This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.

The New Hampshire Aftermath

Written on Wednesday, January 11, 2012 by


It’s the day after the Republican Primary in New Hampshire and what is obvious is that Mitt Romney is the front-runner for the GOP nomination.  What is not obvious is if any of these other candidates can put up a reasonable fight in any of the upcoming states.  Just yesterday Ron Paul’s national spokesman urged the other candidates (not named Romney) to drop out and support Paul as the conservative alternative to Romney.  Today Mitt Romney’s campaign took it a step further and argued that he (and Ron Paul) were the only “national candidates” because they are the only two names to appear on every state ballot.  I would argue that both campaigns may well be right.

It is becoming patently obvious that the tired old line “Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line” is slowly (as this primary season will continue to drag on) being proven true once again.  For all the ire that the possibility of a Mitt Romney candidacy raises among our party’s right wing, thus far the Mittmentum continues to build.  In New Hampshire Mitt was even able to score the majority of self described Tea Party voters, as well as convincing New Hampshire that he was the preferred candidate (6 of 10 primary voters said they would be satisfied with a Romney nomination)!  The increasing inevitability of a Romney victory may convince some that the best path forward would be similar to what eventually took place with the Democrats in 2008 – a hotly contested two-person race that could bring out the best in the eventual winner.

The Romney camps argument that he (and Ron Paul) is the only “National Candidates” first deserves some scrutiny.  What we may have lost in the hustle and bustle of the primary season is the amateurish nature of many of these candidates’ campaigns thus far.  For example, observe what recently happened in Virginia, a state of immense importance in any election year – only Ron Paul and Mitt Romney met the requirements to make it on the ballots.  The other campaigns of course complained but the state of Virginia had made all of the campaigns aware of the rules months in advance.  There is still a chance that the candidates are all allowed on the Virginia ballot, but doesn’t the fact that they need the courts to fix the problem speak to their campaigns ineptitude?   The Romney campaign does have a point however, even if the other candidates are allowed on the ballot in Virginia, they are still not on the ballot or eligible for delegates in other states!  Does a candidate whose campaign can’t even get on every state ballot deserve to be the nominee?  Not in my opinion.

Instead of making the “National Candidate” argument the Paul camp instead seeks the influence of the other candidates and asks them to drop out, and support him as the “anti-Romney” conservative candidate.  Ron Paul is definitely anti-Romney.  However, I think that the other candidates may take issue with him being the “conservative alternative” to Romney.  While a strong fiscal conservative, and very much pro-life, and pro-gun ownership – many of Dr. Paul’s other plank issues are generally not considered “conservative”.  The Paul campaign would argue that all of his ideas are indeed conservative, and that his goal is to restore liberty to all of the American people, it is a tough sell with many social conservatives.  Also, Dr. Paul has dealt recently with the uproar over his old newsletters as well as a story that he may have entertained some 9-11 conspiracy theories.  (He has repeatedly renounced and refuted both stories, and both issues have faded as a result)

Should all of the other candidates drop out?  Probably not, especially since Santorum performed so well in Iowa.  Some of them should though, Huntsman’s numbers look terrible everywhere not named New Hampshire and he couldn’t even win there.  Perry has been a non-factor and if that continues in South Carolina, I think his time as a candidate is done.  Ron Paul is an alternative to Romney, and while I may think he is a true-blue conservative, many others in the electorate do not.

South Carolina comes next, and it is a state where Rick Santorum could possibly reemerge, where Rick Perry could finally rise among the candidates, where Newt Gingrich will likely get no bounce, where Jon Huntsman will probably gather very few votes, where Ron Paul will probably not do as well as Iowa or New Hampshire, and where Mitt Romney may solidify his front-runner status.  South Carolina holds many possibilities for our candidates, but only the people of South Carolina can tell us what those are.

I have been known in the past to make a few prognostications, and I think now might be the right time to offer just a few.  Rick Perry will do poorly in South Carolina, coming in 4th place behind Romney, Santorum, and Paul – because of his poor performance he will drop out of the running after South Carolina.  Jon Huntsman will finish dead last in South Carolina, but will not drop out until he performs abysmally in Florida.  Newt Gingrich will finish in 5th in South Carolina, but continue his quixotic venture for the Presidency.  Romney, Santorum, and Paul will finish first through third in that order and the national media will continue to ignore Ron Paul while seizing on Rick Santorum’s second place finish.  The big story, however, will be that Mitt Romney has won in South Carolina an idea that may have seemed almost unthinkable just a few months ago.  How is it possible that Mitt Romney could win South Carolina, you ask, because “…Republicans fall in line.”

There are still 34 primaries and 14 caucuses as well as a mountain of variables to sort through, and if New Hampshire’s past primary picks have anything to teach us – it’s that anything is still possible.  

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

  • Hank is back

    This sheds some new light on a previous story. Some of the other candidates aren’t even on the frigging primary ballots. Haha.

    • BGinTN

      The VA. ballot question is headed for court and still undecided.

      Mitten got less votes in 2012 in Iowa than he got in 2008,

      The Iowa primary, where Democrats can cross over the day of the vote. They chose?

      The New Hampshire primary, where centrist Independents and Democrats outnumbered Republican voters. They chose?

      They count very little, small number of voters and delegates.

      If anything it shows who the Democrats WANT to face.

      Iowa’s causus-circus was 60% non-Republicans, NH’s eastern-liberal primary was 40% non-Republicans

      With 1.80% of delegates selected for the Republican nomination,

      The Republican National Committee changed the system. What had been winner take call races are now partly proportional and partly winner takes call.

      Between now and March 3rd, the last event before Super Tuesday, only 15.20% of all delegates to the Republican National Convention will be selected and the vast majority will be proportional.

      On March 6h, Super Tuesday, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, (Texas? date question here), Vermont, Virginia, the Virgin Islands, and Wyoming will all go vote in a mixture of primaries and caucuses that will also be mostly proportional.

      That day the candidates will pick up 24.90% of the delegates for this year’s Republican National Convention, bringing the total delegates selected since Iowa to 40.20%

      From March 10 until the Utah Primary on June 26, 2012, 59.80% of delegates will be selected.

      Up until March, the delegates for each state are selected proportional to the votes they received.

      The accounting (at this time) is as follows:

      Romney: 27 votes
      Paul: 8 votes
      Santorum: 8 Votes
      Perry: 4 Votes
      Gingrich: 3 Votes
      Huntsman: 2 Votes

      This includes Superdelegate votes as well. At this point, the race is hardly “over”. A couple of losses by Romney in southern states will throw the race into chaos and make people leave Romney if he loses the impression in inevitability.

    • Patriott 101

      Where did you get the data that Iowa “caucus-circus” was 60% non-Republican?
      You are deliberately misleading people for a reason, WHAT IS IT?
      I am from Iowa and carefully diagnosed the results and the voting numbers. There is just NO EVIDENCE that any substantial number of independents or democrats packed the caucuses to vote for RON PAUL! The total number of Iowa caucus voters was actually lower! To have “packed the caucus” for Ron Paul, the vote count would have had to been (at least) 20% higher than ’08! USE YOUR HEAD, The votes Ron Paul got in Iowa were from committed, enthusiastic REPUBLICANS!

    • FlaJim

      It’s true according to at least three exit polls taken. In addition, at least 20% said they wouldn’t vote for the GOP candidate this fall, regardless of who was running.

    • Evan

      I’m not from Iowa,, but I can say that if the ‘establishment’ candidate Romney gets the nod, then my vote will be a write-in for his equivalent: Donald Duck

    • Glen Xx

      @ BG In TN

      Your math is very fuzzy.

      Iowa total 28 deleg

      H.H. 12 delegate Sh$t Romney got 7

      To date Romney has about 17 or 18 delegates

      Perry an Newt have none. Only the top three
      get delegates.

  • Hank is back

    Onan Coca.

    Tell us why you think Ron Paul is a true-blue conservative.

    • Paul

      I think the better question is “How is Ron Paul not a true-blue conservative”?
      I think everyone would agree that he is a fiscal conservative – so on the economic issues – true blue.
      He is pro-life.
      He is pro-gun ownership.
      He is pro-religious liberty.
      He is pro-personal liberty (government can’t tell you not to smoke and can’t tell you not to drink soda and can’t tell you not to eat trans-fats). In fact he is the most conservative on personal liberty where he argues that the government cannot tell us what to do unless our actions put others in harm’s way.
      He believes our military should be used solely for our defense. This is distinctly conservative. Do you realize that all of our armed conflicts of this century (up until the Gulf War) were initiated by Democrat Presidents? There is a difference between being strong on defense and being the worlds police. I don’t think this is really a conservative-liberal thing either… as a lot of Democrats are just as hawkish as Republicans.
      His foreign policy which is often derided is based on solid economic principles.
      I think a lot of times Ron Paul is only called a liberal or not conservative by people who don’t understand what conservative actually means. Does he fit with many modern “conservatives”? No, probably not. But that doesn’t mean his ideas aren’t conservative.

    • The Enemy

      Paul: All good stuff. But, the bottom line is that Ron Paul can’t beat Obama. And if we don’t get the illusionist-in-chief out of office we’re cooked. In fact, he is likely to finish the destruction of America in the remaining year of his current term.

    • Paul

      Enemy –
      I would encourage you to read the latest as to Ron Paul’s “electability”.
      Also, Ron Paul is beating Obama among Independents.
      Ron Paul’s biggest problem is getting Republicans to come out to the polls to vote for him over Obama (if Paul is the nominee).
      If Republicans turn out (and vote for Paul) en masse… Ron Paul can’t lose!

    • The Traditionalist.

      I don’t know why anyone would think Ron Paul is not capable of defeating Obama. It is quite obvious that Romney the flip-flopper can’t; he has too many skeletons in his closet. Obama will tear him to shreds.

    • http://74337 Lyle Sharp

      the only thing you have to do to beat oboma
      is watch the Ballet boxes and guard them
      so there will not be any dead people votes
      Acorn and the likes would be the problem.
      Ballet Box fraud.

    • TexasTea

      Actually, that’s incorrect.
      Several polls have shown that only Mitt and Ron Paul come close to beating Obama.
      Here are a couple.

      Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, run neck-and-neck with President Obama in a general-election matchup, according to a new CBS News poll

      Gingrich leads, but Paul most likely to beat Obama in latest Iowa poll

      Read more:

    • Carol Fryer

      Dont tell me, youre from the GOP and youre here to help. Seriously. Ron Paul is the only real conservative. All one needs to do is read the constitution to know where he stands. You know, that document for the people(citizens) by the people. The one that limits those idiots in Washington. The guys that have ignored it and destroyed our nation.

    • Wondering Woman

      Paul is the only one who can beat Obama, because he is the only one who has identified the problems, the solution for those problems and is likely to really try to get them across.

      BUT we need to give him a some new congressional members to work with him, because he cannot do it alone if surrounded by mostly new world order advocates in Congress.

    • BGinTN

      One of only four House Republicans to request any earmarks.

      It appears, from the way he operates, that he doesn’t want to do his own dirty work. He makes spending requests and votes against them while other lawmakers support the measures, bringing the money to his district anyway.

      There are far simpler ways to make his point if he really thinks the earmark system fosters corruption. One obvious example: he could abstain from earmarks altogether.

      As for earmarks, the congressman requested at least $157 million for fiscal year 2011, and another $398 million for fiscal year 2010, according to his congressional Web site. The provisions included $2.5 million for a “Historic Downtown Redevelopment Project” in Baytown, Texas; $8 million for replacing recreational fishing piers damaged during hurricanes; and $18 million for ship canal operations and maintenance.

      Not only is there no mention of any sort of spending like we see with earmarks in the Constitution, they fly in the face of our very system. They are spending without legislation. They are extremely deceptive spending where these riders are added to completely unrelated bills and often not even in the bill text that is voted on. This way, a museum may be funded within a transportation bill- but funding for the museum is never voted on. It is just a rider to spend the money for that added at the end.

      He is like a thief who wears gloves so his finger prints won’t be on the robbery.

      Ron Paul has to take responsibility for the newsletters that bear his name, or at least acknowledge negligence as the former head of the company that produced them.

      Paul insisting he knew nothing about them. It’s hard to believe that a man who wants to oversee the entire U.S. government would provide zero oversight of his publications, or even bother to read them from time to time. Either he is lying or is not fit to be President, or is it both?

    • Hank is back


      I agree 100%.

      I was simply telling Onan Coca to defend Ron Paul.

      Onan said he was true blue and then that many others would disagree.

      Because this site has a tendency to either bash Paul or mis-portray him, it would be refreshing if one of the contributors that is somewhat sympathetic to him would do the right thing and set the record straight. Not as an endorsement per se, but as a service to a fellow human being. No one deserves to have their name dishonestly dragged through the mud. Onan Coca should explain to the Neocon drones on this site why Mr. Paul is not a bad choice, and why most of their fears are unfounded.

    • Suzanne

      I would first like to say that I’m not a Paul supporter. But, looking to the possibility of a Paul presidency, I would love to hear an explanation as to how he would get any of his proposals through Congress. To give just one example: Eradication of the federal income tax. The political class in DC has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. If someone can explain a scenario in which President Paul could induce them to give up the power to spend our money I’d like to hear it.
      By the way, I agree that Dr. Paul’s positions are classically conservative.

    • Hank is back

      The looming debt crisis should work nicely in convincing many of the lazy repubs and the few sincere dems left to agree with Paul’s positions on many things, particularly on the issues of the federal reserve, the budget, and the debt.

      Ron Paul opposes the income tax, but to my knowledge has made no promises of abolishing it without first cutting the size of government. Paul knows that cutting revenue will only make the debt crisis worse. Some tax cuts actually raise revenue because of the Laffer Curve, but most tax cuts, even if they are good for other reasons, are not viable in our current situation precisely because they cut much-needed revenue.

    • fordman

      I refuse to vote for a person that admits he is just like Obama and that is Mitt Romney. I believe all the republican rhinos set this up and maybe even the democrats. The people have been asking for two years that the republicans start impeachment hearings on Obama but all have refused. Just why is it that they refuse or won’t answere to the people? What makes you think Mitt is going to be any different? I’m voting Ron Paul and he can beat Obama. Everyone says they can’t beat Obama well they are wrong. I believe any of them can except Mitt because he fashions himself after Obama.

    • Bill

      The ACLU,a premier liberal organization, respectfully disagrees. They rate Dr.Paul as the most liberal of all the candidates. Even more liberal than Obama. No conservative I know is for open borders, legalized drugs, prostitution, gold standard, blames the U.S. for 9-11, thinks it’s OK for Iran to have nuclear weapons, gutting the military, or abandoning our allies.

    • Hank is back

      All total BS.

      He is not for open borders. NumbersUSA gives him a poor rating because they want to use unconstitutional means to curtail illegal immigration, while he does not. the Constitution worked before on the immigration issue. there is no reason whatsoever why it can’t work again.

      He is not for drugs or prostitution. He is for the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.

      Most conservatives would be okay with a Gold Standard, actually. You would prefer Helicopter Ben Bernanke to drop Federal Reserve Notes out of the sky, right?

      He never blamed the US for 9/11, but has said that bad-policy makers are partially culpable, just as with everything else they touch: the economy, education, retirement, the borders, health care, etc. They did fund Bin Laden, didn’t they? They had him in their sights but neglected to pull the trigger, didn’t they? They did fail to prevent the attacks because the Clinton and Bush administrations refused to let the CIA and FBI collaborate, did’t they?

      He does not think it is okay for Iran to have nukes. But he does believe wars should be Constitutionally declared first, and that intervention, even when justified, should always be applied with extreme caution.

      He does not want to gut the military. He wants them here at home and only sent into declared wars. He wants to quit subsidizing the lack of a military in the nations that have grown dependent on our presence. He wants to cut down on fraud, waste, and graft, no-bid contracts, low-quality, obsolete, and/or redundant programs, and social experiments in the department of Defense.

      He does not want to abandon our allies. He wants them to be sovereign and responsible for their own affairs. That is the biggest favor we could do for them.

    • pat78

      Absolutely! He’s the only patriot/ non-traitor who refuses to sell his soul to demon worshipping global elitists. Ron Paul actually wants “We the People” to prosper in every way!

      I also think that many who call themselves “liberals” would agree with Ron Paul if they would open their minds to what caused their anger with the “hijacked” American Way long before most of us were born! There would be almost a guarantee that all of us would be able to say that we are better off in 4 years with President Paul than any president in the last 50 years!

    • C.Davis

      Bill, the American Civil Liberties Union rated the candidates on how solidly they stood up for our liberties. Now, somehow that seems to be a repugnant trait in a politician in today’s bizarro world, so I am sure you and others will continue to spam this information as if it were an epithet, since you can find no other issues about Paul that will stick to the wall. You should be aware, however, that the authors of our founding documents also published a document called the bill of rights which was attached to our constitution to enshrine the rights which you lambast Dr. Paul for championing. As for the rest of your comment, it consists of a damnable slate of distortions and outright misstatements, mentally cut and pasted from some globalist presstitute talking head.

  • The Enemy

    Why aren’t the GOP candidates talking about the fact that king O. just gave amnesty to 215,000 illegal aliens? Instead, they quibble over whose business practices are the worst.

    • pat78

      They are hoping that “We the People” didn’t notice.

  • nvrpc

    Shaking hands with Paul is like shaking hands with the enemy. Romney is being fooled..

  • H.M. Murdock

    Paul has some great Ideas, but he has a bunch of not so great ideas.
    1. You cannot Isolate the US from the rest of the world. As much as you want to cut off the rest of the world.. its just not a good idea we need too much from the middle east.
    2. Shutting down ALL our bases overseas puts us at a GREAT disadvantage if we were ever to be attacked, we would be forced to ONLY defend, you don’t win wars that way, you lose them…. it would also force us to do two other things.. Fight on our own soil, in the process hundreds of thousands or MORE Americans will die, and ask for help from other countries we have isolated. Frankly I would rather take the fight there ONLY if need be, if people are going to get caught in the crossfire (and they always do) I would rather it not be my family and neighbors and fellow Americans.

    You know what there’s more but you can stop there and see why Paul would be a Danger to the sovereignty of the US. I’m sorry, his foreign policy is not too much different than Obamas and I for one just cannot take that chance.

    Look at the polling results IN Iowa and New Hamp. Democrats came out and voted for Paul. SORRY I do not share the views with most of the democrats I know.

    • Patriott 101

      Democrats didn’t “flood the polls” in either Iowa or NH.
      This story was media propaganda. Just look at the voting numbers and it shows the number of voters was actually LOWER in Iowa than in ’08! How is it 20% democrats and independents voted up Ron Paul? USE YOUR HEAD!
      Conservative, enthusiastic Republicans voted 23% for RON PAUL.
      75% of the Republicans voted for anybody but ROMNEY!

  • Remington 870

    Who can beat Obama? I have no faith in any of these canidates. But, my gut tells me Newt is the only one who can joust with Muslim Obama. New Humpshire is a piss ant state and who cares who they consider.

    • Shot in the Foot

      Remington; your are just pissed because our dead get to vote.

  • Earle Belle

    Blatant Bias by CBS In GOP Presidential Primary Coverage & The Huge Backlash Occurring!

    Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina says without libertarians, GOP won’t be able to gain majority; Also Gives Surprising Praise About GOP Presidential Candidate:

    What do all these voters know that has them so stirred up?
    Paul Versus Anti-Paul!

    Judge Napolitano: “What if they’re lying to you about Ron Paul?”

    Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer: “NDAA is More Dangerous to Americans Than Iran!”

    “Ron Paul Is Hawkish On Defending Americans In America”

    Adam Kokesh: “Ron Paul Is The Choice of the Troops!”:

    Why The Military Industrial Media Complex Fears Ron Paul:

    What Does It Mean When The GOP Establishment Fears & Declares All-0ut War On A GOP Presidential Candidate?

  • Y. Calitri

    The South Carolina winner will be Mitt Romney again. Anybody envious of him must be crazy.

    • Chuck

      A much better choice than that loony libertarian, Ron Paul, who the ACLU declares to be more liberal than Obama.

    • http://patriotupdate Paul Robitaille

      What are you smoking? John McCain won in ’08. Willard Romney came in FOURTH. Your posts certainly have credibility.

  • Justwonderingwhy!

    I didn’t write this one, but I wish I had.
    The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.
    The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995 For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is “Bush’s Fault”, think about this:
    January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:
    The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
    The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
    The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
    George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!
    By the way GWB had Nothing to do with the GM bailout MR. Obama did all of that not GW!!!!!!!!!
    Remember that day…
    January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
    The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
    THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney ) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment…to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
    (BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 times to stop Fannie & Freddie – starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy). Barney blocked it and called it a “Chicken Little Philosophy” (and the sky did fall!)
    And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA
    And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
    OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BARNEY!!!!
    So when someone tries to blame Bush…
    Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving the economy into the ditch. Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.
    Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.
    In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
    For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.
    And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let’s remember what the deficits looked like during that period:
    If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.
    If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
    In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is “I inherited a deficit that I voted for, And then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.”
    There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!
    “The problems we face today exist because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.”
    That my friends constitutes socialism…a welfare state.

  • Ohiogirl

    I was thinking today the GOP candidates should not tear each other apart, but, then I thought, in order to beat Obama, that just might be ,positive campaign. Also, dont forget people AZ comes up soon for primary, 24 people in total, that isnt until Feb, we must make up our minds soon, I am waiting for Sarah Palin, to endorse one of these candidates.

  • Bill

    Start solving the problem by VOTING against Obama. Talking for three years has done no good. He is running rough shod over the country and no one is opposing him. Only cure is to VOTE him out of office. This is probably our last chance at a free election, if he gets another term.

  • OneCitizenOfTheRepublic

    per unitatem vis (“through unity, strength”)

    The longer we fight among ourselves, the harder it will be to defeat Obama and other Progressives in the House and Senate.

    Who can beat Obama that will be better than Obama?

    God help us if we cannot decide this simple question…soon @[~~]@

  • tod

    Dr.Ron Paul 2012 for the ONLY PROVEN HONEST(for Well Over 30 Years)PATRIOT running for President,PERIOD !!!

  • Alabama vet

    It’s time for all good Americans to come to the aid of their country..This wanna be dictator and his crew of minions need to go..It’s pretty obvious that he’s out to destroy this country from within with the blessing of the democratic party..He acts like this country and it’s people are his own personal playthings and takes vacations any time he’s called on to do his job..This country needs a real enema of it’s political system as it has failed us due to the fact that congress is just a word and has been run over by the Obama fright train. This sorry group of politicians cares not one wit for the constitution as it would curtail their ripping off the American taxpayer..When you get right down to it,it’s not love of country or service to their fellow countrymen that puts the majority of them in their high office but rather the lifetime freebees that go with the job..Congress and the senate need term limits and all people in high office must be investigated and vetted,not just put in their positions by king Obamas decree..Ron Paul is not perfect as no one is,but he’s on the right track and very much a follower of the constitution..It matters nothing to me if he’s republican or Democrat..It’s the value of the man not the party that he belongs to that really matters.Obama has shown his true nature and this country needs him out of office to survive as the country i grew up in and fought to defend.

  • Delia

    As of 2010, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrats, 29% as Republicans, and 38% as independents. So if Ron Paul is most attractive to Inds he wins. So far Inds have not cared much for Romney. Unless Ron Paul is the Republican nominee we can plan on 4 more years of Obama. Sad but true.

  • Glen Xx

    Ron Paul not Sh$t Romney will sign an

    Audit the Fraudulent Resv Bk bill

    Romney has said, the FRB does not need an


    Auditing and shutting down the FRB is the

    Single most important issue in the USA today

    Ron Paul, not RINO Romney will stop debt $

    and issue debt free treasury notes.

  • http://verizon Ann Rand

    Ron Paul is a silly old man who needs to go home and retire… If he keeps taking side with Iran, he should be investigated as a subversive..The whole country is laughing at him and Ahmadinejad sent flowers to him. ..Doesn’t that tell you something???