Mitt Romney Beats Ron Paul By ONE VOTE In GOP Straw Poll

NEW ORLEANS — Mitt Romney didn't attend the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, but still got a boost from those at the conference.

The former Massachusetts governor won a test vote of likely 2012 presidential candidates – by one vote. He got 439.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul came in second with 438 votes, followed by Sarah Palin with 330 and Newt Gingrich with 321.

The results mean little to nothing. Conference staffers put names on the ballot of people they thought were likely to run, and many Republicans considering a bid were left off the list.

Also on the ballot: Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, Mike Pence, Rick Santorum and Gary Johnson.

Over the three-day conference, 1,806 ballots were cast.

Comments

[JohnBryansFontaine]

05:32 PM on 04/17/2010

The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters
By Andrew Walden
American Thinker

November 14, 2007

"...The Texas-based Lone Star Times October 25 publicly requested a response to questions about whether the Paul campaign would repudiate and reject a $500 donation from white supremacist Stormfront.org founder Don Black and end the Stormfront website fundraising for Paul. The Times article lit up the conservative blogosphere for the next week. Paul supporters packed internet comment boards alternately denouncing or excusing the charges. Most politicians are quick to distance themselves from such disreputable donations when they are discovered. Not Paul..."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html

[StanMann]

09:39 AM on 04/13/2010

I am really angry with Romney a@@ right now, and his zany religious fraud supporters.

ROMNEY, you and your people are an insult to the religious community..... You butt head......

that is all I can say now I am soooooooooooooooo angry with that a@@.

[conservativelady]

01:23 PM on 04/13/2010

I take it you must be a Christian? Mormons except Jesus as their personal savior, so they are Christians too. But I guess that's something you don't want to hear, is it. I know they have some goofy beliefs, but their still recognize Jesus, and it isn't for you to judge. Because we are living in the United States, and not in the middle east, where Jesus was from, I am sure we all have it wrong in one way or another, so the point is really about your own personal relationship with Jesus. Our idea of Christianity is very Westernized, based on our culture. Being a protastant really has little or nothing to do with it. You really need to get a grip. Palin isn't presidential material, I take it that's why you are really ticked off. I am not so sure I want someone who speaks in tongues. That is equally goofy, if not more.

[JohnBryansFontaine]

09:34 AM on 04/13/2010

Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy Views Divide Southern Republican Leadership Conference
By Faiz Shakir
Apr 10th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Think Progress

"...Ron Paul continues to breed lingering divisions on the right. The former Republican presidential candidate delivered a blistering criticism of neoconservative foreign policy views at the Conservative Political Action Conference earlier this year while taking home a victory in the presidential straw poll with 31 percent of the vote. Rush Limbaugh responded by claiming CPAC is “not an organization of conservatives,” and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee similarly said CPAC is becoming “increasingly libertarian and less Republican.”

Today at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, a similar dynamic played out. House Republican Conference Chairman Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) was booed by Ron Paul followers during his speech. Washington Post blogger Dave Weigel, who is reporting from the conference, described the scene: “Pence says ‘America stands with Israel’; Ron Paul contingent boos, shouted down by chants of ‘USA!’...”

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/10/ron-paul-at-srlc/

[Steve249]

10:21 AM on 04/13/2010

Haha, yeah that's awesome. Ron Paul was pissing off the neocons. Thanks for posting something nice about Ron Paul!

[JohnBryansFontaine]

11:23 AM on 04/13/2010

Ron Paul is dividing and weakening Conservatives in general, and further, he's giving Libertarians a worse name than they have already. The joke's on both of these groups.

[rotorhead1871]

12:05 AM on 04/13/2010

he is the best so far, but wont make the cut on the national stage. too isolated idealoically from all but the pretty far right, not to mention the religious zealots


elephant party is really hurting, probably 4 more obama yrs........

nice job republicians--on all of us!!! blame REGAN!!!

you have totally lost your way and us too......

[JohnBryansFontaine]

11:38 PM on 04/12/2010

Ron Paul '90s newsletters rant against blacks, gays
January 11, 2008 ( a tad more recent than 1952 )
by Brian Todd
CNN

"...WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A series of newsletters in the name of GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul contain several racist remarks -- including one that says order was restored to Los Angeles after the 1992 riots when blacks went "to pick up their welfare checks."

CNN recently obtained the newsletters -- written in the 1990s and one from the late 1980s -- after a report was published about their existence in The New Republic.

None of the newsletters CNN found says who wrote them, but each was published under Paul's name between his stints as a U.S. congressman from Texas..."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/

[Steve249]

01:28 AM on 04/13/2010

Oh please. Ron Paul didn't write that crap. He's never talked that way in his entire life.

[JohnBryansFontaine]

09:40 AM on 04/13/2010

"Old News"? "Rehashed for Over a Decade"?
Matt Welch
January 11, 2008
Reason

"...Has Paul really disassociated himself from, and "taken moral responsibility" for, these "Ron Paul" newsletters "for over a decade"? If he has, that history has not been recorded by the Nexis database, as best as I can reckon.


The first indication I could find of Paul either expressing remorse about the statements or claiming that he did not author them came in an October 2001 Texas Monthly article -- less than eight years ago. Here is the relevant excerpt, which references a Ron Paul newsletter that referred to then-Rep. Barbara Jordan as "Barbara Morondon," and called her the "archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism":

http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d

[JohnBryansFontaine]

09:45 AM on 04/13/2010

"...So what exactly did Paul and his campaign say about these and more egregious statements during his contentious 1996 campaign for Congress, when Democrat Lefty Morris made the newsletters a constant issue? Besides complaining that the quotes were taken "out of context" and proof of his opponent's "race-baiting," Paul and his campaign defended and took full ownership of the comments. For a chronological Nexis tour of Paul's 1996 responses, please read on..."

http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d

[Aerows]

10:47 PM on 04/12/2010

I'm far from a Republican supporter, but I'd rather have Ron Paul lead our country - 10 times over - than have Mitt Romney leading it.

Thankfully, Democrats exist.

[GerryS]

08:37 PM on 04/12/2010

the only decent candidate that got votes was Gary Jonhson--------

[donanobispace]

07:51 PM on 04/12/2010

Republicans are still dazed and confused after that Democratic beat down.

[rotorhead1871]

12:06 AM on 04/13/2010

true, but in the movie they are having more fun than us!!!

[freddiekrueger]

06:26 PM on 04/12/2010

the republicans won't get behind romney due to his perceived "religious handicap". but they aren't likely to get behind paul because he isn't a hawk.

we will see a sad fight between two inadequate candidates, either of which will receive a "superfly splash" from president obama, the likes of which haven't been seen since "superfly" jimmy snuka.

[donanobispace]

07:47 PM on 04/12/2010

"superfly" jimmy snuka :)

[johnminehan]

06:09 PM on 04/12/2010

If the downturn continues, Romney could get some real support in '12. His problem is he could not be more plastic if he wore googles, had no toes and called himself :"Eels O'Brian."

[johnminehan]

06:06 PM on 04/12/2010

For whom is the old and eccentric Rep. Paul a placeholder? Who is the new Libertarian "It-Girl ofr Boy?"

[JohnBryansFontaine]

06:01 PM on 04/12/2010

Ron Paul Still as Scary as Ever
by Earl Ofari Hutchinson
HuffingtonPost
February 21, 2010 02:23 PM

"...Paul's topped that with the infamous slavery quip that he made on Meet the Press. He claimed the Civil War was an unnecessary bloodbath that could and should have been avoided. All Lincoln had to do was buy the slaves. Other slave promoting countries, asserts Paul, didn't fight wars and they ended slavery peacefully. Paul's historical dumbness could and should have been laughed off. It wasn't. It was intently debated, and defended. The scarier point was that it was taken seriously at all.

Paul's legions were unfazed by the controversy; they reveled in it. Paul gave them plenty more ammunition. He asserted that blacks are criminally inclined, political dumb bells, and chronic welfare deadbeats. There was also the alleged Paul hobnob with a noted white supremacist. Here's what Paul on his campaign website ronpaul2008.com had to say about race. In fact he even highlighted this as "Issue: Racism" on the site. "Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry." In other words, the 1954 landmark Supreme Court's Brown vs. Board of education school desegregation decision, the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and legions of court decisions and state laws that bar discrimination are worthless..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/ron-paul-still-as-scary-a_b_470707.html

[END WAR NOW]

06:51 PM on 04/12/2010

And it is fact that Abe Lincoln did not start the civil war to free the slaves. The civil war was fought to "keep the union together" the whole slavery freedom issue was plan B., when the soldiers fighting the war started to question the war.

Abe Lincoln never freed the Northern slaves, only the southern slaves.

But of course you will never learn this in the Prussian model school system, which the United WAR States government uses to Indoctrinate Nationalist State Serfs.

[LunaPark]

09:39 PM on 04/12/2010

Yes, it was the succession of the states (because the Republican victory was considered a threat..I think), that triggered Lincoln to call up volunteer armies to preserve the union. I believe slavery issue was delt with prior to the war with the Missouri Comprimise. If slavery really was the issue, why did it take Lincoln so long to emancipate the slaves? Why didn't Lincoln sign the emancipation proclimation when the war broke out?

And a bigger question is why did he not try negotiation at any time during the war? (he may have, but I'm not sure) Instead it was destruction of a country and the slaughter of 600,000 people. It is truely a sad and horrific chapter in American history.

[JohnBryansFontaine]

10:36 PM on 04/12/2010

Slavery in the North had been totally abolished five years before Lincoln was born

[LunaPark]

08:47 PM on 04/12/2010

There you go again, blurting out the old Paul and racism claim, while completely ignoring the liberal progressives entanglement in race. Somehow Ried, Clinton, Biden get a pass. And lets not forget Byrd's past. Why aren't you commenting on Byrd? What standard are you applying to a current sitting Senator with such a past?

Paul's claim is the war could have been averted and 600,000 lives saved had the government stepped in and purchased the slaves freedom. I think he used England as an example.

[JohnBryansFontaine]

09:06 PM on 04/12/2010

Racism claim? Carefully read the comment above yours if you want to see racism.

[JohnBryansFontaine]

10:16 PM on 04/12/2010

Please tell me what involvment Sen. Byrd had with the Klan during or after 1952?

[gypsysailor]

05:27 PM on 04/12/2010

He looks surprised in the picture.

[straightwhitemaleliberal]

05:27 PM on 04/12/2010

Ron Paul as this generation's Ross Perot ? The mischief may have just begun.

[aspertame2]

05:14 PM on 04/12/2010

A schism in the GOP is liable to have an end game where the corporatists flee the GOP loonies to the left side of the aisle, leaving effectively one viable party, that is blue-dog controlled.

I think we'd be better off with ***4*** parties:

- Progressive democrats (pretty much on the same page with "radicals" like Jon Stewart & Rachel Maddow)
- Moderate (what currently passes for liberal -- I'd put both Clintons and Obama in this camp)
- Corporatist (we own everything but promise to stay out of your bedroom and our country club discriminates only on the basis of $$$.)
- Christian fundamentalist jihad party