18 votes

Wake up Republicans! Stop picking crappy candidates like Romney every election cycle


Every year people in a party rally for a certain person. In 08 and 12 it was Ron Paul. Ron Paul had such support that it was one of the biggest in modern history. People from all parties loved the guy and would do anything for him yet the Republicans did not want anything to do with him. So in 08 they lost with John McCain and in 12 they lost with Romney. See those guys do not bring in a passion that Ron Paul or even Obama does with people. That is the type of person that parties needs to nominee or else your loose like the Republicans have. Until the Republican wake up to the realization that they screwed up with Ron Paul then maybe they will start to fix there problems and actually want to win!!!

Comment viewing options

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

Feint, Fiddle and Fool ...

What makes you think it's Republicans that choose the nominee? My distinct impression was that it was the corporate interests who used their money and influence to feint, fiddle and fool the party into taking on their own favoured nominee (virtually cloned in policy and actions to the nominee in the other party!). Don't tell people to change - it's not the people who are in control. Instead find a way to stop the corporate interests interfering so much. A non-violent revolution would be preferable!

I hate to be "that guy" but

I hate to be "that guy" but nominate*, lose*, and their* are the words you were wanted to use above.

The Biggest Problem...

...is when the GOP paints candidates like Rick Santorum and possibly in the future Marco Rubio as true conservatives and anti-establishment. It deceives a lot of the people who are not paying attention.

We need to get an early start on 2016: Support Rand PAC 2016



That was the intention, to

That was the intention, to pick a "crappy" candidate who would not win.

There was more excitement about the 2008 election as compared to 2012. It was intentionally this way to make it more likely that Obama would be re-elected.

McCain wanted to run against Bush as the Democratic nominee back in 2000. In 2004 McCain wanted to be Kerry's VP. The MSM articles regarding this are still online. Considering that, why in the world would the GOP then make that guy the party nominee after he wanted to run against the party two cycles in a row for the other team?

During the primaries many of the other candidates were referred to as the "anybody but Romney" candidates, because Romney was viewed as that bad for the GOP to be the nominee. But somehow after all that Romney gets nominated.... then loses.

The GOP did not want a strong candidate in 2008 or in 2012.

One possible reason for that is they know what is coming economically, that it's nearly impossible to stop, and do not want to have a Republican POTUS in office who will be blamed for the mess far into the future.


McCain was a good candidate in 2000

The Establishment used a lot of dirty tactics to clear the way for the Bush brand. McCain was at his peak in 2000 and would never get that back. He was a maverick. The party doesn't like independent thinkers they can't control.

In 08' I wondered whether he was sabotaged by the GOP with their VP choice. McCain was just a shadow of his old self by then. Sad.

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

McCain was never a good

McCain was never a good candidate if research into his younger self is any indicator. He has always been rotten to the core.

More independent that Bush was

That is why they blocked him. It would have been harder for the neo cons to influence him. Perfect - hell no. Better than Bush was, I think so. Did he deserve what the GOP did to him? No way.

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

If you're right about McCain

If you're right about McCain being such a good candidate in 2000 and then being just a shadow of his old self by 2008 then it is exactly in line with my theory that the GOP did not want to win in 2008 & 2012.


They don't choose the "best" candidate

The way party politics work, especially in the GOP, is that you have to kiss a sufficient amount of a** before it is "your turn" to become president.

McCain tried to derail the chosen son with the Bush brand name. McCain felt it was his time (and he was right, he was at his peak). But the machine had other designs. He was attacked and then told to back off and if he did so he would get the nomination in the next round.

Romney was told to back off in 08' to make way for McCain. Romney was then guaranteed the nomination for 12'.

All the "candidates" knew this except Dr. Paul... who knew it but wasn't going to accept it. Something happened and he backed off. We will never know what pressure they exerted on him... or maybe they guaranteed Rand Paul a shot in return for capitulation.

Research the attacks in SC on McCain in 2000. Pretty disgusting.

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

Where to start..

Starting a list of present Establishment GOP culture and why they do what they do and why they field lame candidates.

1. Dominated by corporate culture which is generally passionless
2. A culture of telling people what to do and how to live. "Control" is the operative word.
3. A culture of not needing to attract a majority, they prefer to keep their hands on the levers of power. They influenced the Supreme Court and turned to them in 2000 to secure the election for GW. Power prevails over principle.
4. No longer a party of capitalism. They prefer cronyism (ties in with #1 & 3).
5. The GOP has become the bastion of 50+ year old socially conservative white guys(ties in with #1 & #2).
6. They like war & the police state for the economic benefits and wealth redistribution (ties into #s 1, 2, 3 & 4)

Any others?

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

There cannot be a viable two party system if one party wins

To maintain the illusion of choice and encourage participation by voters and keep donations high, its vital to keep the competition going. Sure there are constituencies who benefit from the largess of government that support each party, but that maintains the huge cash flow that's generated from the election cycle. The real truth is, as Ron Paul has said, there is only one party, the big government party. No matter what party manages to get in power, it spends, borrows, fights wars, restricts freedoms, taxes and most importantly it grows government.

The good news is, people are figuring it out, that's why the voter participation was so low this year, the illusion of choice is fading.

The bad news is, they will not allow the growth to stop.

Yes, Chuck does really good.

A excellent article to send out both parties.

Romney was just the guy they shoved down our throat.

Honestly, Republicans thought this was a gimme election that they couldn't lose.

Thats why they abused Ron Paul at the Convention. They didn't care about our measly votes. And when we told them that this could cost them the election they laughed in our faces. All they had to do, they figured, is hang a "nominee" flag on somebody - work him through the process and they would have the Presidency.

Romney LOOKED Presidential. That was all the insurance they thought they needed.

They were wrong.


And realize that the PRESIDENT has NOTHING to DO with your FREEDOM!

The SHERIFF is the one who is supposed to be DEFENDING YOUR RIGHTS!


We need to STOP PANDERING to this DOG and PONY SHOW!!!!

I was here in 07-08 - THOUSANDS of us learned from our mistakes and realized that we're not supposed to even CARE who is PRESIDENT! Please make the connection and come to terms with the fact that your freedom is within your grasp - now go get it!

The only reason I've been hanging around here the last year was to bring you from the Ron Paul Revolution ->>> To the REAL BATTLE FOR LIBERTY!

If I can't stop you from "registering" to vote in this FRAUD - then at least start focusing on the ONE issue that matters in THAT system - WHO is your SHERIFF and will he DEFEND YOUR RIGHTS?

I Don't Want A President That Protects My Rights...

...I want a president who returns the power of protecting our rights back to where it belongs, in the hands of the states and counties.

We need to get an early start on 2016: Support Rand PAC 2016



I urge you

Watch "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky. Its on YouTube now. It is an eye opener. You'll never see this man on mainstream media, ever, because of this. Primarily because it is true. The blackout on Paul was not accident. It was a concerted effort to put in the fix. Rick Perry running when he had no chance in hell was an effort to stop Paul. Why did Santorum stay in the race, even though he had zero chance? It was to prevent Paul from picking up enough to get a brokered convention. It is ALL rigged. Stop denying it. "It can never happen here." WELL IT HAS HAPPENED HERE! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci_1Ghk0CIc

After the last five years and you still think

that "Republicans" get to choose their candidate? Are you retarded or something?

The elites have tremendous influence and can manipulate rules

True. But if you don't think the majority of republicans behaved like good little pawns, you're way off. If they had resisted the "inevitable" candidate he would not have been so inevitable. If they had opened their eyes they might have considered Ron... (USA! USA! USA! USA!).

(note it wasn't only the elites doing all that chanting and cheating)

It was their influence and manipulation

The majority of Republicans did not want Romney. There were only 10 Republicans canddiates that debated, and you saw (if you watched those debates) they don't all agree.

It's those who refuse to join the GOP that enable good little pawns.

That's the thing about being pawns

What they "don't want" doesn't matter. They still voted in the primaries and cheated in the caucuses in order to get what they didn't want.

I might not be able to respond over the memory of "USA" chants coming from the "unified" republican base.

Actually what they didn't want is Obama

And I'm with them on that.

What Republicans?

There are no Republicans in politics any more. Ron Paul is retiring and there is no way he could have picked himself.

Liberals run the media, both political parties and the Supreme Court. The so called Republican politicians only give lip service while they bow to their liberal task masters.

Republicanism is dead, this country is dead and we are not far behind.

I understand what you're saying

But you're arguing semantics. Hopefully there will be no political parties someday.

The "republicans" in this context is just a label for members of the republican party. They didn't all fall in line for the "inevitable candidate", but most did...whether they wanted to or not.

Most Americans do not understand

Most people I know have no idea what is really going on. They live and breath msm news and have very little truth in their brains because they fill their minds with corporate driven news which we all know is just that, driven by money.

The liberty movement is considered nonsense to them because they hear very little about it, how can we change that?


Republicans no longer pick their candidates. They only believe they do.

This is done on purpose,,

It's to make Jeb Bush look acceptable

Early in the race I wavered on supporting Paul too

My thinking was support the obvious chosen one Romney...
Or hawkish, overly conservative Santorum
Intelligent, great speaking Gingrich
Or Paul even though I knew in the general that the MSM would use the newsletters to continuously label him a racist and too extreme - I stayed with supporting Paul because his ideas made sense to me and was the only GOP candidate that wasn't so harsh towards illegal immigration - something that the GOP had to present in order to get the Hispanic vote. I do not agree totally with Paul's foreign policy , but I figured he is not king and would be checked by Congress and there could be some comprimise.

The GOP loss is bad for all small government, low tax proponents. It is over for conservatives and liberty candidates.
Ready yourself for European style socialism.

Answer me this. How much should we in the minority take before actually rioting? Didn't happen with Patriot act or NDAA - so maybe when taxes go up that more and more people go on welfare programs?

It seems to me that we would be supportive of Boehner's effort to keep taxes from going up - like him or not.

I wonder

what Santorum is thinking about all this... Most of my mainstream Republican friends rooted for him big time when he was in the race and of course, transferred their support to Romney later on to "defeat" greater of two evils. I got the impression they actually had some passion for Santorum at the time (of course, nothing like the passion of a Ron Paul supporter).

Silly me

I found some of his dumb comments:

“Yeah, I think we did lose a lot of [the] Hispanic vote,” he said. “I think one of the reasons [is], we didn’t talk about all the issues that that community, which, as all immigrant communities are, there are a disproportionate [number who are] middle and lower income who are trying to struggle to rise. We didn’t have a strong message for those folks. And I’m not just talking Hispanics, I’m talking writ large."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83621.html#ixzz2Bp...