I have carefully observed Paul's reaction to the issue of the RNC participation and thirdparty indy. It seems he adapt his answer according to how the questioneer is, e.g. whether he or she is positive or more negative towards him. He did say very recently anything can still happen and I am sure he thinks there
is still an "outside" chance he can be nominated at the convention. As he said all the time, McCain can still stumble and I think he and us must be encouraged by what happened in Nevada where he managed to convince a substantial part of the delegates who were going to vote for McCain to vote for him instead. The GOP will probably not give him any state speeches anymore, but they cannot keep him from providing a prime speech time during the convention, otherwise they risk a "severe" backlash and know without any support from RP voters (and with the LP with Barr hopefully) provide the perfect storm of us. The GOP should know they need every vote and have NO chance without the Ron Paul vote/support. So they have to change the platform. With a strategic and powerful speech (and given economic deterioration and a worsening Iraq situation) the majority of the GOP delegates may well decide to vote for Dr. Paul, or otherwise a compromise candidate should be chosen. McCain cannot unify the GOP. The less than two evil argument is not very convincing. McCain'c cancer could deteriorate also. If McCain just just just fail to get the majority during the first round of voting, we have a real shoe in!
SPG and others: I wonder whether the pledged delegates and/or bound delegates could sit out during the first ballot of voting, if they are unsure, do not vote for McCain,but also cannot vote for Paul during the first round. Or do they all have to vote?
And just to throw out one possible scene-changing event, what if Bush is truly crazy enough to attack Iran? Do you think even the 30% Sheep will support him, and McCain, then? And you know that that would tank the dollar and the economy from their current robust state (that's sarcasm).
I do think it was, and is, a mistake for Ron Paul to talk as if he has automatically lost the nomination, though. How can he expect to further his message, and expect us to be fired up over going to the convention, if he sounds like he has already given up?
..unfortunately, he did not say that he was not running third party. He FLAT OUT said he would NOT be in the running for President, in the election, PERIOD.
Now, I am not sure why he said it or if he has other reasons than the one that is: knowing I will not be elected at the convention. If that were his only reason, then I would say, "Let us all give him the biggest surprise of his LIFE at that convention. President Dr. PAUL!" I do not know his reasons though, and it could be something else, entirely.
On the other hand, I believe he explained his pro-life stance the best I have heard, as well as some other great points and I could "hear" people waking up, all over the country. WHAT an interview!!!
Well, he has already conceded the GOP nomination. So, since he has already conceded he will not be the GOP nominee, the only other way to be in the general election is to be a third party/independent candidate, so yes, the question he was asked was just another way of phrasing the very common "will you run third party this November?" question.
And however it was phrased, this time, he answered simply "No." Period. So, no chance to mark Ron's name on the November ballot, period.
As for the pro-life thing. I agree. Best. Response. Ever.
Observations
I have carefully observed Paul's reaction to the issue of the RNC participation and thirdparty indy. It seems he adapt his answer according to how the questioneer is, e.g. whether he or she is positive or more negative towards him. He did say very recently anything can still happen and I am sure he thinks there
is still an "outside" chance he can be nominated at the convention. As he said all the time, McCain can still stumble and I think he and us must be encouraged by what happened in Nevada where he managed to convince a substantial part of the delegates who were going to vote for McCain to vote for him instead. The GOP will probably not give him any state speeches anymore, but they cannot keep him from providing a prime speech time during the convention, otherwise they risk a "severe" backlash and know without any support from RP voters (and with the LP with Barr hopefully) provide the perfect storm of us. The GOP should know they need every vote and have NO chance without the Ron Paul vote/support. So they have to change the platform. With a strategic and powerful speech (and given economic deterioration and a worsening Iraq situation) the majority of the GOP delegates may well decide to vote for Dr. Paul, or otherwise a compromise candidate should be chosen. McCain cannot unify the GOP. The less than two evil argument is not very convincing. McCain'c cancer could deteriorate also. If McCain just just just fail to get the majority during the first round of voting, we have a real shoe in!
SPG and others: I wonder whether the pledged delegates and/or bound delegates could sit out during the first ballot of voting, if they are unsure, do not vote for McCain,but also cannot vote for Paul during the first round. Or do they all have to vote?
And just to throw out one
And just to throw out one possible scene-changing event, what if Bush is truly crazy enough to attack Iran? Do you think even the 30% Sheep will support him, and McCain, then? And you know that that would tank the dollar and the economy from their current robust state (that's sarcasm).
I do think it was, and is, a mistake for Ron Paul to talk as if he has automatically lost the nomination, though. How can he expect to further his message, and expect us to be fired up over going to the convention, if he sounds like he has already given up?
I think they will build Iran
I think they will build Iran up and lead it to the next Prez.
Good clip.
WWW.ronpaulforum.info
great interview - share it
Musician/Assistant Meetup organizer. Hear my stuff: www.myspace.com/americanp...
I was kind of sad
when Ron Paul answered flat out "No." to the third-party question.
This was the best speach and the worst
..unfortunately, he did not say that he was not running third party. He FLAT OUT said he would NOT be in the running for President, in the election, PERIOD.
Now, I am not sure why he said it or if he has other reasons than the one that is: knowing I will not be elected at the convention. If that were his only reason, then I would say, "Let us all give him the biggest surprise of his LIFE at that convention. President Dr. PAUL!" I do not know his reasons though, and it could be something else, entirely.
On the other hand, I believe he explained his pro-life stance the best I have heard, as well as some other great points and I could "hear" people waking up, all over the country. WHAT an interview!!!
Well, he has already conceded the GOP nomination
Well, he has already conceded the GOP nomination. So, since he has already conceded he will not be the GOP nominee, the only other way to be in the general election is to be a third party/independent candidate, so yes, the question he was asked was just another way of phrasing the very common "will you run third party this November?" question.
And however it was phrased, this time, he answered simply "No." Period. So, no chance to mark Ron's name on the November ballot, period.
As for the pro-life thing. I agree. Best. Response. Ever.
"No"
This was the only disappointment in this excellent interview.
bump
for knowledge
everyone should hear
everyone should hear this..think was his best ever explanations...