Paul? And, why were Ron Paul delegates shut-out and shut-up when speaking about their candidate?

      Finally, why has this chair closed all of his social media sites, if what he did was “legitimate”? I think the answer is quite obvious. They have cheated and have been caught. What fools to put all of us Paul supporters in one (young) box? I am 53 and I am working as often as I can for Ron Paul.

  11. John King says:

    Doug, I think there are more things the campaign could do which you might find some value in.
    1- Live stream feeds of Ron Paul when he is speaking at rallies…..We could also link these to the facebook pages of various media outlets and circumvent their blackout in a small way.
    2- Local State rallies where the featured event is a live feed of Dr.Paul speaking to us. The target will be around 1000 in attendance (great for local colleges and such) and a cost of $10 – $20 a person…..It will accomplish both fund raising and engaging the Paul supporters by keeping them involved, especially after a primary or caucus has passed the State.
    3- Consider a stadium sized rally before the California primary. To be held at a location which would play to your strengths. ( i.e.- close enough so that those in Nevada could also attend.

    Thank you for all your hard work.

    John King

  12. lowgenius says:

    Left out a clause earlier:

    Amazing how people who cheerfully believe that a guy who wants to allow states the right to tell them who they can have sex with is a champion of “individual liberty” will scream “fraud” when that guy doesn’t get as many votes as they think he should.

    • jakenichols says:

      i would say that those videos up there PROVE fraud is occuring, and your point about states rights is ignorant, individuals have more power to change state laws than national laws, that is the point RP is trying to make and the one I think you are missing. When you bring the federal gov’t down to its intended size, the states will compete with each other for business and citizens. Right now they are all getting subsidized by the federal government so the incentive to compete with other states is nil. Without the overreaching hand of the federal government involved in what should be states issues, the states have no reason to try and compete or to try and make it better, they just go along with it. Your thought process is definitely a slow one.

  13. PatriotOne says:

    Majorities (50%+1) afford no guarantees for justice. They are men of the same nature as minorities. They have the same passions for fame, power, and money, as minorities; and are liable and likely to be equally – perhaps more than equally, because more boldly – rapacious, tyrannical and unprincipled, if intrusted with power. Majorities and minorities cannot rightfully be taken at all into account in deciding questions of justice.There is no more reason, then, why a man should either sustain, or submit to, the rule of the majority, than of a minority. And all talk about them, in matters of government, is mere absurdity. Men are dunces for uniting to sustain any government, or any laws, except those in which they are all agreed. And nothing but force and fraud compel men to sustain any other. To say that majorities, as such, have a right to rule minorities, is equivalent to saying that minorities have, and ought to have, no rights, except such as majorities please to allow them.

  14. Jeff_r0x says:

    I’m not really surprised. I always suspected that Santorum and Gingrich were merely zombie campaigns, propped up by the establishment and the media, in order to avoid a distinct head-to-head match up between Romney and Paul. About the time you think that one is going under, they suddenly and mysteriously get propped up by some new Rasmussen poll showing they alone doing well against Obama. It was the first and would be the last time you ever saw that type of result.

  15. Kurt Guertin says:

    SO your saying 3 single brain cells streched from one ear to the other have to gather together to fight Ron Paul… Thats like a good thing that way Ron Paul can can them all at once and get to work repairing this country from all the crap I hope when he gets the big white house power of the people that back a govermant once again he shows how Strong the words of the constitution are and practice evey one of them on there Butts to the full arm of the Laws. God bless Ron Paul let God sort out the rest…..

  16. Jordan says:

    This is evidence that Ron Paul’s plan is working, and they are just now realizing it. Their plans to stop us “savages” are going to back fire. Ron Paul delegates have hijacked enough meetings to cause a brokered national convention to unleash the bounded delegates.

  17. Disgusted With Republicans says:

    It’s not just a claim. Everyone is getting robocalls to ‘unite’. Secret meeting Wednesday night, don’t tell the Santorum & Gingrich voters we want to throw them under the bus in the name of Fighting Ron Paul.

  18. ted says:

    i withnessed those slates … at the pierce county convention in WA….

  19. Anonymous says:

    Keep fighting the good fight, ladies and gentlemen!

  20. tex2 says:

    Doug, why do you open with “Well, well, conspiracies do exist after all.” then follow with “Is this true? I am seeking to find out?”

    • Doug Wead says:

      Because either way it is a conspiracy. He is either coordinating with three other campaigns or he is coordinating with a group of insiders to get themselves elected, using the three campaigns, falsely, to their advantage.

      • tex2 says:

        I see. Whether it is a conspiracy or it isn’t a conspiracy, it is a conspiracy. LOL

      • Doug, maybe I’m as baffled as tex2. Coordinating with other campaigns at caucus is neither wrongful behavior nor is it substantially different than when the Ron Paul campaign coordinated with either Romney or Santorum. Our own people have detailed entering into these negotiations and deals. There have been many instances of apparent foul play directed against our side—probably the most recent being at the St. Charles caucus in Missouri where 2 Ron Paul supporters face ongoing criminal prosecution. The video you cite simply isn’t one of those instances of apparent foul play—it shows legitimate caucus activity, plain and simple. The “savage” comments are over the top but then so is your claim of “conspiracy”. I’d rather see the campaign directing energy to help correct abuses when they are as clear as in the St. Charles situation…there’s so much to call attention to there. When the campaign goes over the top like this it’s like the little boy crying wolf…it makes it more difficult to address the real instances of abuse and misbehavior. Again, 2 of our people are facing criminal prosecution, now that’s something the campaign can sink its teeth into.

      • tex2 says:

        I wasn’t responding to only you. I said Paulites in general. Try reading for comprehension next time. LOL

      • tex3 says:

        tex2 says:
        March 30, 2012 at 3:38 am

        I wasn’t responding to only you. I said Paulites in general. Try reading for comprehension next time. LOL

        @tex2- i dont think you are included in this converstion. LOL

    • annebeck58 says:

      Uhm, Tex- when is a conspiracy not a conspiracy? It would be when people are not conspiring to ill will against another. In this case, it was a conspiracy (of more than one person) to block the votes of others; delegates for Ron Paul, to be precise.
      I believe, were the Ron Paul voters conspiring to prevent votes of or suppress votes of any one else’s supporters on the slate, you would see it as a conspiracy. Because it is Ron Paul’s voters that they are attempting to silence or suppress, you don’t see the “conspiracy”. Perhaps it is the word, “conspiracy”, that’s thrown you off? Not all conspiracies are criminal. Some are simply dirty or, in this case, smarmy.
      Would you like to be locked out of a caucus, based on who you’ve decided to vote for? Would that be okay? Would you feel it was justified for ANY reason for the others (other voters, super voters, delegates) to get together and decide your vote (delegate vote or “super-vote”) simply should not count?
      This is certainly not the first time we’ve encountered some very dirty-dealings in the GOP, this season. I am sure it will not be the last, either, and is why i say we all need to have our video cameras or phones charged up and ready.
      And, remember people; these are not “Ron Paul’s votes” that are being suppressed or voided. They are YOUR votes, and, conspiring to negate anyone’s vote is wrong.

      • tex2 says:

        As I stated earlier, I’m in favor of primary elections and getting rid of the caucuses. There is still an issue of what happens in the details regarding how to divide the delegates based on the election results, winner take all, split based on proportion of votes, minimum percentage to receive any delegates, etc., but each state can make those decisions, as well as how many ballots they must commit to their candidate in order to resolve the issue of lack of majority votes at the convention.

        Politics is a dirty business, so if you Paulites don’t understand that, welcome to reality. You shouldn’t be surprised a libertarian doesn’t get much support in a republican party, and I don’t see how your protests will attract more support to Ron’s nutty positions. In fact, I’m in support of MORE exposure to Ron Paul’s ideas to ensure he gets the minimum support he deserves. LOL

      • annebeck58 says:

        TO: Tex2:
        You say you are against caucuses// conventions. However, you would have to change our whole system of voting– the fact that we are a REPUBLIC, in order to change this. Also, you would have to have (probably another department in Federal govt) to oversee ALL states, from a central place.
        States decide, for themselves, how they will vote; a caucus or a primary, yet in the end, ALL have caucuses to discuss and vote on who they will send to the national convention to represent their state. This is the way it’s always been done.
        The USA is not just America. It is a Unity of STATES, who have their own ideas, laws, and bylaws. I don’t think it’s possible (or morally correct) to change everyone’s way to your way. Who is to say your way is right, anyway?
        It is a Republic; it is not a Democracy, at least not at the national/federal level.., and not when it comes to electing our president.

      • annebeck58 says:

        Btw; tex, did what I wrote make it seem I was surprised? I stated we knew what would probably happened, and I noted that we should be prepared, mainly with cameras to catch the smarmiest deals, on video.
        I have been participating in votes since I was nine years old- my father was a politician, as was my sister, and I worked the polls, I worked the phones, and I have been a poll-watcher, many times.
        Nothing surprises me when it comes to politics. It may disgust me, but surprise? Surely not!

      • tex2 says:

        I wasn’t responding to only you. I said Paulites in general. Try reading for comprehension next time. LOL!

      • tex2 says:

        I don’t think it’s possible (or morally correct) to change everyone’s way to your way when it comes to supporting RP! LOL

      • tex3 says:

        AHH, whatever, the delegate plan is working beautifully.
        Roberts Rules are working for us, the majority. LOL

  21. Doug, this is garbage. It’s not up to the standards I’ve come to expect of you. Frankly, it’s flat out dishonest. It represents a kind of slide back to Florida 2000 Doug,

    What’s wrong with making deals at a caucus? It’s how the Paul campaign has been doing it. How is it wrong when it’s the other campaigns dealing against us?

    This is the whiny kind of nonsense which causes people to set Ron Paul off as a loser, a whiny loser at that. You’ve cited no source for the “hidden” video which is video taken on a caucus floor…the people in the video aren’t hiding, they are right there on the floor. Moreover, someone actually asks them to speak up and the speaker complies.

    I support Ron Paul. I propose to you that this piece of lying nonsense serves to oppose Ron Paul.

    Honesty works better Doug.

    • QT2012 says:

      It’s more than making deals, John. Of course we use their own strategies too.

      The issue at hand is how they were trying to shut out newcomers to keep the Ron Paul people out, when we are part of the same party.

      The GOP is committing suicide if they think they can shut out newcomers, the up-and-coming, and still remain strong. My guess is that no one huddled around this guy was under 40. They’ve stereotyped what we look like, what we think, and what we want. It is backfiring on them.

      They aren’t going to win without us. I am not sure what it will take for them to understand that, but shutting us out certainly won’t solve anything. They’re dividing their own pie chart, purposefully.

      • QT2012, they were doing exactly what the Ron Paul caucusgoers did in Missouri. Deals get cut, it’s a caucus, that’s how one wins. It’s not bad when they do it and reform when we do it. Honesty is required of anyone proposing to be a reformer. The post is dishonest.

    • Heide says:

      John, I was at a caucus that did just that. Mine had a little more drama going on than what is explained in Doug’s post. Being my first, I realized quickly it resembles the game of Survivor. You team with me, I’ll vote you in, blah blah blah. However, When County GOP Chairpersons, change the rules or add their own and censor others it has to be brought to justice. Again, I was new, but most people are and they took advantage of that by the loudness of the mic and the assuming no one would say anything. Most people at mine with Santorum or Newt stickers on along with their new shiny “UNITY RGS” stickers were saying, “anything but Paul” , which I believe if Rick or Newt were standing in that room, they would be horrified with those people who were there to help get them elected but chose the Big horse to jump on instead only to be voting AGAINST someone.
      Bottom line. Shady all around. After 20 years of voting Rebublican, I was embarrassed of my party. They will need us RP’s votes if things go their way. Lying and tricking was a bad choice.

      • Brandon Clarke says:

        John, I am Brandon Clarke and I was quoted above. These people were not in the open, they were huddled in a corner. You can hear from the video that the delegates not on the slate were questioning why they couldn’t vote their conscience. This slate was a Romney invention and did not benefit the other two candidates. I counted voyes with the man and woman who spoke up in concern (both Romney supporters). As I noted the unity slate people were disrespectful of the people who spoke on Dr. Paul’s behalf. It may not be cheating, but it goes against common decency. The person who posted thevideo was free with their nameand you can look it up if you’re inclined.

  22. Heide says:

    This happened at my Caucus in Shoreline. The King County Chairman herself handed out what looked like official ballots only they were pink. I went up and asked her what they were and she said, “these are te delegates that the GOP supports.” (everyone one of them were Romney delegates) I said, “I’m new at this but isn’t this a little baised? ” She said rudley, “you don’t know what you are talking about, sit down” I then proceeded to let others know that this was strictly a Romney slate and it is not an
    Official caucus form and she got really mad and talked over me with the microphone. Sadly, Romney took 12 out of 22 the first round and all of the sheep Sant/Gritch people fell for it hook line and sinker. They followed the slates that the GOP chair told them to and in the end Romney had 19. Sant 2 Newt 1. Worked like a charm for them. Shady and unethical. They also filled the alternates with everyone who had been eliminated in the first round. This cannot be legal. I think the King co Chair women took advantage of people not understanding how a caucus is to be ran.

  23. jamroc says:

    text2 stupid to have a clue… ha, ha

  24. [...] Doug Wead, a New York Times best selling author and a senior adviser for the Ron Paul presidential campaign, writes on his blog today that Alex Hayes, director of establishment Republicans in Washington State, made the claim that the Romney-Santorum-Gingrich campaigns are pushing a common slate of candidates in Washington State to block Ron Paul’s campaign from taking delegates. [...]

  25. [...] Doug Wead, a New York Times best selling author and a senior adviser for the Ron Paul presidential campaign, writes on his blog today that Alex Hayes, director of establishment Republicans in Washington State, made the claim that the Romney-Santorum-Gingrich campaigns are pushing a common slate of candidates in Washington State to block Ron Paul’s campaign from taking delegates. [...]

  26. displayname2 says:

    You know that NO Republican will WIN in Washington State or Oregon or California – they are staunch Demo states. That’s why it’s called the Left Coast …
    I live in Wa state and HATE the politics here … If anyone needs to focus on any other enemy – it’s the Democrats they are RUNNING against …
    I don’t think anyone but Demos will win these next elections … It’s not us – it’s that the electorate is TOO interested in ME ME ME! Not the greater good of the budget or the country.

  27. [...] Doug Wead, a New York Times best selling author and a senior adviser for the Ron Paul presidential campaign, writes on his blog today that Alex Hayes, director of establishment Republicans in Washington State, made the claim that the Romney-Santorum-Gingrich campaigns are pushing a common slate of candidates in Washington State to block Ron Paul’s campaign from taking delegates. [...]

  28. You know that NO Republican will WIN in Washington State or Oregon or California – they are staunch Demo states. That’s why it’s called the Left Coast …
    I live in Wa state and HATE the politics here … If anyone needs to focus on any other enemy – it’s the Democrats they are RUNNING against …
    I don’t think anyone but Demos will win these next elections … It’s not us – it’s that the electorate is TOO interested in ME ME ME! Not the greater good of the budget or the country.

  29. [...] The apparent move on the part of the Romney-Santorum-Gingrich campaigns is to block citizens favoring Ron Paul from taking over the Washington State delegation to Tampa,” wrote Wead. [...]

    • annebeck58 says:

      That is IT. It is not Ron Paul’s votes that are being stolen. These votes belong to US. They are OUR votes, and when people comprehend that fact, perhaps they will fight a bit harder?

  30. [...] Doug Wead, a New York Times best selling author and a senior adviser for the Ron Paul presidential campaign, writes on his blog today that Alex Hayes, director of establishment Republicans in Washington State, made the claim that the Romney-Santorum-Gingrich campaigns are pushing a common slate of candidates in Washington State to block Ron Paul’s campaign from taking delegates. [...]

  31. [...] Doug Wead, a New York Times best selling author and a senior adviser for the Ron Paul presidential campaign, writes on his blog today that Alex Hayes, director of establishment Republicans in Washington State, made the claim that the Romney-Santorum-Gingrich campaigns are pushing a common slate of candidates in Washington State to block Ron Paul’s campaign from taking delegates. [...]

  32. [...] Second angle: MORE Ron Paul Election Fraud 3-24-12 GOP Vote Rigging Hidden Cam Doug Wead’s Blog: GOP leader claims: Romney-Santorum-Gingrich unite to stop Ron Paul Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]

  33. Heide says:

    OH! I forgot to say this. There was a man filming it. Still no one knew who he was. Mike young said, “There is a man filming here and I need a motion on allowing him to be here filming” Many asked “who is he with?” Mike then said I need a motion first before I can answer that. Motioned and seconed, then it was found that the man was a journalist and he felt he needed to be there to make sure the fraud that has been claimed would be public to the public. Then Mike Young had a vote Yay or Nay if we would allow him to stay. Of course Ron Paul people who have nothing to hide voted Yay and a ROAR of Nay came from the the Romney Supporters. Nay was the vote and the man had to quit filming. It was chaos after that. One Romney woman even suggested he turn over his cell phone. Looney.

  34. Mystic Angel says:

    Yep, I saw this coming. I hope RP still wins. Even if he has to battle through grime.

  35. [...] Concerted Effort by Establishment to Steal Ron Paul Doug Wead, a New York Times best selling author and a senior adviser for the Ron Paul presidential campaign, [...]

  36. [...] that the Romney-Santorum-Gingrich campaigns have united behind a common …See original here: GOP leader claims: Romney-Santorum-Gingrich unite to stop Ron …Related posts:Super Tuesday: Romney and Santorum Limp Along, Tea Party Claims First ScalpAt CPAC, [...]

  37. ron pauls army says:

    I was there in the 29th district. there slate just divided them some were able to see it for what it was a trick by Romney. in the end the good guys won and we got 11 of 15 for Paul, most of the alternates to

  38. C4LCNCPLS says:

    The GOP did not learn enaything in 2008. They keep doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

    If the Republican Party nominates a draft-avoiding, crony-capitalist, anti-gun, pro-choice, socialized-medicine candidate over a strict free-market Constitutionalist who served his country and carries our his political office with integrity, then the Republican party might as well change its symbol from an elephant to a wooly-mammoth now because that party will become extinct.

  39. volkoseba says:

    I’ve heard that “main issue is defeating Obama” line from the video over and over in conversations after local tea party meetings, and I feel like saying “How does it make sense to beat Obama with another Obama?”

    Unfortunately, sheep will violently defend their ignorance when confronted…

    • annebeck58 says:

      My thoughts, exactly– one Neocon for another (emphasis on CON). How is that to help make America a better place?
      Republicans, when I was a child, really cared about peace, lowering spending, defense, and lowered taxing of the general public. It seems to me that the Neocons (what we call neocons) joined the GOP in full-force, during Reagan’s first term. I voted for Reagan because Ron Paul thought him a good man.., but Reagan was the consummate actor. And, many fell for his lines.
      It’s a sad state this country is in, and it will not get better, unless we can garner a WIN for Ron Paul.
      A win, in my eyes, is electing Paul, but is also taking back the GOP from these dems in rep clothing, and, i am an INDY– lifelong INDY.

      • tex2 says:

        Reagan spoke for DECADES before becoming president about the evils of Communism. ANYBODY who voted for him without knowing he would do virtually ANYTHING to put the USSR in “the trash bin of history” is STUPID, which describes most RP supporters perfectly. All this neocon talk is pure IDIOCY.

        RP is a libertarian, NOT a republican.

      • tex2 says:

        By the way, how do you take back something (republican party) you’ve NEVER been a part of (since you’re a lifelong independent?). RP logic on parade! LOL

      • QT2012 says:

        Tex, if you vote for a presidential candidate that supports NDAA, you are a traitor to this country, and obviously have no idea what the word “conservative” means.

      • annebeck58 says:

        @tex2; You obviously are unaware of the history of the Republican Party. I will reiterate; when I was a KID (during the sixties), the Grande Olde Party was for PEACE, Less Government, Less Tax, Better Defense.
        Your silliness cannot change what the Rep Party was and that Ron Paul embodies what we would like it to be, once again. All Reps were, back then, libertarians, as is Paul (little L, not Libertarian with cap L).
        Ron Paul DID leave the GOP, when Reagan ended up being such a terrible president (middle of his first tenure). My father, who had switched to GOP during the Johnson years, also switched out of the GOP to Independent party, for same reason.
        Read up on some history before you attack while lacking knowledge on the subject, okay?

      • annebeck58 says:

        One more thing: http://amwaytoolscam.wordpress.com/
        or, Tex2:
        Ronald Reagan made the statement about USSR going to the trashbin (or dustbin) of history during his SECOND term, to the best of my recollection. It was during “Star Wars”, if you will.
        Don’t try and tell me I cannot be a Republican; I would have been a Republican had the NEOCONS not taken over the GOP. If Reps were what I knew, as a child, I would have joined them,
        Because both Dems and Reps are same, I feel and felt I could not be a part of their (disgusting) party.
        Ron Paul, on the other hand, chose to fight the party from within. He did leave to join the Libertarian party for a short time, ONLY. And it was due to Reagan’s dishonesty, along with those he brought into the party.
        I don’t know if you are young and that is your excuse for not comprehending what the GOP WAS, or if you’re older and are happy to remain ignorant to the facts, but you should check out the GOP ideas from back in the sixties. Then come back and try to attack my knowledge.

      • volkoseba says:

        Neoconservatism came to prominence thanks to Irving Krystol and friends… Conservatism prior to then was the non-interventionist anti new dealers. “Neocon” isn’t idiocy, it’s a term used to distinguish the Krystol/National Review ideology from what Russel Kirk, Ludwig von Mises, or Robert Taft believed, which used to be known as Conservatism.

      • annebeck58,

        You tell tex2 that eliminating the caucus system would require changing the Republic.

        No. A caucus is an invention of parties, nothing more and in its prompting of evil no less.

        A caucus is so some few can control all the rest. You won’t find it in the law, much less in the Constitution. It’s a private affair within the private club of the GOP.

        What rules for a GOP caucus exist are creations of the GOP, NOT the law.

        As a system of selecting representative candidates the caucus system just plain sucks.

        Now, primaries gotta go too, as they are subsidies granted the 2 major parties.

        Parties gotta be free to select their own procedures, their own rules. In the Republic as designed, versus the pretend version we have today (courtesy of people who support inane criminality like you see at each GOP caucus) there would be no subsidy to parties thus no major parties. Any party trying to do what the GOP (and the D party) does would pay when people fled to more honest groups.

        Eliminate those procedures (that’ll require, just for starters, getting rid of ALL GOP officeholders—I’d excuse Ron Paul from that— and ALL D officeholders, because they are the corrupt SOBs who create their power using things like the caucus/primary system and who maintain their grip on power thru the same devices).

        In a few short months hundreds of Ron Paul delegates will venture forth to Tampa. There, they’ll participate in STEALING from the taxpayers the more than 100 million dollars the GOP spends on that gathering of criminals.

        Now, I don’t hold it against them…they are doing what they can in a broken system, but I sure as hell don’t honor them for it.

        You do that when you grant that a caucus is in any way a good thing…it’s a criminal playground.

        Remove ALL subsidies, start with that convention one and the ballot access restrictions and all the wonderful campaign finance loopholes the criminals of the 2 major parties have bestowed upon themselves and you are starting to get somewhere.

        Embrace the crud you currently wallow in? Well, then you’ll get what we’ve had…another bunch of criminals in office.

      • tex2 says:

        QT2012, if you vote for a presidential candidate that supports hunkering down the military on the borders, you are a traitor to this country, and obviously have no idea what the word “conservative” means.

      • tex2 says:

        annebeck58,

        You tell John P Slevin (wait, that’s stupid, this is an open forum! LOL) that no candidate is perfect. I’ll take Mitt Romney’s combined strengths and weaknesses over Ron Paul’s weaknesses and weaknesses ANY day. LOL

      • QT2012 says:

        What part of national defense don’t you get Tex? Our nation, not other people’s.

        They didn’t need nuclear weapons to hurt us on September 11th. They just entered here illegally, learned to fly, and flew airplanes into our buildings.

      • tex2 says:

        @tex2; You obviously are unaware of the history of the Republican Party. I will reiterate; when I was a KID (during the sixties), the Grande Olde Party was for PEACE, Less Government, Less Tax, Better Defense. – So, if terrorists had hijacked airplanes in the ’60s and flew them into buildings, and we found out they were training in Afghanistan, we wouldn’t have gone after them? That’s as stupid as claiming the Republicans were against WWII. LOL

        Your silliness cannot change what the Rep Party was and that Ron Paul embodies what we would like it to be, once again. All Reps were, back then, libertarians, as is Paul (little L, not Libertarian with cap L). – FALSE. You’re completely CLUELESS by trying to compare overall priorities/platform issues to responding to specific events.

        Ron Paul DID leave the GOP, when Reagan ended up being such a terrible president (middle of his first tenure). My father, who had switched to GOP during the Johnson years, also switched out of the GOP to Independent party, for same reason.
        Read up on some history before you attack while lacking knowledge on the subject, okay? – Just because your father was a dope along with RP doesn’t mean one of our best modern presidents, who pulled us out of a bad economy and put and end to the cold war (remember THAT, as you are fond of reminding me of the ’60s?) was a “terrible president.” LOL

      • tex2 says:

        QT2012,

        What part of national defense don’t you get Tex? Our nation, not other people’s. They didn’t need nuclear weapons to hurt us on September 11th. They just entered here illegally, learned to fly, and flew airplanes into our buildings. -That’s MY point. We can no longer defend ourselves by merely guarding our border. We MUST find them, kill them, disrupt their funding, training sites, etc., or we DIE. This isn’t the 1700s it is 2012!!!

      • volkoseba says:

        Reagan gave us Chairman Alan Greenspan, who conservative economists credit with giving is the housing bubble… how’s that for saving the economy? And funny how Reagan/Bush ‘saved the economy,’ then Clinton ran on “it’s the economy, stupid!” Reagan has some decent quotes, but you won’t catch me calling someone who grew the Federal Government significantly while failing to eliminate the Department of Education and the Federal Reserve “conservative.”

        Fighting socialism with big government is surrender to socialism.

      • tex2 says:

        Greenspan hung around too long, you can’t blame that on Reagan.

        I didn’t like Bush that much, but you can’t blame that on Reagan.

        RP couldn’t do a lot of the things you say Reagan couldn’t do. RP hasn’t had a SINGLE significant bill passed even though he’s been around for decades. How do you expect him to be an effective president? LOL

    • volkoseba says:

      He passed one of the single most important bills of your lifetime, bud. His fed audit bill discovered $16 trillion in bailouts by the Federal Reserve. That’s more than the national debt, printed out of thin air. Funny, though, that you can’t blame Reagan for anything, but blame Paul for the stupidity of his fellow congressmen.

      Greenspan shouldn’t have been appointed in the first place, and I CAN blame Reagan for THAT. I can also blame Reagan for not using the bully pulpit to pressure Congress to support ending Carter’s Department of Education, and I can blame him for creating a gold commission that was deliberately stacked with people opposed to the gold standard. I can blame him for not making an executive order like JFK’s executive order 11110, which allowed the issue of silver certificates as money until Johnson repealed it. Fact is, Reagan sounded conservative, but didn’t act the part. Conservatives shrink government, Reagan didn’t.

      • tex2 says:

        RP can’t even vote for his own issues, because according to : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Transparency_Act: “Passage by the House
        The Financial Stability Improvement Act was combined, along with several other bills from the same committee, into The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 – Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009 (H.R. 4173). The House passed the new bill on December 11, 2009 on a vote of 223-202. The vote was mostly along party lines, with no Republicans voting for the bill.[19] Paul, objecting to some of the provisions of the combined bill, voted against passage despite the inclusion of the audit provisions he had been proposing for years.[20]”

        If he can’t bend just a little to get most of what he wants, how do you expect him to be an effective president? LOL

  40. [...] Doug Wead, a New York Times best selling author and a senior adviser for the Ron Paul presidential campaign, writes on his blog today that Alex Hayes, director of establishment Republicans in Washington State, made the claim that the Romney-Santorum-Gingrich campaigns are pushing a common slate of candidates in Washington State to block Ron Paul’s campaign from taking delegates. [...]

  41. [...] Doug Wead, a New York Times best selling author and a senior adviser for the Ron Paul presidential campaign, writes on his blog today that Alex Hayes, director of establishment Republicans in Washington State, made the claim that the Romney-Santorum-Gingrich campaigns are pushing a common slate of candidates in Washington State to block Ron Paul’s campaign from taking delegates. [...]

  42. [...] Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com March 26, 2012Doug Wead, a New York Times best selling author and a senior adviser for the Ron Paul presidential campaign, [...]

  43. [...] Doug Wead, a New York Times best selling author and a senior adviser for the Ron Paul presidential campaign, writes on his blog today that Alex Hayes, director of establishment Republicans in Washington State, made the claim that the Romney-Santorum-Gingrich campaigns are pushing a common slate of candidates in Washington State to block Ron Paul’s campaign from taking delegates. [...]

  44. [...] The apparent move on the part of the Romney-Santorum-Gingrich campaigns is to block citizens favoring Ron Paul from taking over the Washington State delegation to Tampa,” wrote Wead. [...]

  45. annebeck58 says:

    Doug; is this not voter/delegate *Super-voter* suppression? It sure sounds like that, to me. How can one simply prevent Ron Paul delegates, legitimately. from casting a ballot(?), and how can one (legally, legitimately, nevermind morally) pass out a slate that contains only three of the four nominees, giving others the impression that the delegates could not vote for Paul?
    In my opinion, this does stink to high heaven.
    Regarding robo-calls; I have heard that the same (most likely Ron Paul delegates) were left out of phone-calls, in hopes they would simply not show up at appointed time. It happened in WA State and it happened in Alaska, where election times were changed. We all understand the robocalls came from the Romney camp, but looks (now) that they may have all worked together?
    Some also are thinking the site/group: AmericansElect (or as I call it, AmericanSelect– as in they select for Americans) is using info, including last-four digits of ss numbers of prospective Paul delegates, to verify that these people are not what “the party” wants. There’s more to the AmericanSelect site than that; people sign on to be Paul delegates, but as it is actually a site for INDY delegates, once the Repub folk sign on to it to represent Paul, this is used against them to say they are not “real” Republicans. Yet, I digress.
    I may know the identy of this video-taker. I will do some work to verify,and if I get verification, will send your way.
    And this IS why we need to take the GOP back from the Neocons who began their invasion under Reagan. How very sad that they have changed what was a good party to something unrecognizable from when I was a child. We respected Reps, then; no more, other than Ron Paul, the only REAL Rep in the bunch!

  46. Unbelievable. Ron Paul 2012!!

  47. Ramsey says:

    This also happened at the 45 District Caucus in Redmond, WA. A bright orange sheet entitled the “unity slate” was distributed to everyone except the RP folks. And while there was some push back — it took all four votes to fill the 37 slots, the unity slate swept the positions. RP supporters totaled about 20%, which wasn’t enough to get anywhere. Before the alternates were chosen, the RP supports marched out and made a point of order to see if a quorum was still present, but after the chair announced that a quorum still existed (but didn’t give the number of the count), the King County chairwoman herself, Lori Sotelo, looked the doors to the church to keep the RP supporters from returning to the caucus.

    • Heide says:

      Lori showed up just in time to cause the issues at Redmond. Locking out caucus members. That’s her style. She makes my stomach turn. She had divided her party. What a shame. So sad For Romney. They ASSUME everyone is going to back him which I would have had she not acted like such a wicked witch. I embarrassed to be associated with the likes of her. She is the perfect example of why my Lib friends think Republicans are so horrible.Maybe they are right. Come main voting day, I have a lot to ponder. We all will now.

  48. Well I guess this is a one horse race now.

  49. [...] The apparent move on the part of the Romney-Santorum-Gingrich campaigns is to block citizens favoring Ron Paul from taking over the Washington State delegation to Tampa,” wrote Wead. [...]

  50. [...] advisor Doug Wead studies some video from a Washington state caucus and sees a triple alliance of Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich against [...]

  51. Paulie Girl says:

    I was at the Pierce County convention Saturday and have been to these conventions a few times in the past. There is always a certain amount of chaos, confusion, and tedium to the entire proceedings. My first year there, I had never heard of a “slate” until someone mentioned it in connection with some very unexciting positions just before a vote was taken and if you were clueless as to what the heck a slate was, oh well, vote’s over. Some of this probably happened at this convention too – only the stakes are a lot higher when we’ve got an Occupier of the White House to evict before he issues another edict.

    Someone above repeatedly pointed out that it’s not wrong for campaigns to devise a slate of recommended people to vote for. That is absolutely true! It’s considered clever, wise, on the ball to do this – it’s just rarely of any benefit here in WA because who’s a Delegate to our state convention is never of any significance to speak of. The presidential nominee has always, in living memory, already been decided by the time of the WA state convention. People, especially those long active in the Party like to go to meet their old friends from around the state, maybe get to know some of the candidates a bit better, and sure, elect Delegates to the National (nominating) Convention which may be even more fun and interesting (but not particularly important.)

    The problem I had with the “Unity” slate is its name because when you cut out one Republican candidate, it’s NOT a unifying move! Of course it’s also critically important that if you promote a slate as being endorsed by 3 particular campaigns, it had better really be from the 3 purported campaigns and there’d better be no misrepresenting going on by anyone.

    I talked to our district’s Paul guy after the convention (but no knowledge if he was familiar with this video/its contents at that point) and separately to Alex Hays and the impression I got was that both felt the other had been honest dealers.

    On the other hand, there was a third person who created a slate designed to appear like the Romney-Santorum-Gingrich slate that Alex Hays promoted (complete with logos of those 3 campaigns on it, as had Hays’ slate sheet) – BUT I was told that only one of the 3 campaigns was aware of, had agreed to, and was represented by this different slate! (This new slate allegedly benefitted Santorum, not Romney by the way).

    It’s hard to say for sure what really and truly happened – in its entirety – short of interviewing every key party and putting together a timeline, but having been there Saturday and actually knowing Alex Hays a bit from previous years, I don’t think folks need to be SO mad at him. He acknowledged later on Saturday after using the “savagery” phrase that it was uncalled for and he did say in the (videotaped) pitch that there was a serious downside to promoting a slate that didn’t include new participants. He also explained that folks were free to vote for whoever they wanted, that a slate was a recommendation, a request. (I disagree with his fears that if Ron Paul delegates took the majority to the state (or national?) convention, disaster would befall WA state!!) Also, think he should have known there was no way everyone would get to give 1 minute speeches before voting for Delegates to the state convention commenced – that’s the norm but highly unlikely (and didn’t happen in some if not all of the Legislative Districts) given the huge number of attendees this year (maybe 4 times the usual number?)

    Hope above is of some help understanding some of what transpired Saturday. Others may offer their perspectives later too perhaps. While it’s important to dissect these shenanigans a bit, Paul supporters: please don’t get too distracted and demoralized by these “palace intrigues”. We’ve got work to do!!

    Ron Paul 2012, to Restore America (before she’s gone forever).

  52. gcallah says:

    “On the other hand, if Mr. Hayes is exaggerating or not telling the truth, if the Romney-Santorum-Gingrich campaigns have not agreed on a common slate, then you are getting a look at how political power brokers play backroom games to disenfranchise the majority of their own party. ”

    But Ron Paul has only won a tiny minority of the popular vote.

    • QT2012 says:

      In non-binding straw polls. Most people don’t even bother with straw polls anymore. They mean nothing. It’s all about the delegates. If only 100,000 people vote in a state of 3,000,000, we can hardly decide what the people want, especially when most know the polls are a waste of taxpayer dollars anyway.

      • annebeck58 says:

        How I wish people would begin to comprehend that the ONLY vote that counts (for real) is that of the DELEGATES. And, I want them to get this: Basically ANYONE can be a delegate.
        Yesterday, I came across a young man who first said, “Paul only has 7 percent of the vote” (which I know is untrue, but polls-r-us did their job convincing him of that), and I explained that, no; delegates are just now convening and deciding who will represent them to their states, and then we will begin to know who’s winning, to which he replied, “yeah, and those delegates must be stupid– they all want Romney and Santorum”. *AKKK!
        HOW do we get through to people that they can be delegates, that it’s not a pre-ordained position, and that the straw-poll beauty pageants are NOT the final say-so. Heck this year, we may not have a winner til the national convention, yet I still hear this stupidity from folk. It makes me batty!

      • tex2 says:

        This is an oversimplification of reality. Just like Ron Paul’s misguided policies.

      • annebeck58 says:

        Tex- that is kooky. First, you did not comprehend how national politics works (how a national election works as opposed to state and local elections), and so I give you info.. then you say it’s “oversimplified”. You are simply a contrary person, aren’t you? It seems, when met with honesty and truth, you have something to say– or grumble about.
        Why not do a bit of research? Or, are you afraid it would prove you to be wrong?
        Why do you troll Pro-Paul blogs? Is it simply to irritate people (who have brains and use them)? Or, are you here to learn something? It seems the former is the case.
        I find that a bit sad. It places you in the “majority” of media-watching fools. Yippee. Now, go off and bother people on a NewtSantoRomney site– or a Pro-bama site. Nobody is (any longer) interested in your foolishness.

      • tex3 says:

        tex2 is a kook. Ron Paul is the obvious choice for the people.

  53. tex2 says:

    Okay. RP got 6% of the vote in Louisiana. I stand corrected. Now who is kooky? LOL

    I’ve researched RP. I like him, until he opens his mouth. LOL

    No, I feed off of ignorance, and I’m having a feast here! LOL

    Then why do they (including YOU) keep responding? LOL

    • tex3 says:

      than you are “self sustaining”. you feed off ignorance, while you are a source of ignorance. LOL

    • TheAverageJoe says:

      Tex2, I can’t speak for everyone here, but I’m going to assume nobody really cares or believes any propaganda you choose to post.

      • tex2 says:

        And that’s one of many reasons why RP attracts mainly the drug addicts and “freedom at any cost” crowd. LOL

      • annebeck58 says:

        Hiya Joe yes, I am SURE you are accurate, that we do not believe or agree with the GARBAGE tossed about on ALL of this site, by the little “**IT”.
        Yet it continues……

        It’s all, blahh blahhhh blahhhhhhhhhh… blabber.. Ehhwll Ohhh Ehwlll. Like, REALLY? Who cares? Who wants to be bothered? WHO “hears” the jackass and agrees with or even believes what it says? I think nobody.
        (now it will respond, again, with ehwlll, ohhhhhhh, ehwlllllllll and all that mess)

      • tex2 says:

        I know YOU don’t believe it, you’re a stupid RP sycophant who can’t answer simple questions I ask. LOL

    • QT2012 says:

      Scott, people keep responding to you because you insist on commenting on every single post with your “LOL” and not much else. It just gets old, that’s all.

  54. TheAverageJoeNewsBlogg says:

    Reblogged this on TaJnB | TheAverageJoeNewsBlogg and commented:
    Incredible footage vetting some of the conspiracy theories surrounding voter fraud claims.

  55. [...] After all, these men couldn’t be further apart – both philosophically and personally. This, however, makes much more [...]

  56. [...] GOP Leader Claims Romney Santorum Gingrich Unite to Stop Ron Paul [...]

  57. Surfisher says:

    Vote YES to BAN the “tex2″ creature — your votes will be counted, and submitted to Doug!

    Our Future, as a Free and Prosperous Nation is too precious to ALLOW any Troll, such as the #2 — by its hijacking of all threads— to confiscate this Forum away from us (where Real Americans are trying to converse on what’s best for the US)!

    Voting starts now:

    1) Surfisher — Yes

  58. Surfisher says:

    Dear Doug Wead,

    How can we have confidence that you are capable of managing Ron Paul’s campaign, when you are unable to manage your own blog?

    On any other Forum the destructive manipulations of “tex2″ would have been removed by a moderator, and the creature banned (regardless how many IP’s it uses, there are programs that can track and block them).

    On this, and even OTHER forums, I’ve read people saying that while they read your blog, they won’t post on it — since they don’t want to be verbally abused by the #2. Their take is: Why bother posting or replying here — the #2 is going to hijack the thread by peppering it with insults and non-sensical multi-replies….

    In the last 30 days, IT has posted more times than the combined total of all other posters (also, ITS total word count exceeds that of the rest)!

    Many good people are leaving your forum because of the above. Unless you take care of it, why should we stay?

    Are you paying attention to the people voting to BAN this waste-of-protoplasm?!

    So far the vote to BAN it from your site is:
    1) Surfisher
    2) Sharon Kuhn
    3) annebeck58
    4) christopher Deligate of Missouri
    5) donjusko
    6) sharksauce24
    7) sophiah8
    8) rmcnnlly
    9) BanTex2Al
    10) Wendy Jones
    11) Evan Godolphin

    Awaiting your reply.

    Sincerely, Surfisher

    • tex2 says:

      Crucify him…..crucify him….. LOL

      The Passion of the Christ is a good movie, but I don’t know if I want to watch it THAT many times in a row, so let’s take a break from this repetitious “program” and allow other readers to comment on the below serious and real issues that result in baggage for Ron Paul. Tell me what you think, let’s have open and honest discourse, and since I’m a First Amendment kind of guy, even the “list” above is welcome to chime in:

      Why Ron Paul would NOT be a good president:
      1. He is old, mousey, whiny, grumpy, skinny, etc. Do not underestimate the importance of these factors, as a very large number of voters are not familiar with the issues, and vote for vanity. Sad but true. It does no good to have good ideas when you don’t have the presidential image, and Ron has neither.
      2. He has been in Congress for 2 decades and doesn’t have a single bill to his name. We elected someone president with zero accomplishments in 2008, why would we want to do that again? How can you expect him to be able to lead the country when he can’t lead a single bill to fruition after 20 years?
      3. He even voted against his own bill to audit the Federal Reserve, because he didn’t get every single detail he wanted. He is so stubbornly rigid he simply takes his toys and goes home if he doesn’t get every little detail he wants.
      4. Many of his domestic policies are admirable, but how does he expect to implement them when he will have to work with Congress to get many of them turned into a reality? Will he simply hold his breath until Congress lets him get his way, because he has zero track record of using any other tactic to be successful?
      5. Most of his foreign policies are dangerous. If we pull out of foreign countries, the vacuum WILL be filled by Russia, China, etc. Once you lose your toehold, it is VERY difficult to expand military operations if the need arises. Think about how hard it would have been for the U.S. to fight Hitler if England had fallen. For example, if China decides they don’t want to allow free flow of oil, we would have no recourse, as it takes years, if not decades, to develop independent energy sources. He is simply naive to the point of being a traitor to his own country. Also, we need forward positioned military presence to fight the global war on terror. It isn’t being fought only in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are operations literally around the world preventing future 9/11 type attacks that simply cannot be fought by guarding our own borders, 9/11 should have taught us that. We must therefore disrupt the terrorist cells wherever they are, so they cannot organize, plan, recruit, train, equip, and attack again. To not do this would be suicidal.
      For the above and other reasons, Ron gets the pot smoking and “freedom at any cost” crowd, and that’s all he will ever get…LOL

  59. Surfisher says:

    Vote YES :

    BAN *tex2* from this site IMMEDIATELY — Never allow IT to post here again! ALSO, DO NOT RESPOND TO ANY OF ITS TROLLING !

    Dear, Doug — this is your HOME page, and all of us posting here are your guests. Don’t know about your tolerance level, but mine ends when an unwelcome guest tries to set my home on fire, in order to chase out all the welcomed people I’ve invited!

    No normal exchange can be held here — since the #2 quickly fills in all REPLY slots….so no-one else can respond sequentially to what was stated before. This is its main goal (secondary is its spittings of hatred to all that’s good)!

    • tex2 says:

      Crucify him…..crucify him….. LOL

      The Passion of the Christ is a good movie, but I don’t know if I want to watch it THAT many times in a row, so let’s take a break from this repetitious “program” and allow other readers to comment on the below serious and real issues that result in baggage for Ron Paul. Tell me what you think, let’s have open and honest discourse, and since I’m a First Amendment kind of guy, even the “list” above is welcome to chime in:

      Why Ron Paul would NOT be a good president:
      1. He is old, mousey, whiny, grumpy, skinny, etc. Do not underestimate the importance of these factors, as a very large number of voters are not familiar with the issues, and vote for vanity. Sad but true. It does no good to have good ideas when you don’t have the presidential image, and Ron has neither.
      2. He has been in Congress for 2 decades and doesn’t have a single bill to his name. We elected someone president with zero accomplishments in 2008, why would we want to do that again? How can you expect him to be able to lead the country when he can’t lead a single bill to fruition after 20 years?
      3. He even voted against his own bill to audit the Federal Reserve, because he didn’t get every single detail he wanted. He is so stubbornly rigid he simply takes his toys and goes home if he doesn’t get every little detail he wants.
      4. Many of his domestic policies are admirable, but how does he expect to implement them when he will have to work with Congress to get many of them turned into a reality? Will he simply hold his breath until Congress lets him get his way, because he has zero track record of using any other tactic to be successful?
      5. Most of his foreign policies are dangerous. If we pull out of foreign countries, the vacuum WILL be filled by Russia, China, etc. Once you lose your toehold, it is VERY difficult to expand military operations if the need arises. Think about how hard it would have been for the U.S. to fight Hitler if England had fallen. For example, if China decides they don’t want to allow free flow of oil, we would have no recourse, as it takes years, if not decades, to develop independent energy sources. He is simply naive to the point of being a traitor to his own country. Also, we need forward positioned military presence to fight the global war on terror. It isn’t being fought only in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are operations literally around the world preventing future 9/11 type attacks that simply cannot be fought by guarding our own borders, 9/11 should have taught us that. We must therefore disrupt the terrorist cells wherever they are, so they cannot organize, plan, recruit, train, equip, and attack again. To not do this would be suicidal.
      For the above and other reasons, Ron gets the pot smoking and “freedom at any cost” crowd, and that’s all he will ever get…LOL!!!

  60. Surfisher says:

    Vote YES :

    BAN *tex2* from this site IMMEDIATELY — Never allow IT to post here again! ALSO, DO NOT RESPOND TO ANY OF ITS TROLLING !

    Dear, Doug — this is your HOME page, and all of us posting here are your guests. Don’t know about your tolerance level, but mine ends when an unwelcome guest tries to set my home on fire, in order to chase out all the welcomed people I’ve invited!

    No normal exchange can be held here — since the #2 quickly fills in all REPLY slots….so no-one else can respond sequentially to what was stated before. This is its main goal (secondary is its spittings of hatred to all that’s good)!

    • tex2 says:

      Crucify him…..crucify him….. LOL

      The Passion of the Christ is a good movie, but I don’t know if I want to watch it THAT many times in a row, so let’s take a break from this repetitious “program” and allow other readers to comment on the below serious and real issues that result in baggage for Ron Paul. Tell me what you think, let’s have open and honest discourse, and since I’m a First Amendment kind of guy, even the “list” above is welcome to chime in:

      Why Ron Paul could be and/or would NOT be a good president:
      1. He is old, mousey, whiny, grumpy, skinny, etc. Do not underestimate the importance of these factors, as a very large number of voters are not familiar with the issues, and vote for vanity. Sad but true. It does no good to have good ideas when you don’t have the presidential image, and Ron has neither.
      2. He has been in Congress for 2 decades and doesn’t have a single bill to his name. We elected someone president with zero accomplishments in 2008, why would we want to do that again? How can you expect him to be able to lead the country when he can’t lead a single bill to fruition after 20 years?
      3. He even voted against his own bill to audit the Federal Reserve, because he didn’t get every single detail he wanted. He is so stubbornly rigid he simply takes his toys and goes home if he doesn’t get every little detail he wants.
      4. Many of his domestic policies are admirable, but how does he expect to implement them when he will have to work with Congress to get many of them turned into a reality? Will he simply hold his breath until Congress lets him get his way, because he has zero track record of using any other tactic to be successful?
      5. Most of his foreign policies are dangerous. If we pull out of foreign countries, the vacuum WILL be filled by Russia, China, etc. Once you lose your toehold, it is VERY difficult to expand military operations if the need arises. Think about how hard it would have been for the U.S. to fight Hitler if England had fallen. For example, if China decides they don’t want to allow free flow of oil, we would have no recourse, as it takes years, if not decades, to develop independent energy sources. He is simply naive to the point of being a traitor to his own country. Also, we need forward positioned military presence to fight the global war on terror. It isn’t being fought only in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are operations literally around the world preventing future 9/11 type attacks that simply cannot be fought by guarding our own borders, 9/11 should have taught us that. We must therefore disrupt the terrorist cells wherever they are, so they cannot organize, plan, recruit, train, equip, and attack again. To not do this would be suicidal.
      For the above and other reasons, Ron gets the pot smoking and “freedom at any cost” crowd, and that’s all he will ever get…LOL!!!

  61. Surfisher says:

    Vote to ban the #2 that pollutes this forum with its trolling.

    So far the vote to BAN it — ‘tex2′ — is:

    1) Surfisher
    2) Sharon Kuhn
    3) annebeck58
    4) christopher Deligate of Missouri
    5) donjusko
    6) sharksauce24
    7) sophiah8
    8) rmcnnlly
    9) BanTex2Al
    10) Wendy Jones
    11) Evan Godolphin
    12) Remmic Lewis
    13) Shane Mayfield
    14) jeffrey bohl

    • tex2 says:

      Crucify him…..crucify him….. LOL

      The Passion of the Christ is a good movie, but I don’t know if I want to watch it THAT many times in a row, so let’s take a break from this repetitious “program” and allow other readers to comment on the below serious and real issues that result in baggage for Ron Paul. Tell me what you think, let’s have open and honest discourse, and since I’m a First Amendment kind of guy, even the “list” above is welcome to chime in:

      Why Ron Paul could not be elected and/or would NOT be a good president:
      1. He is old, mousey, whiny, grumpy, skinny, etc. Do not underestimate the importance of these factors, as a very large number of voters are not familiar with the issues, and vote for vanity. Sad but true. It does no good to have good ideas when you don’t have the presidential image, and Ron has neither.
      2. He has been in Congress for 2 decades and doesn’t have a single bill to his name. We elected someone president with zero accomplishments in 2008, why would we want to do that again? How can you expect him to be able to lead the country when he can’t lead a single bill to fruition after 20 years?
      3. He even voted against his own bill to audit the Federal Reserve, because he didn’t get every single detail he wanted. He is so stubbornly rigid he simply takes his toys and goes home if he doesn’t get every little detail he wants.
      4. Many of his domestic policies are admirable, but how does he expect to implement them when he will have to work with Congress to get many of them turned into a reality? Will he simply hold his breath until Congress lets him get his way, because he has zero track record of using any other tactic to be successful?
      5. Most of his foreign policies are dangerous. If we pull out of foreign countries, the vacuum WILL be filled by Russia, China, etc. Once you lose your toehold, it is VERY difficult to expand military operations if the need arises. Think about how hard it would have been for the U.S. to fight Hitler if England had fallen. For example, if China decides they don’t want to allow free flow of oil, we would have no recourse, as it takes years, if not decades, to develop independent energy sources. He is simply naive to the point of being a traitor to his own country. Also, we need forward positioned military presence to fight the global war on terror. It isn’t being fought only in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are operations literally around the world preventing future 9/11 type attacks that simply cannot be fought by guarding our own borders, 9/11 should have taught us that. We must therefore disrupt the terrorist cells wherever they are, so they cannot organize, plan, recruit, train, equip, and attack again. To not do this would be suicidal.
      For the above and other reasons, Ron gets the pot smoking and “freedom at any cost” crowd, and that’s all he will ever get…LOL!!

    • Surfisher says:

      Here is another good one!

      (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkTreAmnmZ0)

      send it!

      also:
      The #2 is a paid shill to troll and disrupt this forum with its spewing of hatred. So real Americans can’t converse here without IT hijacking all threads. That’s why this subhuman needs to be banned. One NEVER responds to IT — its existence is to be ignored.

    • Surfisher says:

      To all Americans:

      Spread this video of the only American Patriot — Ron Paul — running in this race!

      (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hgsg7a-Ok8Q#)

      also:
      The #2 is a paid shill to troll and disrupt this forum with its spewing of hatred. So real Americans can’t converse here without IT hijacking all threads. That’s why this subhuman needs to be banned. One NEVER responds to IT — its existence is to be ignored.

  62. Surfisher says:

    To all true Americans:

    Spread this video of the only American Patriot — Ron Paul — running in this race!

    (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hgsg7a-Ok8Q#)

    • Surfisher says:

      Then watch Mitt the Joke:
      An EMPTY stadium with about a hundred sycophants only… mostly yawning.

      Then see the THOUSANDS of REAL AMERICANS and their genuineness on Ron Paul’s rallies!

      But the main media never shows this REALITY — so, are we to stand by and allow them to steal this Election away from us — when clearly the TRUE Americans have spoken?!

      Spread this video!(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMVY5u9RuW8)

    • Surfisher says:

      Here is another good one!

      (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkTreAmnmZ0)

      send it!

      also:
      The #2 is a paid shill to troll and disrupt this forum with its spewing of hatred. So real Americans can’t converse here without IT hijacking all threads. That’s why this subhuman needs to be banned. One NEVER responds to IT — its existence is to be ignored.

      • annebeck58 says:

        Exactly- as said, I responded (nicely) to IT ,once.. as it was (once– ONE TIME) not a total tool or jerk, and it responded with more stupidity. So, I won’t do it again, regardless of it’s approach.
        I hope Doug will just ban the punk. I think it’s plan is actually to keep us HERE, dealing with the psycho-babble, so we aren’t elsewhere, doing more good. Also, who wants to pass-on Doug’s blogs when they are filled with this trash? Who needs the repetitive, ridiculous, NON-points that it posts, arriving in MULTIPLE emails every day? I wouldn’t want to tell a friend to check out the blog when each time he or she writes ANYTHING, this pita comes back with nonsense.
        In fact, since it’s rambling ridicule and cut-and-paste utter stupidity has become a part of Doug’s posts, I have stopped circulating them. If he’d finally just get rid of it. I’d be happy to (again) forward the blogs. Until then, I don’t want to give my friends this headache.

        Doug, if you are reading this, it’s not a threat.. is just a fact. We’re all sick and tired of this nonsense. I’d like to be able to share your posts, or trackback from my site, to here, but feel it’s not (been) reasonable to do so as long as tex2 is flittering about.
        thanks!

  63. annebeck58 says:

    We have had open primaries in Tejas (yes, Tejas– TEXAS) for a very long time. Personally, I prefer registering as a voter– as a person– than having to declare party affiliation. Up until recently, I did not feel I could commit myself to either of the “two parties”, so have always identified as an Indy. But, with Ron Paul in the mix, I have to say I am now a Republican. In fact, because I identify so much with Paul’s stance, and due to the Republican slate, I feel more Republican than any Neo-Con has a right to say.
    That’s my take on it, anyway.

    • Surfisher says:

      Send this video!

      Romney=Twoface

      (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9njHHyRI7g&feature=player_embedded)

      also:
      The #2 is a paid shill to troll and disrupt this forum with its spewing of hatred. So real Americans can’t converse here without IT hijacking all threads. That’s why this subhuman needs to be banned. One NEVER responds to IT — its existence is to be ignored.

    • Surfisher says:

      Rmoney — “Staff, get me some internet trolls to spew forth hatred towards my opponents.”

      So they run this ad:

      “Looking for 300+lb pimply failures that live in mum’s basement.
      Must be hateful of all that’s good (since you hate yourself most because of the waste of protoplasm you’ve become); unable to crawl away from the computer, so mum gives you monthly sponge baths (also, occasionally removes the bedpan).
      Why post your venomous spittings for free, when we’ll pay you handsomely to be our Shill — a fistful of food stamps and a bottle of hooch each week!”

      That’s how the #2 got this “lucrative” job — why troll for free, when it can shill for so much more….

      (hope I didn’t misspell ANYTHING important….)

      • annebeck58 says:

        Makes ya wonder, though; IS Doug allowing IT to spew vitriolic nonsense here to prove with at tool the RomNOT supporters are, or has he simply not paid attention? I think Doug accidentally blocked someone else, for having a go at the jerk, yet neglected to block this tex-ewwww tool. It does make one think; what IS the backstory?

        Hey, DOUG: what is up with that twerp?

  64. Surfisher says:

    “Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson could pull as much as 6% of the vote in a hypothetical three-way match-up with Mitt Romney and President Obama. Johnson began the 2012 race running for the Republican nomination but has wound up carrying the libertarian banner and could gain ballot access in several states.”

    If the above transpires, it is a certainty that Mitt will not defeat BO (with his flip-flopping, he couldn’t defeat him anyway, now this would assure it).

    So he needs to withdraw now in favor of Ron Paul!
    ————————————————————————-

    Ron Paul WILL become President in 2012 — IF, Romney becomes a Patriot, and forgoes his ego, for the Good of the People!

    Mitt Romney could become one of the greatest Statesmen in US History! He’d be the Savior of our Nation — the one that generations to come would tell their children: “Look at this statue, this is Mitt Romney, he saved America”!

    Or, he can reduce himself to just a tiny footnote…what is amazing is that his fate rests in his own hands (a very rare occurrence throughout the history of the world)!

    All Romney has to do, is to take advantage of this rarest of historical moments, and make a SINGLE DECISION!!!

    Withdraw his candidacy IN FAVOR of Ron Paul, with the following grandiose and heart-wrenching patriotic speech (to save his political skin):

    “I, Mitt Romney, will sacrifice my political goals for the Good of the People. Now I understand that only Ron Paul that can save our Nation. I agree with all he stands for, therefore, I have deemed that our Nation’s salvation can only be accomplished when Ron Paul is elected as President of the United States of America. Without regret, but with joy, I do the most honorable and patriotic deed I can — I withdraw myself from this election, and give my full support to Ron Paul!”

    One honest person is needed to bring these logical conclusions to Romney’s PERSONAL ATTENTION (not the myopic sycophants surrounding him and stroking his ego by chanting wishful thinking as ‘fact’: “You gonna win Boss, you gonna win Boss….).

    Regardless how egotistical, arrogant and narcissistic Romney may be, some semblance of reasoning of what’s best for him, should still remain in his skull. The instinct for self preservation dictates that even the smallest of minds will chose the path that leads to safety, not the one leading to disaster.

    An honest realist needs to talk to Romney one-on-one — and explain the following to him, so Mitt can comprehend it:

    1) If you don’t win the nomination, than your political career is over (you’ll become just a tiny footnote in US History as a failure).

    2) If you win the nomination, and don’t defeat Obama — which is the most probable outcome (you’ll become just a tiny footnote in US History as an even LARGER failure).

    Therefore, Dear Mitt, whichever gamble you take from the above, may lead to total disaster for your political career (and probably will)!

    However, here is an action you can take, Dear Mitt, that guarantees you’ll become immortalized in the annals of US History — becoming the 21st Century Savior of America (surely this carrot of success will entice Romney’s egotism to go for it — over the probable political beatings he’d receive otherwise)!

    All one needs to do, to assure Mitt’s Historical Greatness of Sacrifice for the Good of the Nation, is to present the above to Romney’s eyes alone! I urge all able to do so, to place this document in front of him!

    Send this to Mitt Romney — as an Open Letter, e-mails, etc. — the more you send, the greater the chance he’ll get to read it!

  65. Surfisher says:

    *Mitt Romney, American Parasite*

    (Mitt Grosny — Romney The Terrible (my prefered title))

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31153.htm

    It explains how Bain Capital worked. They would buy SUCCESSFUL companies, with little down, borrowed huge amounts, saddling them with crushing debt, refused to continue equipment purchases or maintenance. Then they would pay themselves huge “management” fees.
    —————————————————–

    Some notable excerpts:

    “Romney is not a vulture capitalist, as Rick Perry says, since vultures eat dead carcasses,” notes Josh Kosman, who has written about the private equity business for 15 years. He’s “more of a parasitic capitalist, since he destroys profitable businesses.” (The host must be healthy enough to be force-fed all that debt, then slowly bled to death…until the parasites drain all the wealth for themselves).

    “When Bain was about to buy a company, its partners would hold a meeting. “He said that about half the time [they] would talk about cutting workers,” Kosman says. “They would never talk about adding workers. He said that job growth was never part of the plan.” That claim was buttressed by the Associated Press, which studied 45 companies bought by Bain during Romney’s first decade. It found that 4,000 workers lost their jobs. The real figure is likely thousands higher, since the analysis didn’t account for bankruptcies and factory and store closings.

    “The Armco plant closing involved more than the torching of 750 jobs, Morrow says. Contractors and suppliers collapsed. Workers’ children and widows lost health care and pension benefits. And while Bain received millions in tax breaks—paid for by the very people left holding the bag—Romney walked away millions richer.”
    —————————————————-

    A must read (long) article recommended to all!

    Share it!

  66. Heide says:


    Look at what happened at the Caucus this weekend. This is exactly what I was talking about. Lori Sotelo should be arrested.

    • tex2 says:

      That’s old news. LOL

      Go make a citizen’s arrest. LOL

      • Heide says:

        You are kind of a douche Tex. Just saying.

      • tex2 says:

        You are stupid Heide. Just saying. LOL

      • Heide says:

        I read up a bit. You use LOL quite a bit. In fact, in every post you used it. I realize I am dealing with an uneducated child. People like you are not worth it. Goodbye.

      • tex2 says:

        Perhaps you can respond to this “uneducated child’s” issues:

        Why Ron Paul could not be elected and/or would NOT be a good president:
        1. He is old, mousey, whiny, grumpy, skinny, etc. Do not underestimate the importance of these factors, as a very large number of voters are not familiar with the issues, and vote for vanity. Sad but true. It does no good to have good ideas when you don’t have the presidential image, and Ron has neither.
        2. He has been in Congress for 2 decades and doesn’t have a single bill to his name. We elected someone president with zero accomplishments in 2008, why would we want to do that again? How can you expect him to be able to lead the country when he can’t lead a single bill to fruition after 20 years?
        3. He even voted against his own bill to audit the Federal Reserve, because he didn’t get every single detail he wanted. He is so stubbornly rigid he simply takes his toys and goes home if he doesn’t get every little detail he wants.
        4. Many of his domestic policies are admirable, but how does he expect to implement them when he will have to work with Congress to get many of them turned into a reality? Will he simply hold his breath until Congress lets him get his way, because he has zero track record of using any other tactic to be successful?
        5. Most of his foreign policies are dangerous. If we pull out of foreign countries, the vacuum WILL be filled by Russia, China, etc. Once you lose your toehold, it is VERY difficult to expand military operations if the need arises. Think about how hard it would have been for the U.S. to fight Hitler if England had fallen. For example, if China decides they don’t want to allow free flow of oil, we would have no recourse, as it takes years, if not decades, to develop independent energy sources. He is simply naive to the point of being a traitor to his own country. Also, we need forward positioned military presence to fight the global war on terror. It isn’t being fought only in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are operations literally around the world preventing future 9/11 type attacks that simply cannot be fought by guarding our own borders, 9/11 should have taught us that. We must therefore disrupt the terrorist cells wherever they are, so they cannot organize, plan, recruit, train, equip, and attack again. To not do this would be suicidal.
        For the above and other reasons, Ron gets the pot smoking and “freedom at any cost” crowd, and that’s all he will ever get…LOL!!

      • Heide says:

        Not one thing you just copied and pasted from your old post has any truth or fact to it. Go spew your garbage on a DEM page.oh and LOL. Lame O Lamer.

      • tex2 says:

        I agree, there isn’t one thing, there are several, NONE of which you can answer. LOL

  67. Heide says:


    Another. Gah! F
    ight the good fight people.

    • tex2 says:

      Why are you posting this stupid video on an obscure blog? LOL

      • Heide says:

        Just showing (from the beginning of this thread) more of the blatant desperation of Mitt Romney followers to pull Ron Paul out of the race illegally. Classy comment by the way.

      • tex2 says:

        The video didn’t show that. LOL

        At all. LOL

        Thanks, I thought it was about as classy as the video. LOL

  68. Surfisher says:

    Superb parody of a “debate” btw Rmoney and BO — SHARE IT!

    (Note the exquisite sardonic touch — only one person is watching the two clowns….LOL!)

    (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vWVdOTFs8M&feature=player_embedded)

    Ron Paul to WIN — or America to End 2012

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 483 other followers

%d bloggers like this: