Subscribe by Email

Leader of Ron Paul convention takeover says Obama would be better than Romney

Photo by Renee K. Trust

Ron Paul may have ceased spending money on the remaining Presidential primaries, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t want the job.

His delegates are working hard across the country to give him a stronger voice at the Republican National Convention from Aug. 27-30 in Tampa, Fla. Presumptive nominee Mitt Romney has collected 973 delegates out of the 1,144 needed for the official nomination.

A libertarian icon known for unconventional positions, Paul has 104 delegates. He said he is now concentrating on a strategy to gather delegates to the national convention.

“Ron Paul is not and has not suspended his campaign,” said Brent Tweed, the Ron Paul supporter who was elected chairman of the Republican State Convention on May 5 at the Augusta Civic Center.

Tweed said Paul campaign officials will no longer invest in the remaining primary states, but they will continue to work at winning delegates to the national convention at district and state conventions.

“Our delegates to the national convention will still try to secure the nomination for Ron Paul,” Tweed said.

Ron Paul supporters in Maine showed that they are serious in securing that nomination on May 5 when they upended the Maine Republican State Convention, sweeping the GOP establishment by electing their own officers to run the convention and picking 18 of 24 delegates to the national convention.

The Paul supporters first took control on Saturday, electing their own chairman and secretary. Then on Sunday, they secured a majority of the state’s national delegates.

In addition, a bloc of Ron Paul supporters was elected to the Maine Republican State Committee. Thirty-four out of 50 won seats on the 80-member committee, giving Paul supporters close to a majority voice.

But the pandemonium in the process deprived Maine legislative candidates of the opportunity to be heard and robbed six Republican candidates for U.S. Senate of the podium.

With only a month until primary elections, the convention was the place the U.S. Senate candidates hoped they could distinguish themselves from their rivals. Rick Bennett, Scott D’Amboise, Bruce Poliquin, Bill Schneider, Deb Plowman and Charlie Summers were unable to address their supporters.
Long-time Ron Paul supporter Brent Tweed, 33, a nuclear engineer who works at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and is the married father of two young children, was elected chairman of the convention. He is a registered Republican, as are most Paul supporters. But he said his views are libertarian, and he wants to change the direction of the country.Relatively unknown Ron Paul supporters bested the GOP establishment with a simple strategy: get organized, get energized and—most importantly—show up.

It’s not necessarily that the Maine Republicans don’t have a good platform, Tweed said. “The Republicans have always had a decent platform,” he said. “But our agenda is not just to have a nice platform.”

Tweed and many of the Ron Paul supporters were bitterly disappointed that President George W. Bush and Republicans in Washington greatly expanded the size and scope of government. They are tired and frustrated that Republicans always talk about reducing government, but it turns out to be nothing more than lip service.

“I want Republicans who will actually cut the size of government,” he said. “Ron Paul always votes against tax increases and to reduce government.”

The national debt is unsustainable, Tweed said, and supporters don’t want Republicans in office who continue to use government as a “cradle-to-grave” entitlement service.

He became very disillusioned with the Republican Party during Bush’s second term. “In 2004, I believed that he was honest about being a limited-government kind of person,” Tweed said. “But he was really just a big-government liberal. He didn’t do anything to reduce the size of government. The Republicans do not stand for what they say they do.”

He said Ron Paul supporters will not support “compromise candidates,” and they will not support RINOs. “I put principles first,” Tweed said. “Mitt Romney is a Republican. That’s not enough for me. What does he stand for? He stood for bigger government, socialized health care, gun control. He’s a Democrat. He’s a RINO. No, I’m not going to support him.”

Tweed said if Republicans at the national convention are looking for cheerleaders, they won’t find them with Ron Paul supporters. “I put Mitt Romney in the same category as Obama,” he said. “I’m going to be bold here. Obama winning—and I don’t like Obama—is better than Romney winning.”

Tweed said that Mitt Romney is in the same category of Obama. “They both agree with same policies and principles,” he said. “Neither will cut the overall size of government. They’re not going to cut the deficit. I don’t see any difference between the two of them. If Mitt Romney wins, Republicans will cheerlead behind him, and we will get bigger government at a slower pace. Just like George Bush.”

If Romney was a Democrat, Republicans would hate him, Tweed said. “We want to get principled Republicans elected,” he said. “Ron Paul’s time in Congress has been a perfect example of what a legislator should be. He has always voted against tax increase and increasing the size of government.”

Tweed acknowledges that securing the nomination for Paul may be a long shot. But he sees the movement as an opportunity for Paul to spread his message and educate the public. “Yes, we want to elect him,” Tweed said. “But to change the course of the country, we need to educate people.”

Although word was simmering for weeks that Ron Paul supporters were planning to show up in force at the convention, their victories astonished even veteran political watchers.

So had did it happen? “We were just really well organized going into the convention,” said Tweed. “We knew it would be close.”

The Paul supporters had two goals: first, they wanted to win a majority of delegates to the national convention. Second, they wanted to win some other positions in Maine’s GOP. “We now have a near-majority on the State Committee,” Tweed said.

The supporters are determined to help Ron Paul secure the Republican nomination for President at the national convention in August in Tampa, Fla. “We don’t buy into the mass media’s notion that Mitt Romney has the nomination locked up,” Tweed said.

The nomination isn’t official until the national convention, he said. “We believe we can get a majority.”

He also said that Ron Paul supporters don’t believe that Romney won the Maine caucuses, since GOP Chairman Charlie Webster declared the caucuses over before results were tallied from three Maine counties.

Tweed said the Paul supporters were determined to have a strong presence at the convention, hopefully a slight majority. “Some people said we were trying to disrupt the convention,” Tweed said. “That’s not true. We were trying to run as many national delegates as we can. We just didn’t want to be railroaded by the establishment.”

After he saw the turnout on Friday of the convention, Tweed said he began feeling very optimistic. That optimism, which resulted in the “takeover” of the convention, was a culmination of a grassroots effort to organize support for Paul, which began gathering steam last summer. Paul campaign officials came to Maine in November to help strengthen the organization.

Tweed first became Ron Paul supporter back in 2007. A graduate of UMaine-Orono, he had always been interested in politics and was a “news junkie,” even as a high school student in his hometown of Limestone. But his parents never spoke much of politics, and he did not register as a Republican when he was 18.

“I was a clean slate,” Tweed said, who had not yet been influenced by either party.

He didn’t really know what either party stood for, only that they seemed to bicker back and forth and never really accomplish anything.

He voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, when he registered as a Republican. Around 2003, “I stared to consider myself a Republican,” he said. But that was before he knew about libertarian views.

When he saw Texas Congressman Ron Paul in the Presidential debates of 2007, “everything he said stuck with me,” Tweed said. He liked that Paul wanted to get rid of the income tax and the IRS. Paul is known for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets and a return to the gold standard.

“I was more of a neo-con on foreign policy back then,” Tweed said. “He really turned me around with his views on foreign policy.” After reading a book about Paul’s views on foreign policy, he said he realized he had been “conned by the neo-cons.”

At first, he thought that neo-cons’ foreign policy was to secure American liberty and safety. “I thought they cared about American freedom. But then I came to realize that freedom and liberty are not the goals of the neo-cons. They’re really not about liberty at all.”

Tweed said neo-cons are nothing more than “big-government people. They are con artists.”

Tweed starting getting involved at the grassroots level in the town, county and state efforts to support Ron Paul. Now living in North Berwick, he became the Maine Campaign for Liberty Region 1 coordinator for the Ron Paul campaign in 2011.

Because of his years of experience supporting Paul and because he studied Robert’s Rules of Order—as well as the Republican Party rules—he was selected to run for chairman of the state convention.

“We decided that it would be good to have Ron Paul supporters run the convention,” he said. “It was important to make sure that his supporters got a fair shake.”

Tweed said he met several times with Republican officials to make sure Ron Paul supporters would have a voice at the convention. “We tried to work with them beforehand,” Tweed said. “They were aware at least a couple of weeks ahead of time that we wanted to run a chair. We were willing to work with Ann Robinson as chairman of the convention,” since Ron Paul supporters were confident that she would run the convention with integrity.

But talks broke down with the Republicans, and the GOP chose to run former judge and Republican stalwart Charles Cragin as chairman. Cragin had presided at several Maine GOP conventions, but Tweed said he did not know him personally.

“I said I’d run as chairman, and Republicans could run a vice-chairman,” Tweed said. “They weren’t willing to make a deal.”

Tweed beat out Cragin for a chairman in a virtual dead heat, winning with a four-vote victory, 1,114 to 1,118. Cragin, a Romney supporter, characterized the commotion at the convention as “bizarre,” predicting that the Maine delegation may not get seated at the national convention.

While Cragin contended that the process violated state and national committee rules, Maine Republican Party Chairman Charlie Webster said that the votes would stand. Webster said Maine Republicans would now focus their efforts on fighting to make sure the delegates are seated at the national convention.

After the statements Cragin made after the convention, Tweed said he was glad that he won the right to chair the convention. Cragin implied there was anarchy at the convention because the Ron Paul supporters didn’t follow the rules, he said.

“It just highlights that he probably would have railroaded us,” Tweed said.

He noted that Ron Paul supporters used a motion to suspend the rules at he convention, which is a proper procedure clearly spelled out in Robert’s Rules.

While some have charged that a few Ron Paul delegates at the conventions were actually Democrats, Tweed said he didn’t know about that. “I don’t of anyone there who was a Democrat,” he said. “As far as I know, they are all Republicans.”

Tweed said Ron Paul supporters would stay active in the Republican party. “It’s healthy for the Republican party,” he said. “I see a lot of young people supporting Ron Paul that I don’t see at the Republican committee meetings. They need to embrace these young people, even if they are not going to agree 100 percent of the time. If the party doesn’t accept these people, it will be shooting itself in the foot.”

Please add your thoughtful comment . . .
Bob Stewart says:

I don’t know what you have to gain by misreporting the facts but the chairmanship vote came after the secretary’s vote, neither of which were cast using pink paper. In fact, at that point the convention was being run by Charlie Webster and the Maine GOP… They had appointed a slate of vote counters, two per county, who conted and contrasted their tally row by row for each section of the auditorium. The fact is that these sections were then totaled first for the establishment nominee then again for the challenger. The vote for Secretary was so close that the establishment was visibly panicked. So much so that though there was nothing to be gained by a recount a recount was so ordered for York County only, doubling the time required to report the results. During this time the establishment sent folks out to the halls to rally the base to ensure a better result for Chairman. Next was the Chair vote which was tallied in the same manner except that time, seeing the vote was so close, they forced a recount of their strongest base constituency Cumberland County which even then they lost. ALL of this was under Webster’s leadership, not Tweeds. Worse yet, once they lost, the GOP team quit their posts sending the convention leadership into a period of disarray. Talk about sore losers…

Why don’t we try facts and truth….www.whyromney.com

Tweed was elected by a four vote margin by counting physically pink slips of paper. We asked for a recount and they said after lunch we would do a recount never happened and once Tweed got the gavel everything was overruled..That anyone would compare Mitt Romney  to Obama is immoral…unpatriotic…

MORE GUTTER POLITICS!!!!!!

Liberated Mainer says:

“Ron Paul,waking people up?[...]I think that is why many of us are so bothered by the behavior of the Paul folks.”

As a party player for 24 years, voting Rep. all along, I’m not so  young and have also fought that same fight you speak of.  Incidentally, I was also one that Dr. Paul woke up.  Interesting, eh?!

I helped count the votes in Hawaii, where Ron Paul lost soundly to Mitt Romney.  We used paper ballots, and since Ron Paul’s campaign is so well-organized, they had at least one representative watching the polls at all times and watching the ballot counting at all times.  Not much chance for fraud.  It’s pretty much the same everywhere else, except in a lot of places you have polls by independent organizations that are consistent with the results.

Obama re-election means Obamacare becomes permanent.  According to advanced mathematics, forever > 8 years.

Yeah, Mitt even beat Ron Paul in Paul’s congressional district!

Not really.  They might be loyal to Ron Paul, but they are bound to vote for Romney.

Brian, most of that is NOT how Romney would lead off.

I don’t know any of us who were at the Convention supporting Dr. Paul who have any interest in voting for Obama. Most of us cannot, however bring ourselves to vote for Obomney either though. If (and let’s face it…when) Ron Paul fails to win the GOP nomination, I will be voting for former two term REPUBLICAN Governor Gary Johnson for President of these United States and doing so in full faith that he is the best person whose name will be on the ballot in Maine for the job. If this means that Obama wins another 4 years to run the Corpritocracy then maybe the GOP will step up and put a viable candidate on the ballot next time who actually stands by and for the Constitution that she or he is swearing to support and defend. If we just hunker down and continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, that is all that we will ever have to lead our Republic.

RM Russell says:

You are judging Mitt Romney for his governorship in taxachusetts?! The man is for free enterprise ,he loves the United States, he isn’t a socialist,and because of what Obama has brought upon our country,Mr. Romney may well have changed his stands on issues. A person would be a fool not to react to an immediate danger ! I believe,too,that he is smart enough to see that we conservatives want less government. To my mind,Obama’s socialist/marxist beliefs are way more dangerous than the fear that Romney won’t”reduce the size of government.” That can’t be necessarily done in one fell swoop anyway,but Obama,unfettered by re-election can take this country down  into an abyss that it will never be able to crawl out of.

PositivelyUp says:

In response to your comment kindly see the same response to RM Russell’s~ “Mitt Romney is not a liberal” comment. It posted below Bri-32′s comment. Long but details the concerns I have about Willard Romney as a candidate and possible nominee.
Thank you

PositivelyUp says:

Kindly see my response to yours below. It for some reason attached to the comment below-Bri_vb32.
Thank you for your response. Please consider mine and reply if you so wish.

PositivelyUp says:

Because the electronic voting machines are rigged. Secondly to reach the masses you need to spend millions on tv ads. Why bother to waste donors hard earned money on ads when you can easily win the state convention delegates. Since delegates are the important factor here and this has been Congressman Ron Pauls plan from the get go, it makes sense that he stick to the plan. Dr Paul does not have bankers,corporate and wealthy donors in his back pocket,he only answers to us his campaign backers…and we are “We the people.” The only people that matters that is. : )

PositivelyUp says:

Ron Paul is the only candidate with consistency and a voting record “for the people” to backup his claims. He is the man with real vision,integrity and stands out as presidential. He is the only candidate not in it for himself but again “for the pople” to make real change in this country. He will cut a trillion in his first year unlike his opponent who wishes to raise the debt ceiling with more military spending. I for one am tired of war,undeclared wars that is and policing and rebuilding other countries. We have more military installations overseas than in our own country. Why?

PositivelyUp says:

Ron Paul is the man who has the most followers in this campaign and with good reason. He is everything a president should be. His has moral character,his voting record is consistently “for the people” and he backs it up with his solid history.

PositivelyUp says:

I do and many folks I know have serious concerns about Willard Romney as a candidate let alone him possibly being nominated. The election process across the country has been out of sorts/fraudulent and always favoring Willard. Considering that and the huge push early on in the race by the media and elected officials was absurd. I recall some calling him the nominee. The same media were calling for the end of the democratic election/nomination process as early as the New Hampshire primaries. This was strange and sent out a big red flag across America. No one likes their right to vote/choose interferred with. Listening to Willard Romney during the 2008 and 2012 debates revealed that he was not a good speaker and often spoke in nonsensical short remarks that he frequently repeated. Many times he was caught on camera telling lies. I can’t vote for a man without integrity I said to myself. One of his long list of political gaffes came during a debate. Willard was asked if he was presented with the possibility of going to war, what would he do to prepare? His reply was “You contact the attorneys and let them decide.” I simply can’t vote for someone who is indicisive and lets others make important decisions for him. My vote is for a strong leader who understands the power of the presidency and the common sense to make common sense decisions for this country. He has flip flopped on almost everything he has stood for. I honestly believe the man will say anything to get elected. I feel his campaign has been the most negative in the GOP race that I have witnessed. Furthermore he has a horrible record of outcomes with Bain Capital that he initiated,others carried out before each departure. For him to say he was not present/involved at the time of the collaspe of the companies is misleading.
Even after one company filed bankruptcy it was on record that Bain officials including Willard Romney made millions in profits. This while they employees got nothing. That portrays greed. I cannot vote for a selfish man. Ed Kennedy in 1984 went after Willard Romney on his Bain record,as did McCain in 2008,Gingrich in 2011 and now Obama in 2012. Why are both Republicans and Democrats bringing his dealings at Bain to the attention of the public?
The revised Ryan plan does not budget anything until 40 years from the day it starts. This is the plan Willard Romney supports…one where he at 65 will be long dead and gone before it kicks in.
Truth be told Romney has no real clear cut plan other than to replace socialized romneycare with obamacare. Him being the godfather of obamacare would make for an easy transition.
Even with two remaining candidates in the GOP race Willard Romney is still squeeking by with 60% of the vote. His shaky record and unpopularity is what keeps most people home. This same thing is what is upsetting the old rank of the Republican Party that are willing to, as Rick Santorum said “Take one for the team.” This blind mentality is what keeps the old rank republicans up at night. It’s what makes them say and write nasty things about the only other candidate who they fear is getting more attention than their beloved undying devotion to the party favorite…Willard.
They recognize they are standing on shaky ground by supporting him.
What scares most people I talk to is the possibility of Willard becoming the nominee then president. Willard is a huge unknown where Obama we already know. Obama for 4 more years of the same or Willard for the possibility of 8 years of unknown.
In 4 years Republicans could effectively have a strong,ethical and morally responsible candidate for president. A real leader who stands for something that people will want to follow for more than simply party affiliation. We really want someone to make us proud to be on their team.

RM Russell says:

OBAMA IS ALREADY  BYPASSING CONGRESS by making executive orders,don’t you know that?! TheHouse and Senate can “oppose” all they want,but Obama, re-elected, will be unfetterred even more that he thinks he is now, and will  have a field day at America’s expense. 

starchild says:

Wow,feellikeI’mintheStarWarstrashcompactor…

Ern says:

How stupid can you be!?!

starchild says:

Don’t attack            
   the
msngr.  Read    themessage

RM Russell says:

You are getting your information from a San Francisco paper?!!!!??? There’s a mistake.

RM Russell says:

fascism:a governmental system led by a dictator havingcomplete power,forcibly supressing opposition and criticism,regimenting all industry,commerce,etc and emphasizing aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Sounds like Obama except for the nationalism.
I myself have libertarian streaks–I’ve never said it was all bad. Don’t you know that Conservatives,including me,believe the Constitution NEVER is irrelevant. Human nature stays the same ,just as the Founders knew.
Ron Paul,waking people up? Maybe waking the young–and that’s a good thing–but don’t ever dismiss the conservative Republicans who have been fighting the good fight their whole lives–long before you young Paul supporters were born. That insults us and I think that is why many of us are so bothered by the behavior of the Paul folks.
Don’t throw Grandma and Grandpa under the bus.

Larry T. Doughty says:

Oh please!

Larry T. Doughty says:

This way of thinking will certainly help to defeat Romney. No comparison between Paul and Johnson. This whole issue should lean towards the defeat of Obama. Lets face it Paul, isn’t going NOWHERE. Sorry.

Bonnie S says:

 Now you’ve got one. See above.

starchild says:

It’s not about Ron Paul, it’s about freedom. And Mitt Romney’s not for it. That’s why he shouldn’t be the nominee, and why Republicans will likely lose the election if he is. Growing numbers of Americans are waking up and want their freedom back, and if the Republican Party is not going to back a good candidate like Ron Paul, they’ll go with former Republican two-term governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson, who just got the Libertarian Party’s nomination.

Bonnie S says:

re: “If Ron Paul wins the nomination without winning primaries how can he have any expectation of winning a general election?”

Easy. The GOP primaries include under half the electorate. Independents are the largest affiliation in most states, and Ron Paul does better than Romney with Independents. The November election isn’t just among GOP voters. The GOP candidate needs to appeal to Rs *and* Independents to beat Obama. The latest PPP poll (5/2/12) shows Ron Paul doing better against Obama than Romney would, mainly due to Paul’s support among Independents.

The better question might be: how can Romney win against Obama without the Ron Paul supporters?

Bonnie S says:

 That’s because Paul actually supports the small-government beliefs that the GOP professes to believe in.

starchild says:

According to Ronald Reagan, libertarianism is the heart and soul of conservatism.

Take out the libertarian elements, and conservatives are a bunch of fascists. 

Sadly, the fascist element has been calling the shots for quite a while. But Ron Paul is waking people up.

starchild says:

Exactly. Romney supported the special interest bailouts. He fails to support even auditing let alone abolishing the Federal Reserve. He is a Wall Street crony capitalist. Read the SF Weekly cover story about how he operated while he was at Bain Capital – http://www.sfweekly.com/2012-04-18/news/mitt-romney-bain-capital-georgetown-steel-armco-creative-destruction/

starchild says:

Romney isn’t the same as Obama, but the analysis that it would be worse to have Romney’s agenda backed up by his own party, than to have Obama’s agenda blocked by the House Republicans, makes sense. Romney getting elected *could* be worse. Besides which, I don’t think he can beat Obama. Ron Paul can, because he has much more crossover appeal to independents and Democrats. And Romney got where he is mainly because he has big money and the party establishment largely behind him, not because most grassroots Republican voters actually want the guy. It is not too late to dump him. Delegates at the convention can rise up and vote for Ron Paul.

Pete Harring says:

Well, Ron Paul would surely get all of the Republicans to vote for him, shoot they would vote for Obama if there was an R next to his name.

AS of 1:10 PM Friday, I see no one has any rational explanation as to how Dr.Paul can win the general election without being able to defeat Romney in the Texas primary.  

Peter A. Steele says:

See my response above. There was no misquote.

Peter A. Steele says:

Tweed was not misquoted. I have been writing newspaper stories for 25 years, I take very accurate notes, and I have a good ear for quotes. Tweed prefaced his statement by saying: I’m going to be bold.” He knew he was being controversial. If you doubt it, come to my office and I will show you my notes. Furthermore, contact Tweed and ask him. Just because you dont like what Tweed said, don’t jump to the conclusion that he was misquoted. Do your homework.

midcoast207 says:

All of Tweed’s assessments are dead on.  He did a superlative job at the Convention and outlines the problems facing Republicans in the upcoming election very well.  If Obama gets elected, at least Republicans in the House and Senate will oppose his measures.  If Romney gets elected we will get the same agenda from the White House but Congress will sit on their hands, preach unity, and sing kumbayah.

Larry T. Doughty says:

So go ahead all you Paul fans, and vote against Romney. Enjoy your next four years of Obama. Get your heads out of the sand folks. Wake up.

Les Gibson says:

Obama is a marxist.

Les Gibson says:

And your opinion of his remarks concerning he would rather see the marxist get another 4 years would be?

Les Gibson says:

Well said, but I’m not going to waste my time submitting my evidence to those who won’t consider it.

Les Gibson says:

Well, Gregory, for starters Mr. Tweed should not have adjourned the convention prior to the county caucuses beginning. He should have recessed the convention.
Secondly, he insisted a quorom was in place Sunday afternoon when there clearly was not.
Many times he ruled speakers out if order without allowing them the courtesy of completing their statements.

Miriamconners says:

What if Mitt Romney were right about healthcare for his state of Massachusetts?   What if so called Romney Care turns out to be a creative and common sense solution to a remarkably vexing problem on the state level? (I’m sure you agree with me that there is no room for a federal healthcare insurance mandate) I say vexing, because we conservatives rarely point out the crux of the matter, which is, that Americans  do not turn the sick, injured, or dying away from our healthcare facilities.  Here in America we do not stand by and allow a person to bleed to death on the sidewalk outside, neither do we rifle through an accident victim’s pockets to make certain  they have an insurance card or a wad of cash.  And the very thing that we don’t talk about causes us an ambulance full of vexation.Were we morally able to treat people who need healthcare in the same fashion we treat people who need a car, then right across the board we would never be tempted to demand that one person help pay for another person’s healthcare costs.   We surely would not mandate insurance coverage.   It would be simple.  No cash.. no insurance.. no service.  And, of course, no mandates! Alas, when you have both a heart and conservative principles it is difficult to not look a teeny weenie bit like the other side in this matter.  Go ahead… I invite you to try.  It is easy for finger pointing to go on in a debate saying..”Mandate..mandate!”  But what is the real, boots on the ground, alternative if you, one,  do not have a society where every citizen takes responsibility for their healthcare, and two,  do not or cannot rely wholly on charitable contributions, and three,  will not turn people in need away from healthcare centers? The reality is that you must ultimately mandate something from someone.  Here in Maine, there are no mandates for health insurance.  But ask yourself, are you mandated in any way to pay a portion of someone else’s healthcare costs?  Which is less conservative:  That we expect the person receiving a healthcare service to pay for the cost of it? Or to expect that one person is compelled to pay for the cost of another person’s healthcare service?   I see why the Founders said that our form of government was clearly insufficient except for a moral people. The universal answer to this complex dilemma is of course, the utopian idea of every person being self reliant and also, by their own free will, caring for the truly needy.  I come from a background where I have witnessed for myself the poor and needy being assisted without any compulsive mandate.  So I know it is possible. Rare, but possible. Yet, in  our vast and complex society where there are, by the nature of things, those who take responsibility for themselves and those who do not, as well as those who give to the needy and those who do not,  perhaps the ideas put forth by Governor Romney and sanctioned by the very conservative Heritage Foundation are creative and fair solutions to a very vexing problem.  A problem we would not have, if, we were not conservative OR we had no heart.

Guest says:

If you really want to beat Obama you would get everyone you know behind Ron Paul. He is the only person who can sway dems, independents and republicans who are tired of this BS. Between Romney and Obama, Romney is obviously going to lose no questions asked. He offers no change and he doesn’t have any mainstream appeal

MiriamConners says:

I love Ron Paul. It is my observation though that many of his supporters are losing credibility here by stating that Romney is the very same as Obama.  When RP comes out in support of Romney I wonder if they will turn on him.  I’ve also observed that people can become dedicated and loyal to a candidate and lose sight of the country.  Sounds weird, but I’ve seen it happen. I like Mitt Romney for many reasons and hope that they both work together in the end to save America.  

RM Russell says:

And neither are you and the rest of the Paul people. You are Libertarian,so ‘fess up!  You just know that the Libertarian Party won’t spin a thread,that’s why you’ve glommed on to the republican Party. I am sick of you guys denigrating us Republicans because we don’t “meet your expectations.” Well guess what, you fall short of ours,so get off your highhorse,all of you. 
You go for it ALL. I just hope and pray,as I said earlier, that our country won’t suffer. Just be careful what you wish for.

While I think Brent Tweed may have been misquoted, I fully agree that there is no difference between Obama and Romney – On the Important issues that affect the country.   That’s why Romney has to continually talk about unimportant issues.  If the GOP serves up Romney as their nominee, I will have to write in Ron Paul.  Please vote, write your candidate in if you have to.  If you still support Romney after observing all the dirty tricks that have been taking place, take a look at this link.  We may be able to vote for Ron Paul in November after all.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/its-romneys-to-lose-heres_b_1519827.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=724945,b=facebook

Hint: Neither is Romney

Can you be a bit more specific about the procedural errors ?  Exactly where did he treat any person unfairly ?  Where did he stray from Robert’s Rules  ?   Well—we’re waiting  

Johno2626 says:

 One of the reasons Ron Paul hasn’t won many primary state, is that primary states, largely with computerized voting, are a complete fraud.  Ron Paul has massive support across GOP, Democrat, and Independent voters.  He wants to concentrate on caucus states, where the fraud has to be more out in the open.  To see how they rig the primary votes see:

TomJeff says:

Bryan, do you mind if I quote you on a blog I participate in?

RM Russell says:

Sorry Positively, all I said was some of you are not respecting MY choice– your holier than thou attitude. 
And I disagree, socialists DO  need to be quashed because  their way leads to totalitarianism .Obams is well on his way and 4 more years will clinch it!You want to talk meanspirited people? You should have seen the Paul supporters at my town’s caucus.If what I have written makes you think I am a rufkin, I’d hate to see your reaction to some of the terrible posts on the PPH!No need to talk about this anymore.  You guys do what you feel comfortable doing. And I hope it all turns out well for our country.

Bri_vb32 says:

I wish Mitt Romney would follow those Republican principals then i wouldn’t have a problem voting fot him.

We are not behind a ‘Candidate” we are a behind a message. the message is NO MORE SPECIAL INTERESTS OVER PEOPLE.  

WoodChic says:

Guys, I hate to break it too you, but there is a definite difference between Romney and Obama. Romney is clearly taller. I don’t see why all these crazy Ron Paul people don’t realize this.

Ken Anderson says:

One of the editors of Roberts Rules of Order rated Brent Tweed eight out of ten, with ten being excellent, and I would put his view ahead of yours, which is not to say that you aren’t entitled to your opinion.

Ken Anderson says:

 Umm… I hate to point it out to you, but Ron Paul won the majority of delegates in Massachusetts, Romney’s home state.

Ken Anderson says:

Other than skin color and party affiliation, there are few differences between Obama and Romney. I have often said the same thing, and in much the same way. Mathematically, four more years of Obama is better than a potential eight years of Romney. Those who support Romney would be supporting Obama if he were running as a Republican, and would hate Romney if he were a Democrat. If we are ever going to put our country back on the right track, we need to put issues ahead of party affiliation, and look at who these people are who we are supporting or opposing based on something more than mere party affiliation.

Jared McLaughlin says:

It is important to look at the context here.  Mitt Romney is a BIG GOVERNMENT person, a very, very BIG GOVERNMENT person.  He’s not a make a good product and make an honest living kind of guy.  He’s a use the lawyers and dirty tricks to extort wealth kind of guy.  This is not the spirit of America.  And it certainly is not in line with the principles of the Constitution.

Rob says:

Actually, the person sitting in the oval office may not be the problem. But an economic collapse caused by the Federal Reserve bursting a bubble that makes the housing bubble look like a tiny soap bubble, well…As long as the president and congress let the Fed do whatever it wants, we’re all in big trouble. 

As much as I don’t like Obama, and I’m not particularly thrilled about Romney, the person that really scares me is Bernanke. Unfortunately, I don’t get a voice in his election. But given the chance I’ll vote for Ron Paul because somebody has to stop the Fed before we all end up on the unemployment line. And you can bet your last billion dollars (after hyper-inflation is done with it :-), that neither Obama, nor Romney, will do anything meaningful to stop the Fed and it’s extremely dangerous actions.

Mike Kreamer says:

bryan… you are not playing fair, how is a neo-con progressive rino going to be able to argue with that?

PositivelyUp says:

8 out of 10…pardon me

PositivelyUp says:

I read Mr Thomas Balch was present at the Maine convention and gave Mr Tweed an “*” out of “10″ rating. That young man is to be commended to have gotten this rating! Bravo young man!

PositivelyUp says:

Hey,hey…be nice. We can have a civilized discussion here without the name calling and nastiness. Aren’t we all Republicans? Everyone has the right to his or her opinion without being treated disrespectfully. Please this is a nice newspaper and be polite. Now I understand what the media means when I read articles about how some of Romneys supporters are deliberately meanspirited to the Paul supporters. Please be a good example not a rufkin. By the way RM Russell, my 40+ year neighbor who I adore happens to be a democrat but I still appreciate her views and respect her for standing for something. Be glad people care and don’t be sorry concerned about sqaushing them out. Goodness gracious.

RM Russell says:

You are welcome to vote for whomever you wish,but don’t claim to be a Republican if the Republican candidate doesn’t suit you and so you won’t vote for him.Oh I suspect you don’t want to be in a party,period.Well,what’s the choice then?
I initially wanted Newt Gingrich,which probably makes you gag,but if Romney is the candidate I will vote for him. There area HUGE differences in the Democrat and Republican philosophies.

PositivelyUp says:

Mr Steele,the author of the article is incorrect. Mr Tweed is not the leader, I do believe Ron Paul holds that position.

PositivelyUp says:

As a long time registered republican I for one agree with the Maine Convention chair Mr Tweed.
Mr Tweed hit the nail on the head when he said there is little difference between Barack Obama and Willard Romney. Let’s face it romneycare is the godfather of obamacare and both are socialized medicine. My decision was made last summer after viewing the debates and information about Mr Romney. I was not impressed then and find it difficult to believe he has made it this far. I am not alone as most of my family and aquintances feel exactly as I do. No Mr Tweed is only expressing the dissastisfaction the rest of the republican party feels when presented with the second presidential election in a row with a weak candidate. I feel it is my right to not vote and sit this election out just like it was my right in 2008.

Larry T. Doughty says:

 Yes, obviously that is why Paul is lying low. Contrary to what he says. Whereas many on this thread refuse to accept it. Paul is a good solid citizen, but not presidential material. IMHO.

Larry T. Doughty says:

 Hope you enjoy the possibility of 4 more years of Obama. He such a nice man in charge of America. Shame.

bobstewart says:

…so yes, we hijacked “your” party now it is “our” party and our guy is Dr. Paul and now therefore he is now our party’s guy. Period. Now we are taking over the whole damn mismanaged thing… Democrats and Republicans alike, your only choice? Become part of the solution or we will out you as the problem. Is that PC enough?! God bless Brent Tweed he is a real American Patriot!

“For him to say he would choose Obama over Romney is a serious error in judgment”

I agree, although he should have added one more phrase: “for the Republican Party”.

The US is now in the last scene of Thelma & Louise. Do we really want our team in the driver’s seat? Obama has done more for the GOP in 4 short years than all of the Republican efforts since Reagan. O’s re-election will completely discredit socialism – I can see the end of the Democrat party by 2016 if he wins again.

If Romney wins, and turns in a stellar performance, it is possible we will only lose 50 seats in the House in ’14, and half a dozen Governorships. More likely 100 and 15.

The Welfare State is disintegrating before our very eyes. Peter Schiff is predicting 100% inflation, 50% unemployment and the stock market down 90% – in the next 12 months.

And we want to put a “safe driver” at the wheel? We need Mario Andretti, and we got Ward Cleaver.

Let Obama “complete” his mission. We need to get this on HIS resume:-)

I have been a conservative Republican my entire life. I’ve been voting as such since I was 18 years old. I still hold fast to my socially conservative values. Without wavering and without shame. For the past two presidential elections, I have also voted for the “lesser of two evils” as was my Republican “duty”…or so I was told by my party. 

During the Republican debates this past year, I examined the “credible” options, which of course did not include Paul (He’s nuts, right?) and decided that I didn’t really like any of them. I bounced around a bit between a few and then I realized that my choice was going to be either Mitt Romney: a liar, Newt Gingrich: a pompous liar, or Santorum: maybe a nice fellow, but has no business running a country. 

So those were my options, right? No. I had one other option that I hadn’t looked at seriously because the Republican establishment had long led me to believe that he didn’t know what he was talking about and that he was a loon: Ron Paul.

I did my research. I looked into his policies. While I don’t agree with every little thing, I do agree on his fundamental stance. The Federal Government is too big and we need to get back to the Constitution. Not just reference it with a warm, nostalgic tone like so many other Republicans, but REALLY get back to it. Treat it with the respect it deserves. Use it as the Founding Fathers intended it to be used. 

I will no longer vote for the “lesser of two evils” as mandated to me by my  party. I will no longer push aside my personal beliefs, what I believe is right and wrong, to be a “team player.” 

I respect your decision to vote for the candidate you believe in. All I ask is for my fellow party members to respect mine.

Bob542 says:

Can you explain how Romney’s old LT Gov could not get elected as a delegate in MA? Take a look at the facts and see how many delegates he failed to gain in HIS own state.

In regard to your comment concerning “serious procedural errors” made by Mr. Tweed as Convention Chairman: On stage with him, at all times, was a panel of parliamentarians. They were put there specifically to keep the Chairman (whether it had been Mr. Tweed or Mr. Cragin) in check and to make sure they were following Robert’s Rules of Order. 

Included on that board was Mr. Thomas Balch, who is credited as co-author of the most current 11th Edition of Robert’s Rules of Order. At the end of the convention, Mr. Tweed was given a rating of 8/10 for his performance and adherence to the rules governing the convention by the panel, which again, included Mr. Balch.

Anyone convinced that Mr. Tweed, and subsequently the entire board of parliamentarians, created “serious procedural errors” should write Mr. Balch a formal letter outlining exactly where he went wrong in enforcing the very Rule’s he knows well enough to have his name credited to.

Anyone convinced that  “serious procedural errors” were made shows a lack of in-depth knowledge of Robert’s Rules of Order and I would challenge them to, instead of merely referencing the “errors” in such a generic manner, actually reference them specifically, citing by page number, where exactly the rules were broken.

bobstewart says:

Who came in second in the New Hampshire DEMOCRATIC primary? Ron Paul. This election is not about the false left-right political theater being televised by corporate media. Our Country is on the brink of so many disasters that this MUST become WeThePeople vs. The Establishment. We have aligned behind the ethos of anything but the establishment and indeed if you “Republicans” want four more years of Obama then by all means check “Romney” on your ballot OR if you have even an ounce of courage you’ll join this revolution by writing in the only other name that can win. In the end this movement will know who to blame for lack of unity.

Roland Wyman says:

Mr. Steele, I notice a comment on the SacoRepublican Facebook page that claims Mr. Tweed was mis-quoted.  This link should take you to where your article was posted and the resulting comment.  Your response?
https://www.facebook.com/sacorepublicans/posts/295487223871904?notif_t=share_comment 

Matt says:

Paul or Romney could beat Obama
Romney is Obamalite, but Paul has some really
strong ideas, such as a constitutional basis for wars,
and ending the Fed Reserve’s scam.

Mike Kreamer says:

anyone saying that there is a significant difference between obama and romney is stuck in the simplistic one dimensional  left/right sliding scale trap. when viewed though a two dimensional scale like the nolan chart the similarity’s are obvious…  romney is a progressive, just like mccain was, and THAT was my last wasted vote.

the lesser of two evils is still evil, and the liberty movements successes IN SPITE of the establishment media and political dinosaurs SHOULD be waking them up to the fact that the people have had enough. it is going to get worse before it gets better, revolution is not pretty and the days of the third party system are numbered.

Bri_vb32 says:

I will not vote for Obama and I will not vote for Romney. If that means throwing my vote away on a 3rd party candidate then so be it, at least I will be able to sleep at night knowing that I didn’t support either crook. Romney will not get this country out of this financial mess we are in, he is funded by all the big banks who gave gotten us into this mess. He will not go against his banker friends to do what is right for this country. They have made too much money off of this financial cricis with bailout money from the tax payers and have gained great power in process.

Krokker says:

The age of cheerleading for whatever puppet is put in front the team is old and tired. It will end one way or another. 

Can any of you tell me what conservative things Mitt Romney accomplished in Massachusetts as governor?  Who are the conservative judges that he appointed to the bench?

Like those have said, Obama can only hurt America for 4 more years but Romney can have 8 potential years to advance socialism like he did in Massachusetts.

Can you tell me a conservative thing that Mitt Romney did as governor of Massachusetts?  Tell me some conservative judges that he appointed, can you do that?

Where is Romney’s conservative record?

“Takeover” really?  In order for it to be a “takeover” then the winner would have been predetermined and frankly I don’t think that the GOP should be in the business of telling the rank and file voters whom to support.

Brent Tweed did an excellent job as chairman of the convention and I don’t think that trying to drag his name through the mud or drag the majority of delegates through the mud is very unifying for the party, do you?

ENOUGH OF THIS!  

Evan Brown says:

Wow, you “apparently” know little about anything!

RM Russell says:

Mitt Romney is not a Liberal. He will get our country out of this economic mess . we have to be on solid financial ground before we can quash the socialist liberals once and for all. I hope people who voted for Obama have learned a lesson,but if you guys are going to vote for him while claiming to be for free markets,and the Constitution we’re doomed.Do you honestly think Obama is PRO-Constitution? You know, Ron Paul and his followers don’t have a monopoly on believing in the Constitution! You all are so holier-than-thou.
 I think the Ron Paul supporters are simply anti-war,no matter what kind of war. So tell me I’m wrong if you disagree,I can take it. I just am so fearful you guys are cutting off your noses to spite your faces. In voting for Obama you’ll be in as much doo-doo(as the country will be) as if you were right!

Evan Brown says:

We don’t know who the nominee is yet for one thing. I’m certainly not going to believe the Media or the RNC for that information either!

L A says:

I didn’t read anywhere in the article that he said , “he would rather have Obama for president rather than Romney”. 

 He said, “I put Mitt Romney in the same category as Obama,” he said. “I’m going to be bold here. Obama winning—and I don’t like Obama—is better than Romney winning.” 

He is showing how 4 years of grief would be better than 8 years of the same grief.  No matter who the candidates are, 4 years of frustration is better than 8.  I’m sure there are others who read the article and understood the meaning behind the statement.

Mr. Tweed is an intelligent man and carried the convention in a highly professional manner under circumstances that were multiple attempts by multiple people who stood in lines clear to the curtains to the lobby-mostly in an attempt to be dilatory to process.  If there was someone in line who wished to speak otherwise, who can see who is being dilatory or not? Robert’s Rules of Order and Parliemantary Procedure contributor, Balch, was the one actually advising Mr. Tweed on process.  Why isn’t anyone blaming him for anything? 

Evan Brown says:

They were out of order. At least 95% what they had to say had nothing to do with the subject at hand. Plus they tried their hardest to prolong this meet as much as possible which was also out of order. I was extremely confused by their strategy of saying how we voted was unfair AFTER the fact. Why not make a point of order or a motion BEFORE we vote if Romney supporters were so concerned?..Ok, Romney not a socialist?! How did this whole “socialist” issue come about for Obama? I think it was primarily in regard to healthcare. Anyone with common sense can see Romney and Obama have the same views as far as that goes!

RM Russell says:

Hint: Obama is not one.

Fiddlehead says:

Please look up Obamney on YouTube. I believe it will help add clarification to chairman Tweeds argument.

Evan Brown says:

Here is my response to someone who posted “Mr. Tweed can’t be serious” on the Washington County GOP Facebook Page. I said: I honestly doubt he’s joking. There is no difference between Obama and Romney. AT ALL! Might as well keep Obama if it comes down to them two.

L A says:

Great Article Mr. Tweed!  I understand what you mean by the Obama is better than Romney.  Neither are actually the leaders that we need to fix our great country.  Dr. Paul is the only one that sees the big picture and he’s going to get the vote in the end(there are hundreds of thousands more who weren’t involved with the grassroots and caucuses and conventions who know Dr. Paul is the leader to get us through the mess we are in-he will get votes.  He is the most credible and people who are tired know this!).  Many believe that Obama and Romney are too close in their views to make much of a difference.  If Obama gets voted in(not by me or any other liberty supporter)it will be 4 years before he’s not elected again..it will take that long for his Dems to realize he’s not a leader(but then you’re already seeing that he’s not drawing in the same crowds as previously and Dems saw him sign the Antiprotest law with shock). If Romney gets voted in, we’ll most likely see 8 years of the same endless wars which has led us to where we are now. We won’t see true change that will help our economy unless Dr. Paul is elected!  That is the reality that the rest of the Republicans refuse to accept.  I believe that we all have to come to terms with what has been signed into law: The Patriot Act, The NDAA, The Anti-Protest Trespass Law. These were all infringements of our Constitutional rights that none seemed to flinch at. If we do not address these violations of the U.S. Constitution as a cohesive group, then it is showing we don’t care and more will continue to happen unless we elect Ron Paul to Restore America!

Shalnev says:

How do you define Republican?

Tim McClure says:

Actions speak louder than words.  Look at Mitts record and tell me he is a conservative.  I think not.  Like Obama he supports crony capitalism. Like Obama he supports big government programs.  

So long as we retain the House, I would prefer four more years of gridlock than eight more years of another phony conservative. Its time conservatives stopped worrying about how many R’s are in office and take a close look at the quality of our candidates.  To do otherwise is the same philosophy the Progressives have used to run this county; quantity over quality.  Because of this foolish view we have crappy schools, we have expensive healthcare, and we have Banks receiving boat loads of cash to pay for their mistakes. 

No sir, I will not tolerate mediocracy or dishonesty any more. You want my vote, earn it.

Bri_vb32 says:

What is the difference between Obama and Romney. There both liberals, both supported by the central banks, have same healthcare policy, both think it is ok to illegally detain US citizens without a trial, both want to expand government.

Bri_vb32 says:

What is the difference between Obama and Romney? I have been trying to figure that out for months now.

Aleutka29 says:

Many people in the Liberty movement draw parallels to the anti-war movement that was so powerful during the Bush years. They saw how with the election of a Democrat, the anti-war movement lost most of it’s steam. These people had their man in office and that seemed to be enough for them.
Could that happen to the Liberty movement? If Romney was elected could that knock the legs out of the quest for more Liberty candidates being elected all through this country? With Obama in the White House we have a big bullseye on what is wrong with this country and this world and all the incentive needed to overcome this with further grassroots action. Remember the old saying, “Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer”.

If it is indeed our goal to beat Obama in November, should we nominate someone who will fail to stand any chance such as we did in 2008 (you remember, the guy who Romney Lost too, McCain) or should we seek a nominee who will be able to attract Independents and disgruntled Democrats?  That is… Ron Paul? 

Just for a moment, let’s envision a debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama:
Romney: “We need to repeal Obamacare.”
Obama: “But Mitt, your consultants helped us design Obamacare on the basis of Romneycare. While my plan didn’t include $50 co-pay abortion coverage like yours does, it still has the individual mandate!”
Romney: “We need to protect ‘traditional male-female’ marriage.”
Obama: “Well then why as governor did you unilaterally, illegally and unconstitutionally implement same-sex “marriage”falsely claiming the “court ordered you to?”
Romney: “We need a president who will protect and defend life and de-fund Planned Parenthood.”
Obama: “Well why as governor did you sign into law $50 co-pay abortions and put a Planned Parenthood board member on your healthcare advisory board (3 years after your supposed “pro-life conversion.”)? And why did you and your wife give Planned Parenthood money and give them extra power?
Romney: “We need to defend religious freedom for all religious organizations.”
Obama: “So why then do you support state level Employment Non-Discrimination Act which would force churches and other religious organizations to hire homosexuals and transvestites or face criminal fines and prosecution?”
Romney: “We need to cut taxes to get our economy moving.”
Obama: “So why did you oppose the Bush Tax Cuts and raise taxes and fees by a billion dollars which decimated the Massachusetts economy?”
Romney: “I oppose Obama’s amnesty.”
Obama: “So why did you support McCAin-Bush-Kennedy Amnesty?”Romney: “I oppose cap and trade.”
Obama: “Well why did you support most of McCain-Lieberman Cap and Trade and recently state publicly that “global warming” is “man-made?”
Romney: “I oppose everything you stand for!”
Obama: “Kinda sounds like you and I actually stand for the very same things my brother from another mother!”

RM Russell says:

The Paul supporters I know say they are Republicans first. Well then what would follow is they would vote for the Republican nominee,right? Not according to Tweed and others!

Larry T. Doughty says:

Judgement? Worse than that Les.

Larry T. Doughty says:

 No Bob he is not kidding. These folks have really got to get with the program. But, just comparing Obama and Romney is amazing.

Larry T. Doughty says:

 The nomination isn’t official until the national convention, he said. “We believe we can get a majority.”
 
What is this Tweed smoking? He needs to let go of his huge ego, it is killing him. Too late probably. Apparently, even Paul recognizes a lost cause finally.

Bob says:

Bob Stone asks: Obama better than Romney?

If Obama gets reelected, we would only be stuck with him for 4 more years. If Romney get elected, we would be stuck with him for 8. Think about it. Robama or Obamney. Not much of a choice!

Ldyerclu says:

If Obama wins another term, the opportunity for prosperity for our grandchildren is gone!!  How sad!!  Let’s stand behind our nominee to make sure this does not happen!  Country before self-

RM Russell says:

I can’t take anyone seriously who believes there is no difference between Obama and Mitt Romney.

RM Russell says:

You can bet your boots if Ron  Paul should win the nomination the Paul supporters WOULD EXPECT ALL OF US NASTY OLD RUN-OF-THE-MILL REPUBLICANS TO SUPPORT THEIR NOMINEE!

Larry T. Doughty says:

This guy may think that Obama, would be better than Romney, but apparently Paul realizes, that he doesn’t have a chance in hell in becoming President, or even a secretary in a Romney administration.  Mr. Tweed should move on, and get out of the way, to a victory by Romney. What is he and others of his ilk thinking of anyway? Sounds a little nuts to me. Get out of our way Tweed. We don’t need your type screwing things up.

Les Gibson says:

Mr. Tweed is a brillant yong man. However, I feel he was a bit in ovet his head as Convention Chairman. He did, in my view, commit some serious procedural errors. I also believe that he treated some in the Romney camp unfairly when tried to present a point of order or submit a motion by automatically ruling them out of order.

For him to say he would choose Obama over Romney is a serious error in judgement. Romney is no conservative, but neither is he a Marxist trying to transform our country into a socialist state.

Bob Stone says:

Obama better than Romney?  You gotta be kidding.

Bogger1 says:

I was basically agreeing with him until he said he would rather have Obama for president rather than Romney. ABO!!

A question for Mr. Tweed. If Ron Paul wins the nomination without winning primaries how can he have any expectation of winning a general election?  I suppose its possible the “anyone but Obama” vote could be large enough to win, but that seems a slim reed to support a presidential campaign.  I am perplexed that Rep. Paul will not even seek to win the Texas primary.  If a Republican from Texas can’t win the Texas GOP primary against a Massachusetts moderate , how can he win swing states and win the November election?