How long will it be before the democrats start whining about fraud?

How about no time at all, Lumpy? They're already crying foul in early news interviews.

I have to say I've never seen more electioneering. All sorts of folks waving signs much too close to polling locations.

Anyway, I'm off to my precinct convention to see if I can get picked as a delegate.

Dave

Good for you for voting for the only conservative in the race. McCain is a RINO and the only difference between him and the Dems is that he's more open about his stance on keeping the war in Iraq going. The real question is, if Paul wins Texas will the media even say so? Or will they just act like there was no Republican primary today. Again, thanks for voting for Paul.

What'll be great is when the super delegates expose the scam for what it really is and vote in Obama anyway, knowing that Clinton can't beat McCain.

toss mccain overboard.

JP, I did vote for Paul, but that said, you're offensively full of crap. McCain is anything but a RINO and Paul is anything but a 'real' conservative.

Being conservative is NOT about being anti-war, and although Paul has many good ideas to offer, he's really not qualified by temperament or ability to be president. I just like giving him a voice to shake things up in the GOP.

Dave

Better re-think your support for McCain, Dave. Listen to your conscience. What that still small voice may be telling you is this: In all other aspects except the War in Iraq, John McCain is a big- government socialist. He's a tax-and-spendoholic. And if he's in the white house, his socialist agenda will sail through congress a lot easier than if it's Hillary or Obama. I live in Arizona. I know from personal communication with McCain that he is NOT a conservative. He's about as anti- libertarian as a politician can be.

I would really like to see people understanding the actual issues. NAFTA should be of prime concern. It IS the agreement that is ruining our country and attacking our Constitution and our sovereignty. Ron Paul is the ONLY one running in EITHER party that would stop this.

Peaople are confused because they think NAFTA is Free trade. It is not. It is "managed trade". McCain "says" he is for free trade. He is NOT. He is for "Managed trade" as are both of the Democrats.

Ron Paul will solve the Health care crisis, without "mandatory" health insurance (universal health care). He would FIX the economy, and is probably the ONLY one who truly knows how. He is also the ONLY one who WILL get our troops out of IRAQ. No matter WHAT the rest say, do your OWN homework!

I wondering if the same Republicans who voted for Clinton will take the time to participate in the Democratic Caucasus?

It's not fraud, but it is a bit foul. Rovian.

RON PAUL BEAT CHRIS PEDEN IN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 14 RACE.

Maybe Dave Nalle, Texans voted for him in the primary too, because they actually believe in his message--or at least various parts of it. Maybe REAL conservatives don't listen to Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham?

"Maybe REAL conservatives don't listen to Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham?"

So true, so true. That's because Limbaugh and Ingraham are not real conservatives themselves, but instead just phonies.

Here's a pretty good editorial from the Dallas Morning News on the subject of cross-over voting.

McCain won in Texas. I agree with the editorial that to cross over and ignore the Republican party candidates running for other offices, is completely unfair to them.

Did Rush point this out? That you can vote as a Democrat for Clinton, but you're screwed in all State races?

What a guy!

I don't know what conservative means, but I find Limbaugh to be quite entertaining. I always hear how hateful he is but the times I've heard his show he sounded more tongue in cheek than angry. I can't listen to more than five minutes of any of the other self righteous assholes who inhabit the realm of political talk.

As for the crossing the aisle idea. That had occurred to me but I was too lazy to make it happen. I made up for for my sin by talking two people out of voting for Obama though.

The sad thing about the episode is that they had planned on voting for Obama without knowing any of his policy positions because the news showed them hillary was 'mean'. I explained to them Obama's support of the ridiculous Fair Pay Act, his tax and healthcare plan basics and they were cured of Obamamania. The whole thing left me wondering why they were voting democrat in the first place.

I wondering if the same Republicans who voted for Clinton will take the time to participate in the Democratic Caucasus?

There was a lot of speculation about this locally, with the main question being whether the fist fights between the republicans and democrats would interfere with the fist fights between obama and clinton supporters.

RON PAUL BEAT CHRIS PEDEN IN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 14 RACE.

Hardly an accomplishment. Peden was a loser and a weasel.

Maybe Dave Nalle, Texans voted for him in the primary too, because they actually believe in his message--or at least various parts of it.

That's why I voted for him. I'm all for the message - not so fond of the medium.

Maybe REAL conservatives don't listen to Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham?

Or perhaps they do, but they have enough sense not to take it too seriously.

I agree with the editorial that to cross over and ignore the Republican party candidates running for other offices, is completely unfair to them.

In this area almost all of the Republicans were runnign unopposed and the rest were shoe-ins. It would have made the choice much easier.

Dave

To: Dave "Damning Him With Faint Praise" Nalle.

There've been weasels and losers (e.g. Bill White--and Kirchick of the National Review, who used White as a "source") who've dealt serious blows to Ron Paul. Overcoming the same sort of lies ("he's using his presidential war chest to fund his congressional campaign") in his own district IS a victory, and if you'd been reading the praises of the weasel Chris Peden being sung over the media for the last few weeks, you'd recognize it as such, too.

As for finding JP's statements "offensively full of crap (#6)" have you done lunch with John McCain lately so as to discern whether HE is "qualified by temperament or ability to be president?" Ron Paul's record is completely missing anything LIKE McCain's Keating Five incident. Character-wise, and judgment wise, and temperament-wise Ron Paul is stacking up pretty well against McCain. There is enough meat in the issues department so that we can redirect the presidential shopping cart out of the character assassination aisle, where the Democrats are hanging out.

As to expertise in financial matters, McCain bumbled through an answer on economic policy in a debate with Ron Paul (who was surprisingly, vouchsafed an opportunity to ask McCain a question) and then tried to reassure by listing all the economic experts on whom he would be relying on for advice. Ron Paul on the other hand, is the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology, and in that role, he's been issuing warnings about the economy that people are only just starting to heed. A president shouldn't make decisions without seeking advice--but the more solid their own knowledge base that allows them to assess the merits of, and synthesize, the help being given.

Not to worry about McCain's dearth of expertise and thus consistency with respect to foreign policy over his political career. Just as he has economic advisors a-plenty, he has neoconservatives a-plenty to rely on for foreign policy advice. On another thread, we've already discussed the significant neoconservative influences on McCain, amongst his foreign policy advisers, where such influence counts most.

The only way I'd vote for McCain would be if I were oath-bound, as a delegate, to vote for McCain in the first round if he were selected by the voters in my state. After that, absent a clear majority...I intend to keep chipping away at that majority. Am I worried that Clinton will win if I chip away at McCain's support? No. I'd rather see Clinton in office than McCain. McCain is courting the support of evangelicals by welcoming the endorsement of televangelist McGee. If Clinton gets elected, evangelicals will be looking at their new president with eyes wide open. Most of them will probably remain delusional if McCain gets elected---just as most of them were in 2004 when it was time to re-elect the neo-con puppet GWB.

So Dave Nalle, lets hear some more about the good ideas Ron Paul has. Maybe it's time for you to write another article about him. You voted for him, after all. Tell us why.

That should be: Televangelist "Hagee" not McGee. J. Vernon would be rolling in his grave.

Umm, Irene:

It's over...

"I don't know what conservative means, but I find Limbaugh to be quite entertaining."

Me too. I found it extremely entertaining when Laimbaugh received a medical deferment from 'Nam for a pimple on his butt, and then years later labeled Bill Clinton a draft dodger. And even more entertaining when he wanted to send all the drug dealers "up the river," and then later was busted for using black market narcotics and illegally doctor shopping.

REMF & Doug--I was using the phrase "listen to" to mean "heed," but I see that was a pretty confusing way to put it. There are plenty of people who aren't Ditto Heads who tune in for a laugh :)

Clavos -- Miles to go.

Paul is done as a presidential candidate, Irene...

Paul was never a serious candidate...have we determined what becomes of the $

Clavos, Presidential candidates are candidates until they decide to drop out of the race, but you know that. Maybe you're concerned that I'm going to burn myself out chasing after a mirage, spending all my money on a party dress for an inaugural ball that isn't going to happen? Don't worry about me, Clavos.

When you believe in what you're doing, you look at a goal beyond the goal to keep you going.

Time for a reality check, Irene...

Troll, Ron Paul's campaign war chest is impressive, especially in comparison to the funds the other candidates have been able to raise. I know he has some paid staff, but everyone I know personally from the campaign is a volunteer. Exposure by the major media has had to be fought for--that sort of exposure is something money can't buy, at least not if you're honest. None of the funds from his presidential campaign (contrary to a campaign smear ad during the Texas Congressional race) financed his Congressional campaign by the way--the two campaign funds were, by law, separate. I don't know how much of his presidential campaign fund will be left over after expenses related to the remaining primaries, the state and national conventions, and educational ads that may be run closer to the G.E.

I do know this. The man has refused to participate in a Congressional pension program that would have yielded him thousands of dollars a year upon retirement. Money from his Congressional office budget that is not spent goes right back into the U.S. treasury. After consideration of these facts, one has little reason to believe the money he raised for his presidential campaign will end up in some dishonest politician's bank account.

There's every reason to believe it will be spent in a way that honors the significant financial sacrifices made by some of his supporters (e.g., active duty military personnel and other middle class folk who are struggling with grocery bills going up every week.)

The moonbats artificially skewed the GOP primaries in early states like NH, now GOP voters in Texas are returnign the favor?

Priceless.

I hope the trend continues in more upcoming states with open primaries.

Payback is a bitch.