Iowa, Minnesota, Louisiana, Maine, and Nevada

[RCP]

all have something in common. Ron Paul has won the delegates to those states and even though it has not been verified yet has probably won Washington State, Alaska and Colorado as well despite the RNC doing their best to squash those efforts even if it means out and out dishonesty and refusing to follow their own rules. Don't let the media tell you it's a done deal with the liberal progressive, gun grabbin RINO Romney already. With a lil luck I think he just might have his hands full come convention time in Tampa.

[Charles L. Cotton]

It'll never happen. But if Ron Paul were to get the nomination, Obama would be reelected in a landslide. One wins an election by having widespread strong support. One makes others believe they have a chance to win by asking their few supporters to be loud. A candidate that cannot win state primaries cannot win the general election, period.

He's a non-factor so no one looks at what he really represents in terms of his Libertarian views. If he had the Republican nomination, then the Democrats and conservatives would hammer him on a number of issues like open borders so people and money can move in and out of the U.S. unhampered (a terrorist's dream world); scrapping most of the U.S. military and bringing all U.S. troops within U.S. borders; pro-abortion; no drug laws; repeal the income tax (I like that one, but let's face it, the U.S. would collapse financially); no regulation of the banking industry; no military or financial involvement with any other country; and much more. Have a look at the platform of the Libertarian Party. Unfortunately, it's not a la carte, it's a 22 course meal and most conservatives will not find the meal eatable.

Ron Paul supporters are largely unaware of his history as a Libertarian Party candidate/member and they are even more oblivious to that Party's platform. Most people who support Paul like his stance on smaller government, lower taxes, and support of the Second Amendment. But if he were the Republican nominee, conservative Republicans and Independents would run from him like a sinking ship. Unfortunately, he's been my inept Congressman for many years (during which he passed only 2 meaningless bills) and when I ask people in our district why they vote for him, not one is ever aware if his ultra-liberal views on social issues. The best thing about him running for President yet again is the fact that he's not running for reelection to the U.S. House and he'll finally be gone.

Ron Paul is much more a RINO than Romney; Paul is a Libertarian who switched to the Republican Party because he couldn't get elected flying his true colors. That is a RINO.

Like it or not, the Republican Primary is over and we either rally around and support Romney or get ready for four more years of growing tyranny with Obama.

Chas.

[terryg]

Like it or not, the Republican Primary is over and we either rally around and support Romney or get ready for four more years of growing tyranny with Obama.
Chas.

Well said! Anyone who thinks otherwise is using the same logic that liberals are when they want to ban all guns ... we don't live in Utopia and never will on this side of heaven. If we don't wake up, all of us, and start living in the real world then you might as well cast the ballot for the big O.

[hi-power]

According to my math all Romney needs to wrap it up is wins in California and Texas.

It's over and time now to concentrate full time on keeping a majority in the House and winning the Senate and White House.

[speedsix]

...humanly speaking, our only hope is to change obummer's home address...that's job ONE...

[MoJo]

It'll never happen. But if Ron Paul were to get the nomination, Obama would be reelected in a landslide. One wins an election by having widespread strong support. One makes others believe they have a chance to win by asking their few supporters to be loud. A candidate that cannot win state primaries cannot win the general election, period.

He's a non-factor so no one looks at what he really represents in terms of his Libertarian views. If he had the Republican nomination, then the Democrats and conservatives would hammer him on a number of issues like open borders so people and money can move in and out of the U.S. unhampered (a terrorist's dream world); scrapping most of the U.S. military and bringing all U.S. troops within U.S. borders; pro-abortion; no drug laws; repeal the income tax (I like that one, but let's face it, the U.S. would collapse financially); no regulation of the banking industry; no military or financial involvement with any other country; and much more. Have a look at the platform of the Libertarian Party. Unfortunately, it's not a la carte, it's a 22 course meal and most conservatives will not find the meal eatable.

Ron Paul supporters are largely unaware of his history as a Libertarian Party candidate/member and they are even more oblivious to that Party's platform. Most people who support Paul like his stance on smaller government, lower taxes, and support of the Second Amendment. But if he were the Republican nominee, conservative Republicans and Independents would run from him like a sinking ship. Unfortunately, he's been my inept Congressman for many years (during which he passed only 2 meaningless bills) and when I ask people in our district why they vote for him, not one is ever aware if his ultra-liberal views on social issues. The best thing about him running for President yet again is the fact that he's not running for reelection to the U.S. House and he'll finally be gone.

Ron Paul is much more a RINO than Romney; Paul is a Libertarian who switched to the Republican Party because he couldn't get elected flying his true colors. That is a RINO.

Like it or not, the Republican Primary is over and we either rally around and support Romney or get ready for four more years of growing tyranny with Obama.

Chas.

Aw come on Charles tell us what you really think.

[The Mad Moderate]

Charles, I do not see him as ultra-liberal on social issues, whats the difference between the government telling you what kind of guns you can have vs. what you do in your own home? It's big government either way it seems you just prefer to have the government tell people whats moral and right and pass laws on it. Myself, I would like them to stay out of everything. Wh

[psijac]

In 2004 John Kerry taught us its not enough to not be bush
In 2012 Mitt Romney will teach us its not enough to be not obama

[stroo]

A true conservative understands that a democracy can only last as long as morality exists among the people - things like value life/don't kill children, pay your debts, be honest, keep marriage vows, etc.

Libertarians in my experience don't understand that. They seem to have one principle - freedom.

While I love freedom too, there are other principles that are as important that impede on my freedom - love of God, of family, of country, morality.

[pbwalker]

A true conservative understands that a democracy can only last as long as morality exists among the people - things like value life/don't kill children, pay your debts, be honest, keep marriage vows, etc.

Libertarians in my experience don't understand that. They seem to have one principle - freedom.

While I love freedom too, there are other principles that are as important that impede on my freedom - love of God, of family, of country, morality.

How does "love of God" impede on your freedom?

I see nothing wrong with the Libertarians number one priority being freedom. Freedom for you to practice your religion, freedom for me to not. But when laws are drafted / written based on someones religious beliefs, I have a huge problem with that.

Morality is great. Forced / Governed morality is not.

[The Mad Moderate]

Morality is great. Forced / Governed morality is not.

x1000 I could not have said it better myself.

[stroo]

Morality is not "great"; Morality is NECESSARY for a democratic society.

And some forms of morality must be promoted by and/or enforced by government, such as do not murder the innocent, do not steal, etc.

And yeah my love of God impedes a lot on my freedom. God requires certain behaviours that impede my freedom - love neighbors - I need to forgive even when I don't want to ; do not steal; deal honestly with others; be faithful to my wife; protect the innocent, etc.

If we want to keep a democracy of any kind, freedom can not be your only principle.

[pbwalker]

Morality is not "great"; Morality is NECESSARY for a democratic society.

And some forms of morality must be promoted by and/or enforced by government, such as do not murder the innocent, do not steal, etc.

And yeah my love of God impedes a lot on my freedom. God requires certain behaviours that impede my freedom - love neighbors - I need to forgive even when I don't want to ; do not steal; deal honestly with others; be faithful to my wife; protect the innocent, etc.

If we want to keep a democracy of any kind, freedom can not be your only principle.

I'll agree that *some* forms of morality must be in place, and you cite perfect examples. My argument, which I should have been more specific about, is the far reaching morality arguments. Without breaking forum rules, I won't mention what it is...but we can figure them out.

And your love of a god is fine. What I have a problem with is when elected officials think I need to follow the rules their god puts in place. I don't subscribe to any form of religion personally, and I wouldn't force that upon anyone else. I would like to see that go as a two way street.

There's far too much overreach by the government.

[anygunanywhere]

A true conservative understands that a democracy can only last as long as morality exists among the people - things like value life/don't kill children, pay your debts, be honest, keep marriage vows, etc.

Libertarians in my experience don't understand that. They seem to have one principle - freedom.

While I love freedom too, there are other principles that are as important that impede on my freedom - love of God, of family, of country, morality.

Freedom, true freedom, is not always doing what you want with no limitations. True freedom is doing what is right and moral, taking responsibility for your actions.

This is not your typical libertarian view.

Anygunanywhere

[speedsix]

...big government never misses a chance to orchestrate a "situation" where they can validate their existance...making us think that we need them...