Romney Revolt at Liberty University

Keep your Romney, give us Ron Paul !

The John McCain, eh sorry, the Mitt Romney campaign replayed a scene from past failed Republican candidates yesterday. They announced in the morning that Governor Romney would be the commencement speaker at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. The school founded, by Jerry Falwell, is touted as the largest Christian University in the world. And in the afternoon they announced that openly gay, Richard Grenell, would be Romney’s new national security and foreign policy spokesman.

Students at Liberty were in an uproar. Not over Grenell, but over the University choosing Romney instead of their beloved Ron Paul. The firestorm began on the University’s own website, where the thread hit 700 comments in a couple of hours. The discussion was promptly censored and then shut down proving that the University is not very aptly named. But the discussion moved onto Facebook where it continues to spread.

(You can also join the discussion here.) http://www.facebook.com/DougWeadOfficial

Ron Paul has a large support base on campuses in general, all campuses, Christian or otherwise. According to Braedon Wilkerson, Ron Paul district coordinator, he carried the city of Lynchburg by a 51-49% margin and the newly created Liberty University precinct 60-40%. “The campus and the city belong to Ron Paul.”

Maybe not. It turns out that the campus resides on the Carter Glass’ estate. This is the same Senator Glass of the famous Glass-Owen act which established the Federal Reserve. There is even a plaque erected to him on campus, honoring the central bank. Mark DeMoss, who is the evangelical liaison for Mitt Romney, is on the Liberty board of directors.

Meanwhile, the Richard Grenell appointment sparked a fury of emails from prominent Newt Gingrich evangelicals who see the betrayal of their movement as imminent. As a former congressman wrote to me, “once again evangelicals get hind tit (sic).”

Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer and “the Policy boys” of Family Research Council get most of the criticism.

A common suspicion of prominent evangelicals is that they sold the evangelical vote to Senator Rick Santorum in exchange for money to their nonprofit corporations even though Newt Gingrich was the more viable candidate. Indeed, the Iowa FRC leader Bob Vander Platts was reportedly asking Santorum for a million dollars. He eventually supported Santorum. Presumably, a national endorsement would be worth more.

A leader says, “They split the evangelical vote last time by dividing the Huckabee vote with Fred Thompson, giving us McCain as a result. ” And now the charge is that they have divided the vote again, giving Santorum a temporary boost, draining Gingrich, and giving Romney the nomination.

True to the 2008 cycle, Mitt Romney, like John McCain, refused to meet or seek evangelical support early enough. A visit to Liberty now, with the national elections only six months away shows very poor planning. The Romney evangelical meet and greets, which have to be done, should have been done a year ago, when he was planning the elevator for his car garage.

To announce it on the same day as the Richard Grenell announcement is a clumsy attempt to show respect to both the evangelical and gay communities. Instead it shows that the Romney campaign understands neither one.

Meanwhile, the Ron Paul campaign continues to chug along. The congressman raised almost as much money as Romney this quarter. He is the only candidate who beats Obama in the recent Rasmussen poll and his television commercials are on the air in Texas where lovers of liberty will appropriately make their last stand.

Correction: An earlier version of this post stated: ”Ron Paul visited the Liberty University campus in 2008 but he was very poorly treated. He was given a small venue which could not hold the crowd. When he moved outside to speak to the young people who had missed him, the campus police showed up and “escorted” him off campus.”

This was how it was related to me by a RP staffer who must have remembered it wrong. Several people have pointed out that this version is incorrect. That, in fact, he was given a large venue.

Thanks everybody, keep me honest. Here is one of the corrections:

I do have to make a correction to just one piece of this article. I was a State Coordinator for the Ron Paul 2008 campaign and a former Professor at Liberty University. I arranged Ron Paul’s visit to Liberty in 2008. The venue was the Vines Center, which seats c. 10,000. Ron Paul did not have a small venue and did not have to move outside (except to leave). The place was packed, although it was easy to observe that most of those in the audience of 10,000 had been “prepped” to view Ron Paul negatively. Nevertheless it was a polite “coldness”. The “prepping” of the audience beforehand (a couple of days prior I was advised), was the only negative treatment given to Ron Paul during his visit in 2008. I was quite aware that the “leadership” of Liberty University did not support Ron Paul or at least some of his ideas (divided as they were between Huckabee, McCain, and Romney). The only campus police I saw (and remember, I was with Rep. Paul the whole time) were those who escorted us into the Vines Center and then later out. I too am very disappointed to see Liberty University jump on this latest “mainstream Republican” bandwagon. And I am happy to see the tremendous support for Ron Paul today at Liberty University and in Lynchburg, Virginia (where I lived 24 years). I just wanted to correct the “urban legend” regarding his 2008 visit.

Kevin L. Clauson, M.A., J.D.
Former State Coordinator, Ron Paul 2008
Former Chair/Professor of Government, Liberty University (’85-’07)
Professor/Director, Center for Law & Public Policy, Bryan College

Quote:
Independents do not think Romney can win, without our help, neither can Obama, how about that $hit?

Quote:
PS: Your only reasoning is Ron Paul's foreign policy is not to your liking, so you would settle for someone with no experience at foreign policy over someone that has 30 years worth of policy experience as a member of congress. Pretty naive too. IMV

Quote:
Hello Peter,
Yep, your summation is correct. Independents do not think Romney can win, without our help, neither can Obama, how about that $hit? Just a thought.

Ron Paul has the youth vote and it is obvious he can get them to turn out.

Romney supported a state mandate to purchase healthcare and there is nothing other than him saying "The mandate was right for Massachusetts but not right for the nation. Now if this guy has already supported such a mandate as an executive, then I have no reason to believe he would do otherwise as president.

As much as I respect your opinions this one is patently wrong. Just as wrong as when we settled for McCain as a candidate. Obama and Romney are cut from the same cloth. I do respect Romney's business acumen but he has no clue about the lives of folks earning under six figures a year. Just as Obama has no clue about those under six figure or those that earn above the poverty line.

Plain and simple neither represent the the middle class majority. Settling this time for someone with no regard for the original constitution, not the constitution of the US Corporation. There is a huge difference I am sure you know.

While I think Romney would be a slower death for the US than a second term for zero, the end would be the same. No more freedom and liberty in the USA. I would much rather be a ronbot than an Obamneybot any day.

Jim

Quote:
Hi Jim,

I realize as a true and blue ronbot (self proclaimed in one of your previous posts :)) you have to spread the talking points of the Paul campaign. BUT, and this is a big but, when you see poll results like the one you posted it raises questions and in addition has a gazillion holes in it.

What this poll says is that out of all the independents polled not one thought Santorum, Romney or Gingrich is electable. Not one!!!!! Results like that defy logic and is questionable statistically to say the least. You have to be very naive or worse totally brainwashed to accept this as a "fact" but that's only my opinion. Believe it if you wish.

Paul rules nada and is unelectable and won't win the GOP nomination. He continues running only to have a stronger bargaining base at the convention for future deals either for himself or Rand. No more no less. He's got you all hoodwinked and the sad thing is that good people are still buying into the "Paul Rules" nonsense.

I did give lots of thought whether to post my response to the "electable" poll or not but after looking at it again just now I felt that it demands a response. Now if I misunderstood the poll results please enlighten me.

Shalom,

Peter

Quote:
You hear all the poll results from the MSM including FOX and you are not privvy to the truth or real numbers that count. Independents (Third Party) will determine this election. So pay attention closely as the numbers do not lie

Quote:
Hi Jim,

Your P.S. is faulty logic and inaccurately expressed my views. It's not only the kook Paul's foreign policies I'm against but everything he stands for aside for his fiscal policies. No need to go into it all again since I expressed my views many times and your summation of them is way off base and inaccurate. BTW, even if it was only his foreign policies I was against it would be sufficient for me to not support him and advocate against him. His foreign policies are very dangerous.

Dangerous to who, Peter? I have found that, if you go out looking for a fight you will find one and that is what the US has done in the past 2 decades or so beginning with GHWB. Clinton followed it up, as did GWB, fighting wars for the wrong reasons, for people that would just as soon shoot our guys as their current enemy.

We can no longer nor ever should have been the policemen of the world especially for free. We the taxpayers incur those costs, no one pays for our military services, those that welcome our bases, do so merely for economic means now. For if we pulled back to within our shores, the so called defense budget would be far less needed. And those places where we have bases would be far less well off.

Peter, I have to disagree with you, his foreign policy is your only problem with Dr. Paul, it is understandable why you feel that way, if I were a flea (Israel - no offense meant) on a dogs back (the muslim nations) and they were spraying on the Adams (Flea Spray) I would feel the same way I am sure. Whoops America is in similar a position. IMV

Again your summation of my comments on the ridiculous poll results is either obfuscation on your part or simply misunderstanding what I wrote. I doubt you misunderstood but chose to hide what I said with your misleading opening paragraph. Or, you had no logical response to what I wrote about the ridiculous poll results. I did not mince my words or cloud anything, I said what I think and meant what I said. No logic lost at all. IMV

As for the youth supporting the kook Ron Paul. People tend to forget that the same "youth vote" was all for B Hussein in 2008. That had one h*ell of a successful ending didn't it. That is part of being young isn't it, Peter? To learn from our past mistakes is maturity is it not?

I see you're grouping yourself with the Independents now

Quote:
Independents do not think Romney can win, without our help, neither can Obama, how about that $hit?

and still believe in a third party candidate. I'm willing to make a small wager that after Mitt Romney wins the GOP nomination Paul won't run on a third party ticket. He's only looking to strengthen his power base for future behind closed doors deal making. In any case supporting a third party ticket will split the conservative vote and result in 4 more years of B Hussein.

Your damn skippy I lump myself in with independents, gladly, always have always will. Supporting a third party ticket is the best damn thing that could happen to this country. Beats the h_ell out of more of the same.

I am not settling for pink slime in my burger. Now there is a obfuscational statement for you, for those not up on current events, pink slime is a filler made from the scraps of grinding hamburger mixed with water and probably blood..

It is high time to do away with this matrix of duopoly, those that remain obtuse, will continue to fall for it.

Have a great Monday,

Jim

Shalom,

Peter

Quote:
PS: Your only reasoning is Ron Paul's foreign policy is not to your liking, so you would settle for someone with no experience at foreign policy over someone that has 30 years worth of policy experience as a member of congress. Pretty naive too. IMV

Quote:
Hello Peter,
Yep, your summation is correct. Independents do not think Romney can win, without our help, neither can Obama, how about that $hit? Just a thought.

Ron Paul has the youth vote and it is obvious he can get them to turn out.

Romney supported a state mandate to purchase healthcare and there is nothing other than him saying "The mandate was right for Massachusetts but not right for the nation. Now if this guy has already supported such a mandate as an executive, then I have no reason to believe he would do otherwise as president.

As much as I respect your opinions this one is patently wrong. Just as wrong as when we settled for McCain as a candidate. Obama and Romney are cut from the same cloth. I do respect Romney's business acumen but he has no clue about the lives of folks earning under six figures a year. Just as Obama has no clue about those under six figure or those that earn above the poverty line.

Plain and simple neither represent the the middle class majority. Settling this time for someone with no regard for the original constitution, not the constitution of the US Corporation. There is a huge difference I am sure you know.

While I think Romney would be a slower death for the US than a second term for zero, the end would be the same. No more freedom and liberty in the USA. I would much rather be a ronbot than an Obamneybot any day.

Jim

Quote:
Hi Jim,

I realize as a true and blue ronbot (self proclaimed in one of your previous posts :)) you have to spread the talking points of the Paul campaign. BUT, and this is a big but, when you see poll results like the one you posted it raises questions and in addition has a gazillion holes in it.

What this poll says is that out of all the independents polled not one thought Santorum, Romney or Gingrich is electable. Not one!!!!! Results like that defy logic and is questionable statistically to say the least. You have to be very naive or worse totally brainwashed to accept this as a "fact" but that's only my opinion. Believe it if you wish.

Paul rules nada and is unelectable and won't win the GOP nomination. He continues running only to have a stronger bargaining base at the convention for future deals either for himself or Rand. No more no less. He's got you all hoodwinked and the sad thing is that good people are still buying into the "Paul Rules" nonsense.

I did give lots of thought whether to post my response to the "electable" poll or not but after looking at it again just now I felt that it demands a response. Now if I misunderstood the poll results please enlighten me.

Shalom,

Peter

Quote:
You hear all the poll results from the MSM including FOX and you are not privvy to the truth or real numbers that count. Independents (Third Party) will determine this election. So pay attention closely as the numbers do not lie

Jimmy Carter: I’d be ‘comfortable’ with Mitt Romney

AP Photo

Jimmy Carter says he would be “comfortable” with a Mitt Romney presidency, although he still expects President Barack Obama to win re-election in the fall.

“I’d rather have a Democrat but I would be comfortable,” the former president told MSNBC in a segment aired Wednesday. “I think Romney has shown in the past, in his previous years as a moderate or progressive… that he was fairly competent as a governor and also running the Olympics as you know.”

Carter went on to compliment Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, as “a good solid family man and so forth.” And although he said Romney has taken some “extreme right-wing positions” in order to win the GOP primary, he suggested that the former Massachusetts governor is likely something of centrist at heart.

“What he’ll do in the general election, what he’ll do as president I think is different,” Carter said.

This is not the first time Carter has praised a Republican presidential hopeful. Last spring, he described former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman as “very attractive to me personally.”

Huntsman, however, recently said he found those kind words less-than-helpful as he struggled to make inroads with the GOP’s conservative base last year.

“A guy named Michael Moore who went on television and said ‘That Huntsman guy. He’s a Republican I think I could support’ to be followed up by Jimmy Carter who said ‘This Huntsman guy: I think he’s somebody I could support’ to be followed up by Bill Clinton, who went on television and said ‘He seems pretty un-hidebound. He’s a Republican I think I could’ — we were so toast in Iowa by then,” Huntsman told MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Monday.

Follow Will on Twitter