Ron Paul’s votes will be counted

2012-08-28T19:43:00Z 2012-08-28T19:44:11Z Ron Paul’s votes will be counted Napa Valley Register
August 28, 2012 7:43 pm

Dear American voters, You’ve put up with presidents who flirt with impeachable practices and undelivered promises, and you know that “big money” drives most political successes.

If you can avoid the prevailing tendency to confuse Hollywood and Washington, D.C., and the habit of clinging to the outdated two-party system, you still have the choice to elect someone who has proven himself consistent in fighting for individual rights, smaller government, less war, ... i.e. the Constitution.

Ron Paul’s unfamiliarity or “bad press” have been paid for by big business and the political machinery of both parties in their fear of your ability to think and to remember the founding premise of our country.

His write-in votes will be counted. Loyal supporters have registered a declaration of write-in candidacy with the California Secretary of State.

Graham Bruce / Napa

Copyright 2015 Napa Valley Register. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(27) Comments

  1. Hear Ye
    Report Abuse
    Hear Ye - August 28, 2012 8:27 pm
    Today must have really stung. The GOP went to unprecedented lengths to not mention his name or count his votes at the convention. Lots of booing. It's time for Ron Paul to realize he isn't welcomed in the party and switch to Independent
  2. kevin
    Report Abuse
    kevin - August 29, 2012 4:59 am
    Paulbots should just go ahead and vote for Obama, same net results (and you know you really want to....)
  3. kevin
    Report Abuse
    kevin - August 29, 2012 7:52 am
    Maybe, hear ye, that's because there is no such thing as the "Independent Party".

    It's time for Ron Paul to realize he lost and get over it.

    Voters can either be part of the solution and use their vote wisely or they can play the victim and ignore reality...
  4. 5th Generation Napan
    Report Abuse
    5th Generation Napan - August 29, 2012 8:10 am
    Its our Constititional Right to Vote how we want and have each and EVERY VOTE COUNTED! No matter for whom its cast for. I'm really supprised at you Kevin for not believing in this right.
  5. alucawanza
    Report Abuse
    alucawanza - August 29, 2012 9:52 am
    Sure...write in Ron Paul's name. I hope this is done in all states. One vote for Paul is one less vote for Romney. Ask Al Gore about this tactic!!!
  6. Hear Ye
    Report Abuse
    Hear Ye - August 29, 2012 11:33 am
    Sorry Kevin but no reasonable person would stay in the GOP after the amount of disrespect he received from them yesterday.

    And sorry Kevin but I didn't mention anything about an "Independent party". Paul can however leave a party that doesn't want him and run as an Independent in future elections.

  7. Lynn W
    Report Abuse
    Lynn W - August 29, 2012 12:44 pm
    Nothing wrong with telling both the Bully republicans and the co-dependent democrats that you don't buy their propaganda and their lies.
  8. Steph
    Report Abuse
    Steph - August 29, 2012 8:18 pm
    I'm voting for Gary Johnson. I just can't get excited about a fiscally liberal and socially conservative presidential candidate--he's got everything backwards!
  9. kevin
    Report Abuse
    kevin - August 30, 2012 5:12 am
    "Disrespect"? What convention were you watching?
  10. kevin
    Report Abuse
    kevin - August 30, 2012 5:13 am
    Just don't complain if Obama gets reelected...
  11. selim_sivad
    Report Abuse
    selim_sivad - August 30, 2012 8:59 am
    The same convention where delegates threw peanuts at a black CNN camerawoman yelling "This is how we feed animals". (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19414600)

    Yep, lots of respect at the GOP convention. A class act.

  12. Bystander 1
    Report Abuse
    Bystander 1 - September 03, 2012 6:20 am
    George Carlin once said something like those who do not vote at all have more of a right to complain about who gets elected than those who actually vote. While that does not apply to the argument here I think it does apply to this absurd notion that one must vote for one of the two 'real candidates' or one is irrelevant or a sore loser.I have seen all the same arguments in my years voting for Nader. All that is really necessary to defeat most of these arguments is to have third party candidate votes split fairly equally between votes that supposedly would have gone to the the two real candidates. In other words if Paul voters are made up of likely one half voters that would have otherwise voted for the Dem candidate and one half for the Repub. This in itself is absurd since who is to say these third party voters would have voted for somebody else anyway, but this nonetheless is the dominant narrative. I disagree with Paul on much, but I disagree with the best of two evils even more
  13. alucawanza
    Report Abuse
    alucawanza - September 03, 2012 4:30 pm
    I read the article. This is so sad. Such racism. They were ejected. I wonder if there was an apology given to the camerawoman. Looking forward to tomorrow night and viewing some real Americans with true American values.
  14. alucawanza
    Report Abuse
    alucawanza - September 03, 2012 5:01 pm
    You may rest assured that 1/2 of Paul voters are not Democrats. You voted for Nader. That was one less vote for Gore. In California it didn't matter. In Florida it could have changed the entire election.
    Sure, Ron Paul fared well with the youth vote in the primaries, but that’s simply not enough to justify a continuance of his campaign. Have we forgotten the 97,421 votes Ralph Nader received in the calamitous presidential election of 2000? Many Nader fans were kicking themselves when their votes for new ideas ended up being the reason for George W. Bush beating Al Gore by merely 537 votes in the decisive battleground of Florida. Nader’s candidacy should be a lesson to us all – if we don’t make informed decisions at the polls, we risk a similar fiasco in this election.
    http://www.thedaonline.com/opinion/ron-paul-independent-candidacy-could-spoil-election-1.2888629
    You are not irrelevant or a sore loser. You're one of the undecided. Watch the Democratic Convention. It may help

  15. Bystander 1
    Report Abuse
    Bystander 1 - September 04, 2012 5:58 am
    alucawanza- Thanks for making my point. Most people can only see the issue in terms of those, such as myself, who are not playing the game properly. First off the question was not about democrats or republicans but about those voters who would have or should have voted for a D or an R according to some formula you have created. Let me say this clearly I am not going to vote for a D or an R period! So any calculation you place that my vote should have gone to a D or an R is a hallucination on your part.
    Nader was the reason Gore lost? Well that is popular for Democrats who cannot face up to the shortcomings of their candidates on so many levels. maybe you could tell me something about how you have analyzed this question? Did the the votes for Buchanan count as votes which should have gone to Bush? Do all of Naders votes count as ones which should have been Gores? Do you recognize that 20 percent of Naders contributions came from registered Repubs?
  16. Bystander 1
    Report Abuse
    Bystander 1 - September 04, 2012 6:15 am
    Again I am not undecided or uninformed. My information leads to the conclusion that the best of two evils has lead this country to a political calamity. The democratic apologists suggest that Nader should not run because voters are not smart enough to figure out that voting for him could cost one of the corporate candidates their election.Voters need more choices not less, and that political pundits and those who know 'who we really need to vote for' should really re-evaluate what democracy and the sacredness of personal choice is really all about. You and those like you do not get to tell me what my vote should be. Yes you can tabulate any imaginary scenario you like of who should have voted for your plan, but it is absolutely meaningless..
    There is no longer discussion of safe state strategies since 2000 because the meme of anti third party candidates perpetuated by our dominant media and fearful public has lead to an even stronger belief in the corporate candidate only philosophy
  17. alucawanza
    Report Abuse
    alucawanza - September 04, 2012 6:46 pm
    I assure you I am not hallucinating. It is your vote to cast. Vote for whomever you choose. Do you honestly believe that Bush was a better alternative than Gore? Look what happened. That opinion about Nader has nothing to do with facing up to the shortcomings of the candidates. It has to do with Math.
    Many of them stated that they had intended to
    vote for Democratic candidate Al Gore but by mistake
    chose Reform candidate Pat Buchanan. The number of
    votes involved was more than enough to have tipped
    the presidential vote in Florida from Republican candidate
    George W. Bush to Gore, thus giving him
    Florida’s 25 electoral votes and the presidency

    http://wand.stanford.edu/research/apsr2001.pdf
    The butterfly ballot did it.
    The rest of your questions are rhetorical.

    I do not recognize that 20% of Naders money came from Republicans. It was 4% but 25% of those who voted for Nader were Republicans.
    http://dissidentvoice.org/Sept04/Hill0904.htm
  18. Bystander 1
    Report Abuse
    Bystander 1 - September 05, 2012 6:32 am
    So you tell me it would be a hallucination to attribute Nader or third party votes to actually being 'should have' votes for the D's and R's and then you proceed to do exactly that. As for Bush being better than Gore, I can take up that question, but do you honestly believe that is the only question? Was it better that the result of the seemingly close election in Florida 2000 became the rallying cry for vote Democrat at any cost instead of the more seemingly logical response that maybe the D's should recognize legitimate pressures from the left and change their tune to accommodate?

    As to Math, I am going to question your techniques. As to those who claimed they meant to vote for Gore? How many? Is it possible folks who wanted to vote for Nader or Buchanan or Bush had similar troubles? What were the estimates for the polling numbers on Buchanan? And again, and perhaps more importantly, what makes you so sure that Nader voters would have voted for Gore anyway?
  19. Bystander 1
    Report Abuse
    Bystander 1 - September 05, 2012 6:49 am
    Perhaps it would be more accurate to say you believe Nader voters should have voted for Gore? In that case I would suggest your problem is with the voters and not the candidate. It seems most of the anti Nader folks assume the public is too dumb to know who to vote for and therefore we need to limit their choices to less candidates The Natural Law party had a couple of thousand votes and probably could have been counted on as better pure supporters of Gore, so why not blame them. Instead we use a very backwards analysis of blaming the guy who actually attracted the most support as somehow breaking the system

    An election lost by this margin open the door for virtually anything to be blamed on Gore's supposed loss, including the fact that 13 percent of registered D's voted for Bush. Yet somehow the Nader tune is proclaimed as the 'real reason.' It is also interesting what the press has done with Perot since 92, turning him into a freak or pariah as well
  20. alucawanza
    Report Abuse
    alucawanza - September 05, 2012 4:57 pm
    Yes, I do believe that Nader voters should have voted for Gore, even if they thought he was the lesser of two evils, because they caused the disaster of the Bush years.
    I'm not anti-Nader. I appreciated his efforts with the auto industry. He is the reason we all buckle up. He has saved thousands of lives.
    I'm not blaming anyone but the Supreme Court of Florida. It was an inside job and everyone knows it. Bush was never a duly elected president. The ballot in Florida was faulty causing thousands to vote incorrectly. If Nader hadn't run perhaps the Florida debacle would not have been so intensely critical.
    Please source your statistic of 13%.
    Perot earned those titles himself during the presidential debates and who he chose as a running mate.
  21. Bystander 1
    Report Abuse
    Bystander 1 - September 05, 2012 6:38 pm
    A link for the 13 percent.

    http://my.firedoglake.com/jest/2012/08/26/debunking-pathological-myths-of-the-2000-election-part-1-cnn-exit-polls-prove-that-nader-did-not-cost-gore-fl/

    On the one hand i do not feel you took a real shot at answering many of my questions, but on the other I am not here to change your mind. I would suggest that the question breaks down three ways. Either you believe it was wrong for Nader to run, you think it was wrong to vote for him, and you thought that we should now retroactively look back at happened as a message to change our strategy of voting for 3rd party folks.

    Though it seems like you paint the way we are wrong with this special brush which colors us as traitors, naive, or elite in relation to the true democratic electoral spirit or perhaps even progressive principles in general. From my perspective, and i could be biased, but i think the two party show is running into real trouble in 4 years. We shall see
  22. alucawanza
    Report Abuse
    alucawanza - September 08, 2012 7:20 pm
    I'm not here to answer your questions. I'm not trying to change your mind. Your vote is yours. Whyever would you be painted as a traitor? To whom?
    Anyone can run for president who is qualified and can get the backing. The effect they may have on an election is all a matter of Arithmetic.
    My thinking is that Nader was a real threat to Gore's success. Nader is a smart man. He knew the effect he would have on the election. If Nader wanted Bush to win and suffer under him he should have run. He did. We paid the consequences.
    I believe the Presidential election should be a popular vote. Every vote counts.
  23. Bystander 1
    Report Abuse
    Bystander 1 - September 09, 2012 6:49 am
    So perhaps you could be clear instead of implying both that candidates have the right to run and people are smart enough to vote for who they want and then at the same time saying something was unfair. And does Gore somehow avoid needing to be a smart man? He consistently ignored Nader's offers for meetings and possible reconciliation. He had every opportunity to discuss the issues with Nader and his supporters, and he choose not to. Yet when it comes to assessing his responsibility in all of this he is somehow immune since the spoiler effect can be played to absolve the D's of all their responsibility in not getting people to vote for them

    As for not answering questions, I assume they are just too difficult for you. Sorry but those who choose not to answer questions have little credibility with me. Anyone can discuss that which is comfortable for them. I have answered your questions, so I suggest there is a burden upon you to do the same. Can we have more choices or not?
  24. Bystander 1
    Report Abuse
    Bystander 1 - September 09, 2012 6:58 am
    As for being a traitor, the logic is that if you choose to abandon the Dem's then you are abandoning, or performing as a traitor, to the progressive or liberal cause in general. It may be a legitimate point if it can be argued that the D's pass the litmus test as progressives, but sadly, like most things in the present political milieu, such a test is little more than a meaningless self fulfilling prophecy. The test for D's has become little more than the claim they are just a better choice for progressives than he R's, but this has little or nothing to do with an objective relationship to actual progressive values.

    So again I have answered your questions, and perhaps you could elaborate further why you do not need to answer mine?
  25. skeptic
    Report Abuse
    skeptic - September 11, 2012 3:29 pm
    we all know that all but 7-9 states are “sewn up” already and the ‘swing states” don’t include california. therefor, we can all vote any way we want and there will be “no difference”.all of our delegates will pledge to vote of mr. obama. so that’s a given. imagine what this means. instead of voting for that “lesser of 2 evils “ that we are subjected to so often, we can vote for whoever we want to.it won’t make a difference anyway,because the race is not close here. how about the other 40-50 candidates ? if you like socialism, you have about 10 parties to choose from, libertarians can vote for their true choice. there are 2 reform parties, and both believe that social issues like abortion and gun control should be left up to individuals, so as not to distract from the need to balance the budget and stop wars. the green party and peace and freedom offer further alternatives, with cindy sheehan and rosanne barr available for their fans. writing in ron paul is also an option.
  26. Chingatch
    Report Abuse
    Chingatch - September 12, 2012 12:08 am
    Obama's got a lock on CA electoral votes, so a vote for Ron Paul WOULD be just that, a Vote FOR Ron Paul. Romney doesn't have a chance here, so voting for him would be a "Wasted Vote".

    People in swing states should vote for Romney, just to get Obo OUT! ;-)
  27. Charlie Peters
    Report Abuse
    Charlie Peters - September 16, 2012 5:43 pm
    California, Obama / Mitt, November contest would likely give the California winner prize to Obama but how would a 3 way Obama, Mitt & Ron write in vote count end up? RP votes in 2008 were counted.

    The Goldman Sacs / Fed reserve / GMO food-fuel twins might create a fun contest with the Texas Dr. Ron Paul

    Audit the Federal Reserve, Support HR 459 Paul & S 202 Paul

    Is this game about D R or other? maybe it is about saving the republic. Maybe Obama and Mitt are the underdogs.
Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

Follow the Napa Valley Register

Featured Businesses

Marketplace






Featured Ads