Mitt just cant seem to find unconditional love from anywhere.
In an interview with the New York Times, Ron Paul detailed his conversations with Republican National Convention organizers, who he says offered him a speaking slot under conditions he couldn't meet.
According to Paul, convention planners offered the Texas congressman the chance to speak under two conditions: that he gave a speech pre-approved by Romney's campaign, and that he give a "full-fledged" endorsement of Mitt Romney.
“It wouldn’t be my speech," Paul said. "That would undo everything I’ve done in the last 30 years. I don’t fully endorse him for president."
Ron Paul: 'I Don't Fully Endorse' Mitt Romney
Are you guys saying you really didn't see this coming?
They *had* to offer him a speaking role because he does have a plurality of at least 5 states. However, I expected him to speak but at a crazy hour like 12pm - during lunch.Are you guys saying you really didn't see this coming?
While I rarely agree with the man outside of foreign policy, I gotta hang with Maggie on this one. Good for him.
Everyone I know can't stand Ron Paul's foreign policy, but they love his fiscal policy.
Everyone I know can't stand Ron Paul's foreign policy, but they love his fiscal policy.
I do not like it that Ron Paul made these remarks.
Whether he likes it or not ... Romney WILL be nominated. I see this as very childish ... and very much akin to Uncle Joe's appearance at the convention.
Looks like Paul is trying to get another "15 minutes". They gave him a speaking spot but he had to 'rain (is that the word I really want to use?) on the parade'.
If this isn't a prime example of "sour grapes" ... then nothing is.
Everyone knows Paul's politics. This idiotic display makes me very happy that he is yet another 'also ran wannabe loser'.
A L
Personally Id love to see Gary Johnson speak there, I'd be willing to bet he could say a few things most repulicans and libertaians agree on.
For some reason Gary Johnson wasn't invited to speak at the Republican convention. I'm not sure, but it might be because he's running against the Republican candidate in the general election.
The Republicans do want the Libertarian vote. Can they find another well known Libertarian to speak at the GOP convention who will satisfy the Libertarians who are on the fence?
I knew that. Its just quite frankly I hate picking between going to hell in a handbasket the Republicans want, and going tohell in a shopping cart the Democrates want. I would prefer not go to hell period.
I do not like it that Ron Paul made these remarks.
Whether he likes it or not ... Romney WILL be nominated. I see this as very childish ... and very much akin to Uncle Joe's appearance at the convention.
Looks like Paul is trying to get another "15 minutes". They gave him a speaking spot but he had to 'rain (is that the word I really want to use?) on the parade'.
If this isn't a prime example of "sour grapes" ... then nothing is.
Everyone knows Paul's politics. This idiotic display makes me very happy that he is yet another 'also ran wannabe loser'.
A L
I think the only thing that 'should' change to make things fair without providing a charitable handicap is revamping ballot access laws. It has always seemed odd to me that in most states a partisan commission controls what the standards are for ballot access which creates artificially high requirements that are often insurmountable for a third party. If this were not the case, and it was a relatively simple matter to gain ballot access than the Green, Libertarian, Constitution etc parties would be able to spend the lion-share of their money on limited television ad space, creating a volunteer network, staffing requirements, election materials, etc. In other words things they can't really think of paying for right now. But I don't support a run-off system, that seems like a handicap designed to give a leg up instead of evening the playing field. Whoever wins, should be the winner.
PS: I should mention to be clear I do not support Ron Paul and oppose a significant amount of his policies especially with regard to foreign and monetary policy, and not an insignificant amount of fiscal policy. But I still think that it should be much easier for people like Johnson to engage in the race.
I would be rid of tax pay funded and supported primaries. I dont care how the parties select their canidates so long as they use their own money and facilities. There should only be one election per year unless its a special type election. All you should have to do toget on the ballot should be to pay a reasonable fee. Put up or shut up as it were.
I like both. We could stand to be a bit more isolationist, as our butting into the business of other nations around the world, paints a big target on our backs. We have no business trying to influence the internal affairs of others.
One of the reasons there should just be a fee to get on ballot. Nothing else to qualify.I more or less agree, but I should note that primary politics and mechanisms as I understand it are not really related to issues of 3rd party ballot access which vary in reasonableness from state to state.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?