If you're new here and enjoyed what you read, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed so you don't miss a thing. Thanks for visiting!
Back in May, I wrote up a blog called “Mormons Supporting Mitt Romney.” I received a comment on it earlier this month from Chuck:
“I read your article and I like Romney. I am LDS living in Northern Utah. I still can’t get past some of Romney’s views on the war in Iraq, Health Care, etc. I am, at this point, a Ron Paul supporter. Our church teaches that the constitution is inspired by God and that it is very important that we stick by it. Ron Paul has been the only candidate that I have seen that truly sticks by the constitution and has the record to show it. I am troubled by some of the views of Mitt. I would like to see you do a blog on your position on Ron Paul and why you would pick Mitt over Ron Paul.”
Chuck, I looked long and hard at Paul. Yes, I said it outloud. 
I know that in many circles, any discussion of Ron Paul makes you nuttier than a loon. My own brother and mother have said the same thing, “Anyone but that Paul guy! He’s crazy!” On the other hand, my sister and brother-in-law are big supporters of Paul, and I discussed him with my sis over the period of several weeks. I am a libertarian at heart and I tend to agree with most libertarian stances on issues.
However, I finally decided that my problem with Paul is multifold:
A) I will freely say: We were wrong to get into Iraq. The problem is, we have no time machine to get into and go back in time. What is done is done, we cannot change the past. And quite simply, two wrongs don’t make a right. We caused a mess when we went into Iraq. Us. Not the Iraqi people, not the UN, not Japan or Tanzania or India. And we cannot rightly expect others to suffer for our mistakes. If we pulled out right now, that is exactly what would happen: Iraq would drop into chaos overnight, the Taliban would have fertile grounds in which to gather a large group behind them, and we would have created yet another enemy in the world.
I know that many Republicans support Bush and the war in Iraq. I am not a fan of Bush (I think he’s a true RINO - Republican In Name Only) and I only support the war in as far as I understand we need to help the country get a government into place that is self-sufficient and jihadist-free. Until that happens, we cannot pull out.
Paul’s position is that a) We were wrong to get into Iraq (true that!) and b) That we need to pull out as soon as possible. That, I don’t agree with. I agree with Romney’s position on Iraq and that is one (of many) reasons that I support him.
B) Paul’s stance on many issues is simply too radical to actually be implemented. Here’s a guy who wants to get rid of Homeland Security, the FBI, Department of Education, and the IRS! Anything else? Perhaps he doesn’t like where the Rocky Mountains are at. A few states to the left, maybe?
Let’s get realistic here. This country just isn’t going to support such a radical solution, no matter how much strict Constitutionalists want it. We cannot even agree to get out of the welfare state we’ve put ourselves into, let alone anything as radical as abolishing 85% of the federal government.
C) Which brings me to my last point: I am a realist at heart. Paul has done better than expected thus far in the race. He has gotten some delegates. But where is his path to the nomination? How do you see his winning the presidency? What states is he going to win? How is he going to win the necessary delegates? Please, if anyone has a detailed, state-by-state plan that they can point to, delegate count included, I’d love to see it. As far as I can tell, Paul doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hades to actually win this thing.
Case in point: He and Mitt campaigned wholeheartedly in Nevada, the only two Republicans to do so. In effect, Paul’s only competition was Mitt. Yet he got his bum whupped. 54% to 12% isn’t exactly close. Nevada is was a great state for Paul - his best placing so far. But it wasn’t even close to being enough. He tied with a guy who didn’t even run in the state (McCain.) We’ve got to be realistic, and Paul winning the nomination simply isn’t going to happen. I’m sorry to burst anyone’s bubble.
As for health care, my sister has the same problem with Mitt’s health care solution in Massachusetts. How dare he require someone to buy health care?! That takes away their freedoms, and isn’t a part of the Constitution!
Actually, it is. The Constitution says that all rights that is not specified in the Constitution is a right given to the states, correct? So Massachusetts had every right to require all of its citizens to buy insurance, under the Constitution. The true Constitution litmus test doesn’t come into play until you consider Mitt’s solution at a national level.
Again, it follows the Constitution: Let each state take care of the problem at its own level. Yes, he says that he dealt with the problem, and he has well-placed pride in the fact that the program has done well, but not even once has he said that it should be copied at a national level, and in fact explicitly said otherwise. If elected president, you’d see him urging the states to tackle the problem, and would probably encourage them to look to his state’s solution to see if it is something they would want to copy, but he will never try to make this into a nationwide policy/bill. This is the exact opposite of Hillary’s proposal for health care, and also the opposite to every other Democrat’s solution to health care. On the other side of the aisle, you have a group of Republicans who a) don’t have a solution to the problem and b) have never dealt with the problem in their own state or city. Mitt is the only one who can point to success in this area. Another big plus to me in Mitt’s favor.
I will admit (while I am getting stuff off my chest) that I believe that this country is heading into a very deep recession, most probably a bad depression. I am one of those doom and gloom people who just doesn’t see this ending well, at least not any time soon. And when I look at the Republican side of the aisle, Mitt is the only one who has had vast experience in the private sector, the engine that runs this economy of this country. Think of it this way: Other candidates have experience installing radios or putting together seat covers, which is nice. But if the car has stalled and smoke is coming out of the engine, are you going to look to the seat belt guy to fix the engine, or the master mechanic who has fixed countless other engines?
Our economy has stalled and sparks are flying everywhere. I say we call on the master mechanic and get our Turnaround Guru out there to get it going again: Mitt Romney.
Hava
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Hi, and welcome to "Vote Mitt for President!" Be sure to
1:26 pm on January 20th, 2008 1
Nice blog, but I want to give you some knowledge about some issues that you brought up in this article.
First, he Dept. of Education does not do a single thing to help educate our children today. The Republican party has historically wanted to dissolve it until recently when Bush doubled it. No child left behind Act is unconstitutional (Read 10th Amendment) and is a waste of our tax dollars.
The Dept. of Homeland Security does not promote more Security as its name suggests. Most of its methods of providing “security” are blatant violations of the constitutions( Please read 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments). 48% of the world’s entire defense spending comes from us, yet our National Defense is now turned into an International Offense. If our troops were home, I’m sure that would be all of the ‘Homeland Security’ that we need.
The IRS is one of the most bloated government programs in existence. The fact that we even tell our government anything about our income, let alone pay a huge percent, is very unconstitutional. If i fail to mark all wages earned, I go to jail with no trial, no jury. (Read entire Constitution). Americans did fine for over 130 years of existence without it. Also, every American paid ZERO income taxes today, the government would still have the equivalent of 1998 income generated from taxes.
Also, our Presidential Election process is not the same as American Idol’s, FYI. Please do not treat it as such.
Finally I would love to hear some specific reasons why you would vote for Mitt Romney your ‘Master Mechanic”. I have not heard one person give me 3 REAL, FACTUAL reasons for doing so (which is better than most candidates, so I’ll give you that).
(I won’t even go into your recession point, because it blatantly screams for a “radical solution” of disbaning the Federal Reserve.
1:59 pm on January 20th, 2008 2
I’m sorry, but we seem to be talking past each other. I did not say that I was in love with the Department of Education, No Child Left Behind, the IRS, the Federal Reserve, or the Department of Homeland Security. The tone of your comment was that I did not already know the information that you pointed out, when in fact I do. I even wrote a blog this summer where I said that I disagreed with Mitt Romney - I do not like NCLB and I wish it was repealed. It isn’t necessary to agree with your candidate on every issue, just the majority of them. That’s a small issue that I disagree with Mitt on.
Anyway, since I didn’t seem to make my point clear before, I’ll say it again:
Can you *honestly* and *truly* see the US dropping 85% of its federal government? Can you really see a scenario where that is even slightly plausible? I don’t care that you hate these programs. I don’t care that I hate these programs (I don’t hate them all, but there are some that I’d definitely like to get rid of.) All I know is, I just don’t see them ALL going away any time soon, or even a small portion of them. Again, I am a realist. A realist deals with what can be done, not what would be done in a fantasy world.
I’m glad to hear that you think Mitt is better than “most other candidates.”
I happen to think he’s the best, but then again, I’m biased. 
I thought I gave three reasons why I would vote for Mitt in my blog, but again we seem to be talking past each other, so I’ll give them to you again:
1) I think his solution for health care in Massachusetts shows that he is capable of thinking outside of the box, and coming up with solutions that are not readily apparent. I really respect that in a person, because we don’t have a clue of what will happen in the future. Sure, I think that there is going to be a recession/depression, but when? For how long? What if Iran went to war on a neighboring country? What if North Korea was able to produce nukes? What is Russia continues to gain power and becomes a huge force to be reckoned with, again? What if the stock market’s bottom fell out? We elect a president based on what has happened in the past, because we don’t have a clue of what is going to happen in the future. So I believe that we need to elect a president who is able to see solutions that aren’t readily apparent AND is able to implement them (for what use is an idea if it isn’t implemented?) I believe Mitt has that capability, and has in fact shown it time after time in the past.
2) I believe that Mitt’s stance on the war is the correct one, and is one that I can get behind 100%.
3) I believe that Mitt’s experience in the private sector is going to be a huge boon to us in the future, when our economy tanks.
I’ll do you one better, and give you a fourth reason:
As most people active in the blogosphere probably know, Mitt had a run-in with an AP reporter this last week. The reporter was trying to say that Mitt’s campaign was run by a lobbyist, which it is not. The important part of the video, though, was at the end, when Mitt is able to talk without the reporter interrupting him. He said something to the effect that he has spent millions and millions of dollars to run this campaign. Why would he spend that kind of money, and then sell his soul to a lobbyist for $10,000? He wouldn’t.
Mitt cannot be bought.
I trust him to do the right thing for the country, instead of the right thing for his buddies who happened to give him some large donations last election cycle. That gives me confidence in him, because I know he won’t play slimy I’ll-scratch-your-back-if-you-scratch-mine games that politicians all seem to love.
I do hope that answers all of the points you made in your comment. Now that I’ve responded to your comment in full, I would love it if you would respond to my blog in full:
What is the path to the nomination for Ron Paul? What states, what delegates, and how do you see him winning those states (ie, what are the polls now saying to support your claim that he will win)? He hasn’t won a single state yet, and has only a few delegates. How do you see him changing that? Because whether you like the fact or not, the presidential election is won by winning delegates. In order for Paul to win, he has to be able to win states, not just blogger’s hearts.
How, exactly, do you seem him doing that?
Thanks, and have a great day,
Havs
2:16 pm on January 20th, 2008 3
I appreciate your honesty, but I have to ask: why do you think Iraq would be in chaos if we left? Is it because you believe the same leaders of this country when they told you there were good reasons to go into Iraq to begin with?
Are you prepared to sacrifice, as McCain easily forwarded, the next five generations of an American presence there? If not, then how long? Keep in mind that by the time our next President takes office, Iraq is gonna be as close to a “democracy” and as safe as it’s ever going to be, no matter how long we remain there. Also, Al Qaeda is not liked by many folks there, and Iraqis have a good, long history of fighting for their country. It’s not like they’re gonna throw down their arms if we leave.
So, please, re-evalutate your position. I can only think you’ve been sucked into the rhetoric as many others have in this country.
2:43 pm on January 20th, 2008 4
“Why do you think Iraq would be in chaos if we left? Is it because you believe the same leaders of this country when they told you there were good reasons to go into Iraq to begin with?”
No, I believe it because we went into the country, and tore their government to shreds. We took out their president and then asked them for a miracle: For them to completely change their form of government from a dictatorship based on religion, to a democracy that is run irregardless of religion. We’ve asked them to do a complete 180. That’s a whole heck of a lot to ask of a country.
“Are you prepared to sacrifice, as McCain easily forwarded, the next five generations of an American presence there?”
Do I think we need to be there for the next 100 years? No. Absolutely not.
“If not, then how long?”
If I knew the answer to that question, I would be doing something a whole lot better than blogging for free on an obscure blog that only I and a couple of other Mitt supporters even know exist. Because if I knew that, it would mean I was in possession of a crystal ball.
So I’ll give you my best answer: Until Iraq is stable enough to keep from collapsing when we withdraw. Which is a decision the commanders in Iraq have to make, not me. I’ll go out on a limb here and guess; I’ll say at least another year, probably two. Hopefully no more than that.
“Keep in mind that by the time our next President takes office, Iraq is gonna be as close to a “democracy” and as safe as it’s ever going to be, no matter how long we remain there.”
A) That’s your opinion (do you have a magic ball?) and B) That would be a little less than a year from now, which is when I agree that yes, *hopefully* we will start getting out of there.
But!!!!!! The important part is what we do in between now and then. If we spend the year saying that we need to withdraw now, we need to get our butts out of there, etc etc, the Iraqi people will not have the assurance that we will stay until we can safely leave, so why put their trust in the government that the US is trying to help build? Since Al Qaeda is going to win (because the Americans are blaring out a retreat signal) why not support them and get on their good side? Which will of course significantly reduce the chances of us actually getting out of there in a year.
And us leaving in a year because the country is stable and ready for us to withdraw is the most optimistic scenario that I can realistically see happening. But what if the absolute best doesn’t happen, and Iraq isn’t even close to a democracy and/or safe? “Hope for the best, plan for the worst” is a common motto. I’ll hope that we’ll be able to start withdrawing troops by next year, but I’ll vote for a man who I can trust not to pull us out too soon.
Havs
4:53 pm on January 20th, 2008 5
You lose me when you equivocate about it being wrong to get into Iraq. It was wrong then and it still is. It is not ethical throwing good money after bad, never mind good lives. Apparently you believe it is. I would suggest to you that we worry about holding those who were responsible (like Mitt) accountable, but since you are his suporter, you are probably one of those accountable as well. You shame not only all LDS with this bile, but all Christians. And of course if we insist on looting our resources in war, why not loot them for good causes? Once you fall into this slippery slope, you can now rationalize calling Ron Paul a loon.
5:43 pm on January 20th, 2008 6
Bob D » Okay, I’m waiting on bated breath for this one: How, exactly, is Mitt responsible for us going into Iraq? President Bush did NOT consult Mitt Romney before invading Iraq, I guarantee it. Even better, you say that I am accountable for the invasion of Iraq too. Holy heavens! Please, blame me for things I have actually done - I’ll respond the best I can. But to blame me for the invasion of Iraq is so beyond absurd, I’m not even quite sure what to say. For once in my life, I think I’m actually speechless.
Note: I have gotten three responses to my post thus far, and out of those three, exactly none have told me how Ron Paul is going to win this election. I am still waiting for an answer, and will continue to wait for an answer, until someone finally speaks up and gives me a state-by-state, delegate-by-delegate plan.
Anyone?
Havs
7:06 pm on January 20th, 2008 7
To the Paul supporters, Hava has asked a great question. If you missed it in her great reply, here it is again:
What is the path to the nomination for Ron Paul? What states, what delegates, and how do you see him winning those states? He hasn’t won a single state yet, how do you see him changing that?
I would love to see how he will overcome these odds. The only way he’ll end up on a ballot for President will not be as a Republican, but as a 3rd party candidate (which he’s already ruled out).
Will
http://www.liberatenow.net
7:54 am on January 21st, 2008 8
-Regardless is the word you are looking for, irregardless is not a word.
-Regardless of whether you think its realistic or not, if we head into a ‘major depression’ where do you suppose we find funding to continue this enormous bureaucracy that makes up all those government entities? Currently we are running at an enormous debt in the trillions. I mean how did we ever survive prior to the creation of these entities? Obviously we did, and will continue to do so.
-Whether Paul can win is all a mute point and a bit of a red herring. If he supports the beliefs you hold dear and what most closely reflects what you believe in your heart then you support him. When he is no longer a choice THEN I will look at who the next ‘lesser of two evils is’. And yes, I find mitt to be a lesser of two evils as a true conservative. Worse than that, he is a politicians politician. I don’t care about the reasons why, but you know as well as any of us that he has changed positions depending on who he is trying to get to vote for him. All your arguments about why simply amount to ‘he cant win therefore…”
- The Taliban were never in or near Iraq. They never had anything to do with it and even if your worst case scenario came together, they wouldnt be the ones going in Iraq. Taliban are the islamo-facists in Afghanistan. The power vacuum in Iraq would be filled by Iran and Syria. Not the Taliban, not Al-Qaeda.
-I agree whole heartedly with you that whether or not to enact socialism in our medicine field is completely within the states rights. Id be appalled if you said you find it acceptable. If so, you’re certainly no ‘libertarian at heart’.
-I also agree with you that mitt is an excellent choice to fix the economy. If the socialist (hillary) party gets elected, im tripling what the prophet said to get in food storage =)
11:32 am on January 21st, 2008 9
“-Regardless is the word you are looking for, irregardless is not a word.”
My apologies.
“-Regardless of whether you think its realistic or not, if we head into a ‘major depression’ where do you suppose we find funding to continue this enormous bureaucracy that makes up all those government entities? Currently we are running at an enormous debt in the trillions. I mean how did we ever survive prior to the creation of these entities? Obviously we did, and will continue to do so.”
I agree. Cutting spending and getting rid of government programs is a fantastic way to help this country get out of the mess it is in, and is yet another reason why I am unhappy with Pres Bush. He is offering an $800 check to every citizen in America, to add $150 billion dollars to our deficit, as a way to “jumpstart” the economy. When I heard that, I wanted to tear my hair out. We got into this mess because of too much spending. We CANNOT spend our way out of it!
But here is where you and I differ: I don’t believe that the American public will accept the idea that we need to get rid of 85% of the federal government. It simply isn’t realistic. I think it all comes down to this: I believe in dealing with what can be changed and what good can be made. Ron Paul supporters believe that you shouldn’t strive for anything less than perfection. Apparently the fact that perfection isn’t attainable doesn’t seem to deter anyone. You and I will never see eye to eye on that, so I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
FWIW, Mitt has given numerous speeches about how he will conduct a top to bottom audit of the government, and get rid of the inefficiencies and waste that exist in the government right now. THAT is attainable. Cutting out 85% of the federal government is not. Also of great importance: Not only is Mitt talking about this, he has actually done this before, time after time. If you want someone to cut out wasteful programs, Mitt’s your man.
“-Whether Paul can win is all a mute point and a bit of a red herring. If he supports the beliefs you hold dear and what most closely reflects what you believe in your heart then you support him. When he is no longer a choice THEN I will look at who the next ‘lesser of two evils is’.”
No, it is not a red herring. You say that when he is no longer a choice, then you will look at other choices. What I am trying to say is that as of this moment, although Ron Paul has his name on the ballot, he is NOT a viable choice. He cannot win. Every time someone casts their vote for Ron Paul, they may feel like they are helping start a revolution in America, when in fact they are keeping the real options in this race from doing better.
What I’m trying to do is make Ron Paul supporters face reality. The reality is this: Ron Paul will not win. You put up response # 8 to my blog. And yet not a single person has presented a plan of how Paul will win. Why is that? Because there isn’t a single feasible scenario where Paul could win this thing. Not one.
So right now is the time to choose your second choice and get behind him. In New Hampshire, Mitt came in second place to McCain, by 5.5%. Ron Paul received 8% of the votes in New Hampshire. If even half of the Paul supporters had swung to Mitt’s side, that would have made the race so close, McCain would have “barely won,” a much different outcome than what actually happened. And if all of Paul’s supporters would have swung to Mitt’s side, Mitt would have won, which would have been huge for the Romney candidacy, and might have cemented him as the Republican front runner, especially because he then went on to win in Michigan.
Do you see how supporting a candidate THAT CANNOT WIN is hurting the Republican party? You say Mitt is your second choice. Why not change and make him your first choice now? Is Mitt not a better choice than McCain or Huckabee? Yet your support of Paul is making it possible for McCain and Huckabee to win.
Am I making sense to anyone else or am I just whistling in the wind here?
“And yes, I find mitt to be a lesser of two evils as a true conservative. Worse than that, he is a politicians politician. I don’t care about the reasons why, but you know as well as any of us that he has changed positions depending on who he is trying to get to vote for him. All your arguments about why simply amount to ‘he cant win therefore…”
Name one position that Mitt has done a solid flip on, other than abortion. Hint: There isn’t one.
And I don’t feel that I’m voting for Mitt because Paul can’t win. Quite honestly, I am getting frustrated here. It’s as if Ron Paul supporters speak a different language than I do or something. Let us try this again, shall we?
I am supporting Mitt for a large variety of reasons, but the four I mentioned above will work for now:
1) Mitt is able to think outside of the box and find solutions that are not readily apparent, as is obvious from his ingenious solution to healthcare. Whether you agree with that solution or not, you have to agree that it was not something that people had ever thought of or considered before. Every solution before that had involved the government simply giving free healthcare out to everyone, or subsidizing the healthcare by paying a portion of the payments for each person. No one had ever considered Mitt’s solution. I think that’s amazing.
NOTE: Nowhere in the above paragraph am I saying that I am supporting Mitt because Ron Paul cannot win. Just in case anyone was wondering….
2) I support Mitt because of his stance on the Iraq War, which I agree with 100%.
NOTE: Again, nowhere in the above paragraph am I saying that I am supporting Mitt because Ron Paul cannot win. People seem to be getting confused about that, so I thought I’d point that out.
3) I believe Mitt’s experience in the private sector is going to be a huge boon in the future, when the economy tanks, because he’ll have the hands-on experience and understanding of how companies work, and will be able to better help get them, and us, back on our feet.
NOTE: Yet again, this doesn’t amount to me supporting Mitt because Ron can’t win. Quite frankly, Ron ran a doctor’s office. Mitt ran multi-billion dollar companies. The two simply cannot be compared.
4) Last but not least, I am supporting Mitt because he is the Master Mechanic and has vast experience in turning companies around - that was his job for years. Using that experience, I think he’ll turn this country around and finally get us heading in the right direction.
NOTE: Wow! No mention of Paul, again! Who woulda thunk it…
“- The Taliban were never in or near Iraq. They never had anything to do with it and even if your worst case scenario came together, they wouldnt be the ones going in Iraq. Taliban are the islamo-facists in Afghanistan. The power vacuum in Iraq would be filled by Iran and Syria. Not the Taliban, not Al-Qaeda.”
Where did you get this information at? What made you decide that? Do you have any factual evidence to back this up? I’m just curious, because what I’ve heard from people who are there/were there before, all say the opposite. I posted a blog this past summer, talking about an independent reporter who has spent years in Iraq, first when he was in the Army, and now as a reporter. He has pictures, documented proof, of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Here is a link to the blog I wrote. Please follow the links that I provide and go to Michael Yon’s blog, especially the blog entitled Bless the Beasts and the Children. There is proof that Al Qaeda most definitely has been active in Iraq. Wishing it was otherwise doesn’t make it so.
“-I agree whole heartedly with you that whether or not to enact socialism in our medicine field is completely within the states rights. Id be appalled if you said you find it acceptable. If so, you’re certainly no ‘libertarian at heart’.”
Glad we agree. States have every right to be socialist all they want.
I also have every right to move out of a state that is going in the socialist direction, and into a state that still believes in letting people keep rights. Luckily, I’m already living in Idaho… 
“-I also agree with you that mitt is an excellent choice to fix the economy. If the socialist (hillary) party gets elected, im tripling what the prophet said to get in food storage =)”
Glad to hear it!!
See, we can agree on some things…
Havs
2:57 pm on January 21st, 2008 10
“- The Taliban were never in or near Iraq. They never had anything to do with it and even if your worst case scenario came together, they wouldnt be the ones going in Iraq. Taliban are the islamo-facists in Afghanistan. The power vacuum in Iraq would be filled by Iran and Syria. Not the Taliban, not Al-Qaeda.”
I think we misunderstood each other. I never denied Al-Qaeda being in Iraq. I said the Taliban were never there. They are not the same group. My parting comment about Al-Qaeda is only to say that they wont be the dominant force that comes to power in our absence. The two countries I mentioned would. My point was that the Taliban have never had anything at all to do with Iraq. You said in your comments that they the Taliban would be able to garner support if we left. Its probably a typo, but the Taliban have nothing to do with Iraq. Al-Qaeda in Iraq has an influence, but would not come to power. Syria and Iran would, and that I can back up with statements by Paul Wolfowitz as well as several Foreign Policy experts opinions.
I see your point about supporting Romney now, I don’t however agree, at least not for myself as I live in Utah where he will assuredly get the overwhelming support of the voters here, and so I feel perfectly comfortable voting my conscience here. I understand your point of view however in say New Hampshire. In utah it wont mean a thing that I vote for Paul.
3:12 pm on January 21st, 2008 11
Corey »
Thank you for clarifying. Yes, I did misunderstand you.
As for supporting Mitt vs Paul in Utah, I can see your point. My sister is a huge supporter of Paul, and she lives here in Idaho. I haven’t really tried to change her mind because I honestly don’t think it will matter. Mitt is going to carry Idaho - why push things? But I think it’s important for Paul supporters to understand the realities of this race, because there are a lot of Paul supporters in crucial states, and it is cutting into the support that Mitt would have otherwise. A vote while holding your nose still counts.
I just wonder how long it will take before Paul drops out, and who he will endorse (if anyone) when he does. He has said he will not make a third party run, and it is clear that he won’t win the Republican nomination, so it’s hard to see the point in continuing. I just hope he gets out early enough, and endorses another candidate (Mitt! *hint, hint*) that it will make a difference in the end. If Paul stays in until the bloody end, it will be too late for the people who voted for him to change their vote and vote for the lesser evil (Mitt.) Unfortunately, this will enable McCain to win the presidency easier, which would be a true disaster all the way around. Because if you don’t like Mitt’s foreign policy ideas, I’m positive you’d hate McCain’s!
Havs