Real Clear Politics has Maine as the #1 state likely to switch party representation in the Senate.
They also have Maine down as likely to vote for Obama - again.
If we do lose the senate seat it will be in name only, I do not see much difference between Big Govt Snowe and Big Govt King.
Jan Staples and Peter Cianchette.
Once Charlie Webster announced the warning that the Ron Paul "people" were going to "hijack" the convention, what action did Staples and Cianchette take to offset the Paul machine? Better question is, were their actions effective? I never did quite figure out the hijack message; being a very new republican I cant quite read between the lines yet.
Nonetheless: If the convention was hijacked, ie the ownership and possession were transferred, who was the original owner?
Mike G: "Cape Elizabeth republican and country club Cianchette..."
Just one problem -- Cianchette is not from, nor does he live in, Cape Elizabeth. But what are facts to Mike G? Elusive details, that when found, are ignored.
He did represent them in the Legislature so his comments are more correct. I would say you represent a community that elects you to do so, you do not necessarily represent a community just because you live in it.
You might want to check your own fact Pat.
Check your facts, Stavros. Cianchette lives in South Portland and he has representated anyone in public office for 13 years.
Nonetheless: If the convention was hijacked, ie the ownership and possession were transferred, who was the original owner?
With Webster & CO it's top-down, Spider.
"Strong chair; weak committee."
We're working on that.
"Cape Elizabeth republican (Staples) and country club Cianchette..."
Just a poor sentence on my part Pat, but I thank you for correcting Apollo on his Lepage is an automatic delegate to convention statement
""For us," Staples said, "it's trying to get back control of our party -- ."" (from the link provided by apollo)
this really bothers me. Traci G quote
The premise that it is their party is the problem, because it is true.
While we as mere voters can enroll as a Republican and vote in their primary, that does not mean as far as the Republican Party is concerned that we can determine in any significant manner what the choices will be, what wins. And we sure as hell as mere voters don't get to tell the Republican Party who the chair of their state convention will be and further how dare you meaningless upstarts tell us, the Republican Party, who will get to go down to the big party in Tampa.
No wonder Apollo, Staples and Cianchette are upset.
I don't think that the actions of any Ron Paul supporters should dissuade someone from voting for Ron Paul. Therefore, the idiotic actions of two Romney supporters will not prevent me from holding my nose and voting for Romney.
A Letter from Louis "Woody" Jenkins, Chairman of GOP East Baton Rouge Parish, to Reince Priebus, RNC Convention Chairman:
PDF link - http://centralcitynews.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Lt-Reince-Priebus-7...
I'd agree we shouldn't base our vote on the heavy hand of politics in America, but it does speak to the process and control of our choices these many decades by both parties. Certainly I who have watched politics and participated in politics to a small degree am not surprised in anyway as to the reaction here in Maine and nationwide to the threat to the status quo by a non-conventional candidate, Paul.
I certainly view what is occurring as a confirmation of what many know reasonably as fact, politicking is crooked. It is good to see it so clearly, the light has been shown on it again for all who wish to see it again.
I will not vote for Romney not because of the rotten politics but because of his proposed foreign policy, a foreign policy that continues to bankrupt this nation and destroys liberty.
"seems likely that Congressman Paul's Audit the FED bill and his stance on military intervention, while popular nationally, may be displeasing to the big money interests that are funding Governor Romney's campaign."
The Morning Sentinel
Posted: August 7
Updated: Today at 12:37 AM
Ron Paul's Maine delegates reject compromise as GOP convention nears
By Kevin Millerkmiller@mainetoday.com
Washington bureau chief
WASHINGTON — Supporters of presidential candidate Ron Paul have rejected a compromise from the Maine Republican Party chairman, raising the stakes in a political showdown that could see the state lose its coveted delegate seats during the upcoming Republican National Convention.
Later this week, Republican leaders from around the country will meet in Washington, D.C., to consider what role, if any, Maine's 24-member delegation will play at the GOP convention, which starts Aug. 27 in Tampa.
Why am I not surprised? Romney won the straw poll. Romney had half the delegates at the State Convention. But for some reason, the Ron Paul leadership in Maine thinks they deserve it all.
The establishment at the convention was so horrified that the Republican wing of the Republican Party showed up that many in the establishment simply went home. It happened twelve years ago too. The progressives in the Romney camp are trying to boot five states from participation at the convention in Tampa and they don't want Ron Paul to speak there. They don't want the word, "liberty" mentioned for fear of bringing disapproval from any Democrats that might hear the word on TV. Republicans in Maine have tried compromising with Democrats for four decades. That is their comfort zone. It has not worked to our advantage.
In a world of so many absolutes...
I find it absolutely staggering that anybody who claims to stand for "LIBERTY" would not do everything in their power, with every fiber of their being, to make sure that Barack Obama does not have a second term.
I will not rattle off the endless reasons why he should not have that second term; but will wonder for a minute about how historians will view this election a century from now.
Notice I did not say "American Historians" because the continuation of this nation for a hundred years is certainly in doubt.
In 2008, the collective "WE" (not me!) elected someone who did not spend his formative years in America, and was not raised as an American - no matter where he happened to be born.
"WE" elected someone who, at his core, does not love this nation. He doesn't even LIKE this nation.
He thinks we're greedy.
He thinks we're racists.
He thinks we're unexceptional.
He thinks we're in no position to lead.
He thinks we're WRONG...
This has been endlessly confirmed throughout the last three and a half years.
Mitt Romney was definitely NOT my first, second or third choice for the GOP Nominee... but he's the alternative to Barack Obama.
That's all any American who believes in "LIBERTY" needs to know. You're making NO advance of "LIBERTY" with a "protest vote" or "statement" by wasting your precious vote with a write-in for Ron Paul or leave-it-blank when it's your time to STEP UP and choose our next President.
If you're not voting against Barack Obama - you're passively voting FOR him.
The QUESTION is: Who will be writing our history in a hundred years... An American Historian or somebody else?
But Rick, the Ron Paul leader in Maine, Brent Tweed, publicly endorsed Obama. So that explains their behavior. They accuse Staples of being a poor loser, but in fact, they are. Ron Paul isn't the nominee, so their goal is to hurt Romney.
seems as though Maine isn't the only place where delegates are being hand selected. I question if voting for president makes a difference.
What I find even more amusing that Apollo's comment that Gov. Lepage was an automatic delegate, is that we are told day in and day out that Willard is the nominee of the GOP. Even here on this forum, he has it all wrapped up. SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, the question is why are they challenging the outcome of the convention, where a mere 20 delegates out of I don't know, thousands, are going to gather in Tampa and pick Willard. Why all the hype? If anyone knows please feel free to comment???
Just saw this on a blog, but can you imagine if Dr. Paul picks a VP candidate now before Willard? Wouldn't that create a Bleep storm!!
Ron Paul supporters are hell bent on becoming irrelevant through their unwavering support of a cult of personality candidate, who, for all intents and purposes, has LOST. Which begs the question…with what I believe is a needed effort—Defense of Liberty PAC—how are liberty minded pragmatists supposed to take their leaders, supporters, or efforts seriously? DOLPAC will unfortunately wither because they have limited their base through their support of Ron Paul to the fringe. They will never bring liberty to the masses.
Apollo, Brent Tweed did not endorse Obama. He stated that it would be better for Obama to win than Romney. His reasoning seems obvious to me -- when you have two candidates who share the same political philosophy and similar positions on key issues, it's better to have the Democrats do the damage so that the Republican Party isn't tainted, and can come back strong. Others, such as Thrasybulus, on this forum have expressed the same idea. It seems dishonest for you to spin statements like this as you have done, when in the same breath Tweed said how much he dislikes Obama. Does stating how much you dislike a candidate now amount to an endorsement, or are you just honing your propaganda skills?
By the way, if Ron Paul delegates corrupted the convention, as Staples claims, why would there be any need to share delegates? Perhaps you have been taking a page from Obama's book? I mean, It's not fair that the supporters of Romney came in second, right? After all there were almost as many of them as there were Paul supporters. This winner-take-all mentality is what is wrong with America! We need to "share the votes" so that everyone can be a winner!
Beth, thanks for sharing the GQ link. The question is, is there any state where the rules are being followed? I cataloged a few in my initial post... here is a more comprehensive list. How the GOP Establishment Stole the Nomination from Ron Paul.
Of course, I can't validate all of these accusations but it sure is an eye opener. The entry on Massachusetts is particularly amusing. "Massachusetts: Paul won 16 of the 27 delegates selected so far in Romney's home state. In addition, he swept all 6 from Romney's home county. As a result (for the first time ever in the state), delegates were asked to sign an affidavit stating 'I certify under the pain and penalty of perjury, that on the first ballot at the 2012 Republican National Convention, I will affirmatively Vote for Mitt Romney, the winner of the 2012 Massachusetts Presidential Primary.' The state GOP then covered up Romney's embarrassing loss by invalidating ballots and ousting the Paul delegates."
How embarrassing for the RNC to preemptively back a candidate who cannot win a majority of delegates in his home state, much less his home county! Whether or not you like Ron Paul, it seems hard to deny that a very broken process is leading to the selection of candidates like this, who is seemingly not anyone's first, second, or third choice. It's almost like the Republicans want to lose... although, if the economy is bad enough at voting time Mittens could still pull it off.
Reality Check: GOP refuses to seat Maine delegation unless they agree to "Compromise"?
Three Pipe, do you see any problem with the Ron Paulers inviting Gary Johnson, the nominee of another political party, to speak at their "pre convention rally" in Tampa? Many of the Ron Paul people on AMG have already said they are voting for Gary Johnson. Hell, I've even seen a few "Gary Johnson 2012" signs up in the Lakes Region. I don't know the motivation of Jan Staples or Peter Cianchette or the RNC, but I would be willing to bet that they don't want hard core Ron Paul delegates making a spectacle of themselves on the floor of the convention, much like they have done at State Conventions around the country.
pdub Windham, as long as Linda Bean pours tens of thousands of dollars into DOLP, it's not going to be going away. It would be interesting to talk to Linda Bean and ask her if funding a Republican Party civil war serves any purpose.
I think that these things are pre determined and we, the voters don't have to much say. For over two decades I have followed Dr. Paul. I liked a lot of what he had to say and thought it would have value for our future and how government operates. Perhaps I have been naive in the consideration that he could actually win. It is evident to me now that there are many individuals who have to much at stake to allow a Constitutonal governement, a Republc to stand.
We have become an industrial military complex, couple that with a giant industrial medical complex and we are screwed. To many people are making to much money...that to big to fail scenario, but worse. Many now have confused rights with entitlements and truly believe that even if they can not afford to pay for something if it is in their best interest government should foot the bill...they don't recognize that government takes their slice of the pie first thus increasing the costs of goods and services.
The other problem that goes hand in hand with the above is that the folks I hear hollering about freedom and hollering to decrease the welfare state and a liteny of other protests whine even louder when it is suggested their own personal benefits are decreased...they then point the finger and say take his, not mine. Social Security is a perfect example. Many tout how they earned it, however a huge percentage get far more than they have vested, but if government ever said you can only take out what you put in plus a reasonable interest people would riot and the pol that suggested it would be tarred and feathered...aka not re-elected.
I guess the point I am trying to make here is that the government expansion since FDR has put us on a course of collapse...back room deals, corruption are not limited to one party...those who would be the commisars and rule over the American people, the masses are concerned with one thing, themselves. It is past time to rectify this situation...politicians are far to entrenched with tentacles reaching everywhere.
Sometimes I am embarrased to say I am in politics...there is so little integrity left, it is a very sad state of affairs.
I can not stand Barrack Obama...him and his wife make me sick to my stomach...with all the hoopla that has transpired with the delegates it is becoming increasingly difficult for me to consider checking the box for Mitt Romney...I would have gladdly checked that box if the RNC and the Romney campaign ensued a good clean fight...now I am having second thoughts and rest assured, I am not the only one. Romneys team should come clean and tlet the chips fall where they may.
Most people don't want freedom.
Great post, Beth. Your closing line reminds my of a quote by Lord Acton - "At all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities...." Certainly true of the American founding, when roughly 1/3 of the people supported liberty and 1/3 supported the crown. Just as today, about 1/3 of folks like Ron Paul. Granted, it's far higher than the number of people for whom Mitt Romney was the first, second or third choice going into this. Given a level playing field, I think Ron Paul could have successfully captured far more of those in the middle than Mitt.
Apollo, my loyalty is more to the country than to a party. I think it's great when leaders from different parties agree, as long as they agree on things that are good for the country. I don't believe that having more than one candidate running in a party election constitutes a civil war, although your attitude to the contrary remind me of a Putin quote I will try to dig up.
Several candidates ran for the Republican nomination. Romney won and it's time to support him against Obama. If the Ron Paul followers aren't going to do that, then they are not real Republicans.