15 votes

Romney Was Promised The Nomination By The RNC Four Years Ago.

The sad, largely unspoken, fact of this "nomination race" is that it was all decided back in February of 2008, prior to Super Tuesday. Romney was told that if he dropped out in favor of the older neocon, McCain, that the nomination would be his this time.

Everything the RNC has done since that time has been to do whatever it takes (including breaking bones) in order to assure that promise was kept.

Remember, Romney was WINNING when he dropped out. Most cash, most delegates...the works.

Remember, McCain was dead in the water, broke, totally out of the race, campaign staff had left the scumbag, until he went to London and met with the Rothschilds. We had $20 million in the bank at that time. He began running MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in wall-to-wall national TV ads (with "no money"--can you say "Lord Rothschild") and creamed us on Super Tuesday. We never EVER ran one single TV ad, but spent millions on "production" of ads that never ran (I've reviewed the FEC reports thoroughly) and there you have it.

We also saved $5 million out at the end in '08 in order to start C4L, of course.

I am not sure why anyone is surprised this campaign has also been sabotaged the same way...and that we have $3 million left now to pay Jesse and Trygve for the foreseeable future, and whatever other little neocon infiltrators they decide to run C4L with.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

How many delegates do you think you will have?

.

The pertinent question

should be how many won't Romney have. Last entry here going on vacation.

There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.

the number will not be large enough

to put the nomination remotely in doubt.

egapele's picture

And how sure are you of a Romney victory? See this article

It's articles like this that just came out yesterday, coupled with the complete apathy he appears to evoke from the Republican base, that really do call into question Romney's chances at being nominated:

"Could Ron Paul pull an upset at Republican convention?"

Ron Paul to hold "major" pre-convention rally.

The Capitol Column | Monday, July 02, 2012

Texas congressman and 2012 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul plans on holding a major rally for his supporters prior to the Republican national convention in August, according to an announcement posted to his presidential campaign website.

link to article here: http://www.capitolcolumn.com/news/could-ron-paul-pull-an-ups...

As close to 100% as you can get

That headline doesn't match the article content at all. It doesn't talk about how Ron Paul could upset Romney at the convention. It just says that Paul supporters are going to get together beforehand.

Romney has the same chance of getting nominated that Obama has. Only a major scandal, illness, crime, or death can stop either candidate from winning his party's nomination. If someone besides those two wins the nomination instead, it won't be an upset or surprise at the conventions. It will be because one of them has dropped out of the race.

Problems with these facts....

Romney was not winning when he dropped out. He was losing the delegate race - by a lot. One would assume that is why he dropped out. You bring up the visit to the "Rothschilds" but that didn't happen for about a month and a half after Romney dropped out. Huckabee had also dropped out, and McCain was the presumptive nominee already.

So, pretty much all of the "effects" you listed occurred before (even long before) the claimed causes. That is typically an argument against causality.

Right

Why can't we stick to the facts without throwing out all of these sideways conspiracies. The GOP probably did ask Romney to get in line when he did in exchange for preference in 2012. But the race was already largely over at the time.

It is a travesty that Parties exert this kind of influence, thus usurping the will of their own voters.

You want to cite your proof?

I know the "poll results" were saying McCain was ahead leading into Super Tuesday '08, but not the actual results. Romney was also WAY AHEAD in campaign cash.

I will look for the actual date of the McCain-Rothschild meeting after the show this morning. This article suggests it certainly was well before April 2, at least, and contains a hint that the JBS was on to a meeting that preceded Feb. 2:

http://incogman.net/04/2008/john-mccain%E2%80%99s-rothschild...

"Truth is an absolute defense to the charge of paranoia."

Here:

Romney dropped out AFTER Super Tuesday. He was down about 100-70 in delegates before Super Tuesday. Afterward, McCain had over 700 and Romney had under 300. A couple days later, Romney dropped out.

http://www.npr.org/templates/text/s.php?sId=18772382&m=1

Huckabee dropped out in early March. The Rothschild party was apparently March 20th.

http://hempsavetheworld.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/rothschilds...

Thanks for the details & links.

I too had to raise an eyebrow at Steve's version of events.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

Again....

...the key point is THIS:

McCain was broke but was able to run millions in NATIONAL TV ADS prior to Super Tuesday, and we know he was in touch with the Rothschild elements as early as 2006. How else could he have paid for those AND NOT BEEN REQUIRED TO FILE FEC REPORTS on those expenditures (or at
least on where that money came from)?

Also...it was obvious to anyone really watching in '08 that Romney's dropping out made no sense. He was in far better position to win than McCain UNTIL these mysterious ads got paid for and McCain won on Super Tuesday.

"Truth is an absolute defense to the charge of paranoia."

But again...

Romney didn't drop out until he was losing by a lot. Even prior to Super Tuesday, he was losing in the delegate count, the polls, and the momentum. Losing Florida really hurt him.

egapele's picture

Do you dispute the understanding

by Romney's campaign in 2008 that he would be given a shoe in the door for the 2012 nomination? Just curious.

Depends what you mean by that

There were no explicit or implicit promises that Romney would get to be the nominee in 2012 if he dropped out in 2008. But everyone running for nominee of a political party knows that running in one cycle helps build name recognition for a future nomination process. Santorum right now feels like Romney was the only thing in his way in 2012, so the next time Romney isn't running, he may think of himself as a favorite.

You're kidding, right?

Because of course the RNC doesn't ever favor any candidate. And there is no long range plans of the powers that be to make promises or any such nonsense.
This is so naive. Mind you, I have no inside knowledge, but all you gotta do is watch TV for five minutes. Better yet, you need to have watched it about a year ago....you know, when Romney was the presumptive nominee before we even got out of the box. :(

No

Romney was the favorite a year ago but he certainly wasn't the presumptive nominee. If you had to bet on Romney or "The Field", most would have bet on "The Field".

There is zero evidence of a promise given to Romney that he would be the nominee this time if he dropped out while ahead in 2008. It turns out that the basic facts of that theory were wrong in the first place.

Yes, but...

We the people can change this. In the end, it is actually human bodies (delegates), who select the Republican nominee. They can't rig those.

No, but they can anonymously "leave them with the idea"

by phone or otherwise that if they don't vote Romney, that or their families will be assasinated. Our Delegates are in danger up to and at the convention.

SequoiaTrees4RonPaul