Ron Paul 2012 Wins Majority Of Washington Delegates To Convention, Other States Expec

[Cebu_4_2]

Ron Paul 2012 Wins Majority Of Washington Delegates To Convention, Other States Expected To Follow

By IBTimes Staff Reporter (http://www.ibtimes.com/archives/articles/reporters/ibtimes-staff-reporter/): Subscribe to IBTimes's RSS feed (http://www.ibtimes.com/rss/articles/reporters/ibtimes-staff-reporter.rss)
April 26, 2012 5:48 PM EDT
Ron Paul's 2012 campaign has won the majority of Washington's delegates to the Republican National Convention, and a number of other states are expected to follow suit, pointing to a hectic convention in which Mitt Romney (http://www.mittromney.com/)'s path to the nomination may face a major insurgent opponent.



http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2012/01/20/219593-ron-paul-defended-south-carolina-debate-crowd-protests-cnn-censorship.jpg (http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/full/2012/01/20/219593-ron-paul-defended-south-carolina-debate-crowd-protests-cnn-censorship.jpg)





Washington is now the third state, after Iowa and Minnesota (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/332617/20120424/ron-paul-2012-delegates-news-iowa-minnesota.htm), in which Ron Paul (http://www.paul.house.gov/) has locked up at least half of the state's nominating delegates. In order to be officially entered in nomination at the Tampa, Fla., convention, he needs to secure half or more of the delegates in five states, and as of Thursday, he looks poised to grab a majority of delegates in other states like North Dakota and Maine in coming weeks.
Ron Paul's 2012 campaign (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/) has taken an unorthodox tack, hoping to draw state delegates to his camp rather than simply winning the popular vote. As such, he is stacking up delegates who once backed Newt Gingrich (http://www.newt.org/), Herman Cain (http://www.twitter.com/#%21/thehermancain), Rick Santorum (http://www.ricksantorum.com/) and other fallen candidates.

Must Read


http://img.ibtimes.com/www/thumb/mainpage/268012-12075-us-economy.jpg (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/334233/20120427/q4-gdp-grew-2-less-expected.htm)US Q1 GDP Grew Less Than Expected (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/334233/20120427/q4-gdp-grew-2-less-expected.htm)
http://img.ibtimes.com/www/thumb/mainpage/267979-12075-spain.jpg (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/334228/20120427/spain-debt-crisis-euro-unemployment-figures.htm)Spain In 'Crisis' After Dire Unemployment Figures Follow Debt Downgrade (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/334228/20120427/spain-debt-crisis-euro-unemployment-figures.htm)



Sponsorship Link


And the strategy is not unprecedented. Warren G. Harding pulled off a surprise win at the 1920 Republican convention, where he eventually won the nomination despite heading in with the fewest delegates of any remaining candidate. And Harding went on to sweep into the White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov).
Even Fox News said this week (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UJrU97VBI8g#%21) that Paul's presence on the ballot at the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa (http://www.gopconvention2012.com/) "looks inevitable at this point."
And if he makes it onto the ballot, Ron Paul's 2012 campaign has the chance to throw a wrench in the nominating process, proving all the critics wrong by having a huge impact on the Republican race instead of just fizzling out as has long been predicted.
Even if he doesn't end up with the GOP nod, Paul may be able to influence the proceedings in Tampa (http://www.gopconvention2012.com/) by changing the conversation and revamping the strategy in order to target Paulites and others who don't agree with Romney's policies.
The libertarian Texas congressman could also continue to remain relevant by running on a third-party ticket, an option he has not ruled out (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/06/ron-paul-2012_n_1190427.html).

[vacuum]

So I guess Ron Paul is technically winning right now. If a convention was held today, he'd win.

[Cebu_4_2]

As far as I can read it does look this way. Unelectable my ass.

[Gaillo]

...convention in which Mitt Romney's path to the nomination may face a major insurgent opponent.

Insurgent? ???

I guess you ARE a terrorist these days if you support the constitution... ::)

[Libertytree]

Insurgent? ;D

I guess you ARE a terrorist these days if you support the constitution...--)

[Cebu_4_2]

An insurgency is an armed rebellion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellion) against a constituted authority (for example, an authority recognized as such by the United Nations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations)) when those taking part in the rebellion are not recognized as belligerents (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belligerent).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgent#cite_note-ReferenceA-0) An insurgency can be fought via counter-insurgency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-insurgency) warfare, and may also be opposed by measures to protect the population, and by political and economic actions of various kinds aimed at undermining the insurgents' claims against the incumbent regime.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgent#cite_note-1) An "insurgency" may include, but not necessarily use, guerrilla warfare (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_warfare).
Not all rebellions are insurgencies. There have been many cases of non-violent rebellions, using civil resistance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_resistance), as in the People Power Revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_Power_Revolution) in the Philippines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines) in the 1980s that ousted President Marcos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Marcos) and the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Revolution_of_2011).[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgent#cite_note-2) Where a revolt takes the form of armed rebellion, it may not be viewed as an insurgency if a state of belligerency exists between one or more sovereign states and rebel forces. For example, during the American Civil War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War), the Confederate States of America (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America) was not recognized (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-recognized_nations) as a sovereign state, but it was recognized as a belligerent power, and thus Confederate warships were given the same rights as United States warships in foreign ports.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgent#cite_note-hall-246-3)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgent#cite_note-US-S-D-4)[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgent#cite_note-Goldstein-63-5)
When insurgency is used to describe a movement's unlawfulness by virtue of not being authorized by or in accordance with the law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law) of the land, its use is neutral. However when it is used by a state or another authority under threat, "insurgency" often also carries an implication that the rebels' cause is illegitimate, whereas those rising up will see the authority itself as being illegitimate.

[General of Darkness]

Do you have a link to the story?

[Cebu_4_2]

Do you have a link to the story?

Wow, usually they are in the article, let me go surf.

There are a ton of em, lets see if they change the wording on different sites:

http://duckduckgo.com/?q=Ron+Paul+2012+Wins+Majority+Of+Washington+Deleg ates+To+Convention