HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Ron Paul declines a speak...

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:35 PM

Ron Paul declines a speaking spot at GOP convention after Romney demands to review remarks

Source: Houston Chronicle

The libertarian Republican presidential candidate says he’s declined an opportunity to speak at the Republican National Convention in Tampa because Mitt Romney’s campaign imposed two conditions on any Paul speech — that it be reviewed by the nominee-to-be’s team and that it include an endorsement without hesitation or reservation.

“It wouldn’t be my speech,” the Texas congressman told the New York Times. “That would undo everything I’ve done in the last 30 years. I don’t fully endorse him for president.”

Pundits noted that the uncompromising attitude that has won Paul a national following also limits his clout within the GOP.

“Uncompromising and perfectly willing to operate on the margins of mainstream politics for decades, Ron Paul proved unable to take his liberty message to a broader audience,” Charlie Mahtesian wrote today in Politico. “Even this year, at the height of his national influence and popularity, the Texas congressman failed to win the popular vote in a single state and never seriously threatened to win the GOP nomination.”


Read more: http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/08/ron-paul-declines-a-speaking-spot-at-gop-convention-after-romney-demands-to-review-remarks/

48 replies, 13393 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 48 replies Author Time Post
Reply Ron Paul declines a speaking spot at GOP convention after Romney demands to review remarks (Original post)
trailmonkee Aug 2012 OP
annabanana Aug 2012 #1
corkhead Aug 2012 #12
tridim Aug 2012 #2
trailmonkee Aug 2012 #6
progressivebydesign Aug 2012 #19
oldsarge54 Aug 2012 #31
no_hypocrisy Aug 2012 #3
TeamPooka Aug 2012 #30
oldsarge54 Aug 2012 #32
awoke_in_2003 Aug 2012 #34
defacto7 Aug 2012 #37
TeamPooka Aug 2012 #36
oldsarge54 Aug 2012 #38
SunSeeker Aug 2012 #47
Botany Aug 2012 #4
oldsarge54 Aug 2012 #39
truthisfreedom Aug 2012 #5
SunSeeker Aug 2012 #48
pinto Aug 2012 #7
KaryninMiami Aug 2012 #8
freshwest Aug 2012 #9
Jamaal510 Aug 2012 #10
Posteritatis Aug 2012 #29
CanonRay Aug 2012 #11
arcane1 Aug 2012 #13
evilhime Aug 2012 #14
wordpix Aug 2012 #15
tama Aug 2012 #16
Berlum Aug 2012 #17
harun Aug 2012 #46
northoftheborder Aug 2012 #18
Heather MC Aug 2012 #24
Scootaloo Aug 2012 #28
Aviation Pro Aug 2012 #20
Bernardo de La Paz Aug 2012 #21
Heather MC Aug 2012 #22
sad sally Aug 2012 #23
Bohunk68 Aug 2012 #25
bluestateguy Aug 2012 #26
BlueMTexpat Aug 2012 #27
Amonester Aug 2012 #33
bushisanidiot Aug 2012 #35
oldsarge54 Aug 2012 #40
hootinholler Aug 2012 #41
oldsarge54 Aug 2012 #43
SDjack Aug 2012 #42
Caeser67 Aug 2012 #44
Blue_Tires Aug 2012 #45

Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:39 PM

1. lol.. He should hand him a speech to vett and then throw it out. . . .n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annabanana (Reply #1)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:17 PM

12. I was thinking he should pull an Elvis Costello...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Radio

1977 Saturday Night Live appearance


Costello wanted to play "Radio Radio" on SNL. Columbia Records, however, was interested in having an already-established song performed on SNL, to increase interest in the band before the American release of My Aim Is True and This Year's Model. In the event, Costello began the SNL performance by playing "Less than Zero." However, after a few bars, he turned to the Attractions, waving his hand and yelling "Stop! Stop!," then said to the audience, "I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen, there's no reason to do this song here," ...(snip)

He then led the band in a performance of "Radio Radio." Costello did not appear on Saturday Night Live again until 1989 (one of only three people to have their ban from SNL lifted). This version of "Radio Radio" (fading into the "false start" can be found (in monaural) on Saturday Night Live: 25 Years of Musical Performances, Vol. 1.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:39 PM

2. So I guess that means Rmoney has reviewed the remarks of the other speakers as well?

Own it Mittens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #2)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:41 PM

6. nice one.... no excuses....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #2)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 04:25 PM

19. Of course he has! Because the same speech writers wrote all their speeches....

Like Ann Romney and the "likability show" that they're going to put on at the Convention. She is going to be reading a speech that was no doubt written by one of Reagan's speech writers. The whole thing is scripted right down to the fake laughs and sets 'designed to make Romney seem likable."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #2)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 06:34 PM

31. Yep

Why not, they veto the reporters questions before hand. Don't ask about plans, taxes, abortion, medicine, which regulations, and what do other Republicans say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:39 PM

3. I don't blame Paul.

The Republican Party is supposed to be a "big tent", right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to no_hypocrisy (Reply #3)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:28 PM

30. except for gays, blacks, latinos and women, yeah big tent all the way

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamPooka (Reply #30)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 06:41 PM

32. Your list is too short

union members, liberals, teachers, firemen, public servants... I'm sure I'm missing a few myself. Keep adding guys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldsarge54 (Reply #32)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 11:05 PM

34. i'll add atheists. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awoke_in_2003 (Reply #34)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 01:01 AM

37. amen!

to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldsarge54 (Reply #32)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 11:51 PM

36. It's quicker to just say who's alllowed:

White men

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamPooka (Reply #36)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 05:46 AM

38. Not Really

I'm a white man, not gay, plain old wasp. Yep, I'm even a methodist. They still wouldn't like me. And until they get a divorce from the religious right (which are neither), I will vote for a yaller dog before I vote Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldsarge54 (Reply #38)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 01:21 AM

47. Bam!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:40 PM

4. That is awful

I mean all those Ron Paul supporters might just stay home and not vote at
all in this year's election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #4)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 05:49 AM

39. Wouldn't it be more fun

to seduce them to the dark side and persuade the Paulites to vote Democrat in protest?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:40 PM

5. That's what happens when you're principled.

A worthy opponent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truthisfreedom (Reply #5)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 01:28 AM

48. Yeah, he's really principled when it comes to his ego. Libertarianism? No so much.

A true libertarian would not be a religious nut-bag anti-choice extremist like he is, trying to take the most basic of all liberties from a woman: the right to control her own body. This douchebag would have government force women to give birth against their will, all while he screeches against big government and carries on with his paranoid fantasies about the "one world order" and the "Amero."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:41 PM

7. LOL - some of all this Repub fracturing is a hilarious sideshow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:41 PM

8. Interesting turn of events.

Is it too late for him to run as a third party choice? He'd pull from Romney- especially those begrudgingly voting for him who prefer Paul...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:59 PM

9. Hah! 'I don’t fully endorse him for president.' Nice weaseling, Ronnie.

Didn't even have the guts to say 'No' on that one... Does 'endorse,' but not 'fully endorse.' Like being a 'little bit preggers.' Go back to the your following at Infowars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:03 PM

10. Not a RP fan,

but man...the G0Pee did him wrong. Of course, we already know how much of a butthole Robme is, anyway. He made those unreasonable demands at his own risk though--after this, many Paulites might stay home rather than vote for Robme. I think he passed up a good opportunity to pick up some of RP's support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Reply #10)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:23 PM

29. Yep. Glad he's not in the running but the RNC's behaviour's pretty vile. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:07 PM

11. Rebuplican's nature is to try to control everything

they are the ultimate control freaks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:54 PM

13. Haha! Suddenly, they think being "uncompromising" is a bad thing

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:56 PM

14. it shows Romney's insecurity

In his position I would probably do the same, since Paul has resisted endorsing him keeping his delegates, and has been outspoken on things that Romney probably would prefer not be mentioned at that point. Better Ron Paul not speak, it sends a loud message to his supporters!! His son is talking though right? Truly a nut job IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:56 PM

15. rats are chewing on each other - keep it up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:57 PM

16. Was wondering about that

 

would Ron Paul be allowed to speak freely, or just according to script. So no surprise there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 04:02 PM

17. Why do Republicans HATE democracy?

Freaking Fascist Wankers (R - 1%).

No wonder Issac is wreaking Biblical chastisement upon them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #17)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 03:15 PM

46. GOP never advocates for Democracy or Free Speach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 04:24 PM

18. Kerry reviewed and edited Obama's speech at convention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to northoftheborder (Reply #18)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:07 PM

24. The difference is Obama was not at odds with Kerry

And I doubt he had to be told to whole heartedly endorse Kerry. I believe in inspecting what you expect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to northoftheborder (Reply #18)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:19 PM

28. Was Obama running against Kerry in the '04 primary?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 04:26 PM

20. Commander Monkey Pancakes....

...may be bat shit crazy, but at least he stuck to his convictions.

And the enemy of my enemy is a friend.

Good on him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 04:41 PM

21. GOP reap whirlwind they sowed: they polarized USA, now their own party is polarized. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:04 PM

22. Ron Paul won Iowa!!!

I wish he had agreed to it then went Rogue and did his own thing that would have been epic!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:05 PM

23. Follows Romney's control freakishness - like this last week in New Mexico when he told local

Colorado reporters he would give one of them a chance to interview him that there was one stipulation. Romney would not allow any questions whatsoever on Todd Akin or abortion. If a reporter dared ask, the interview would end.

It's one thing to be asked a question and not answer it, but to not allow a question to be asked says even more. It keeps voters in the dark. Good for Denver’s CBS4, Political Specialist Shaun Boyd who told what his demands were for her to be able to interview him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:13 PM

25. It wouldn't surprise me

in the slightest to hear that the Democratic speakers will also be vetted. I would bet that all speeches at all conventions are vetted by the powers that be. From what I've seen on fb from some of Paul's supporters, they are one-issue voters, usually in Paul's case on one of three issues: pot legalisation, bring the troops home, and dump the Fed and bring back the gold standard. In any event, I have serious doubts that any of them would vote for the Democratic candidates further down the ticket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:18 PM

26. Let's start with the Bob Casey in '92 analogies

and repeat repeat repeat all of the myths about him being disallowed to speak at the convention in 1992 and make analogies to Ron Paul and this year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:19 PM

27. This could in some ways help Barack Obama's chances, at least in "purple" areas.

I visited my birth state of Montana this summer. I saw a few Obama-Biden signs and quite a few Ron Paul signs. I saw NO Romney signs at all. I am sure that there are plenty of Romney supporters there because there are always those who will vote for the GOP candidate - whoever it may be. Montana also has a Morman population of about 8%, with the denomination ranking fourth according to this breakdown: http://www.religionatlas.org/religion_region/ROCKYMOUNTAINWEST/montana.htm

But, and this is a big but. If Paul supporters really believe that their candidate has been "dissed" by the GOP - and Paul's refusal to speak at the convention without pre-review will support that belief - they will likely not support the GOP candidate.

This will not translate into active votes for Obama but could mean that a sizable majority of Paul supporters either won't vote at all, will vote for Paul where he may be on the ballot (if he still is anywhere) or will simply write-in a vote for Paul because they simply cannot stomach Romney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 09:21 PM

33. What's a "liberty message" when...

the speaker doesn't even have the "liberty" to deliver his "liberty message"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 11:24 PM

35. It's the Mormon church who wants to approve Paul's speech they are very scripted.

All smoke and mirrors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:00 AM

40. In All Seriousness

Will there be a Republican Party at the end of this cycle? They have labeled the old time real Republicans RHINOs, and committed to purge them from their ranks. The Tea Party acts as a separate party, at times in the House voting en-bloc with the Democrats against the Republicans, and seems to be pushing an actual version of fascism. The Paul supported seem to trying to undo everything since 1912, from the Fed to pushing the gold standard. I believe that the religious right actually secretly envies the powers of the taliban. Will the Republicans self-destruct this December?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldsarge54 (Reply #40)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 09:44 AM

41. "At times voting en-block with the Democrats"

I think I missed that part. When exactly did the teabaggers side with Democrats?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hootinholler (Reply #41)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 11:03 AM

43. I don't Remember

I don't remember the two occasions. I do remember is had to do with a Republican proposal that increased taxes, and my utter astonishment at the time when it happened. Anyone else has the finger on the moment of time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 10:39 AM

42. Kabuki theater. I have a batch of DVD movies to watch this week. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 02:42 PM

44. and that it include an endorsement without hesitation or reservation.

Those words sound familiar. I took that oath 25 years ago. Those of you who have "light" know what I'm talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 02:51 PM

45. It's smart to have final control over the speech

since Paul can only hurt Romney...

And the last thing the GOP wants on prime time is some half-senile man ranting about the gold standard and Israel and abolishing the Department of Education and U.N. black helicopters and getting out from the oppressive tyranny of the 1964 Civil Rights Act...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread