To each Ron Paul supporter across the United States and across the world, are you really supporting your Presidential candidate?
Yes, there are more Ron Paul signs than street signs. Yes, the $20 million fourth quarter was quite impressive, but what if this entire effort does not secure a Republican nomination for Dr. Paul?
Optimists, as they do better than anyone else, answer questions like this with surprising inspiration. “It's the message that counts,” they say. “The message will never die,” they say. “More and more people are waking up,” they say.
These generalizations are certainly good messages and it is true that the message counts, will not die, and more people are becoming aware of problems in Washington. But will a Libertarian such as Ron Paul ever be elected to the Presidency?
Optimists say yes, but other people say no. Some people enjoy pointing out his low poll numbers. Some people claim men like Dr. Paul are “unelectable.” Some people however, think there is only one reason why candidates like Paul will never win an election:
Was I the only one who wondered how it was possible that CNN could project the New Hampshire winner when only 12% of the precincts had reported? Was I the only one who noticed that the election results were virtually the same all night give or take a percentage or two? Strangely, I remember the numbers very well. At 12%, CNN reported John McCain with 37%, Mitt Romney at 28%, Mike Huckabee at 14%, Rudy Guiliani at 9% and Ron Paul at 8%. I watched all night and the numbers didn't change really at all. As the reported precincts hit 80%, I was astonished how similar the results were to the 12% report: McCain 37%, Romney 31%, Huckabee 11%, Rudy 9%, Paul 8% (forgive me if I'm wrong by a percentage point or something). Now, I'm not dismissing that there may be a mathematical way of explaining these numbers, and there probably is, but in either case I began to think. And after doing some research the past few days by reading articles and seeing movies on the subject, I've come to a conclusion:
It's not a conspiracy theory anymore, folks. Voting fraud is real. It's been real for some time now. It has been used to provide controversial results to many close elections, especially the main event fights in 2000 and 2004. It's so real that it has been the subject of an HBO movie. It's so real, you can find articles about it in the New York Times. The fraud, which comes in the form of electronic voting, is being battled once more because it's again time to select the next President of the United States. The most recent story comes straight out of New Hampshire, home of the first primary election.
Not even one week after polls closed, major efforts are being made to address some major concerns regarding the integrity of the final results in New Hampshire's primary. The piece of news that has been getting the most publicity is the recount of New Hampshire votes urged by Democratic hopeful Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. He claims that there are “serious and credible reports, allegations and rumors” regarding the reliability of the reported vote totals.
A piece of news that has not received much publicity is that in Sutton, New Hampshire, Congressman Paul was reported as receiving 0 votes. As Devvy Kidd from newswithviews.com points out, this number appeared on prominent web sites such as politico.com. It was not until the following day that Sutton confirmed that Ron Paul actually received 31 votes. They claimed it was simple human error. Kidd's article also points out other oddities on election night seen from Bev Harris of blackboxvoting.org, the leading activist in the fight against crooked voting machines. She points out how in some precincts, results were not reported until four hours after the polls had closed. She points out how one would expect that these votes were the ones being hand counted. Not the case. She says most of those precincts were using Diebold voting machines. Harris goes on to suggest “How the heck can you not push “print” for four hours???” This is certainly a valid point since voting computers are theoretically used to, you know, make the whole process faster.
So how does all of this specifically pertain to Ron Paul supporters? The purpose of bombarding you with credible sources claiming vote fraud is to propose to you the possibility that no matter how many Ron Paul signs you put up, no matter how much money Ron Paul receives via donations, and no matter how truly popular the guy is, it is entirely plausible that your votes will not win an election for Dr. Ron Paul.
That means all of your marching, sign holding, door knocking, fund raising, blimp riding, Fox boycotting, stock stomping, email writing, poll winning, breathtaking efforts could be all for nothing.
You're not campaigning for Ron Paul in 2012, you're not campaigning for the hell of it, and you're not campaigning for a man you're sure will not win.
You are campaigning for Ron Paul to win the Presidency in 2008. You have the signs and you have the money, now finish your obligation and make sure Ron Paul's votes are counted properly. Having faith in democracy is no longer an option.
That is, if you honestly want Ron Paul to win.Tweet
Latest posts by A.J. Antimony (see all)
- Don’t forget the other Ron Paul super rally! - June 14, 2008
- Ron Paul out-draws McCain in Arizona? - May 28, 2008
- Ron Paul Supporters, Help Each Other - March 22, 2008
- The Ron Paul Negativity Will End Now! - February 18, 2008
- Why would anyone vote for John McCain? - January 29, 2008
- Ron Paul Revolution? What Revolution? - January 22, 2008
- Are you really supporting Ron Paul? - January 12, 2008