Ron Paul Sweeps Northern Maine Caucuses

Ron Paul Sweeps Northern Maine Caucuses

Fort Fairfield Journal l February 3, 2008

Texas Congressman Dr. Ron Paul scored a stunning upset win over all three of his opponents in the Aroostook County Presidential Preference Survey during the weekend caucuses just concluded. It also would appear that Dr. Paul's supporters won the lion's share of the delegate seats to the Maine Republican Convention in early May from the county.

There were 3 undecided voters in Aroostook County with regard to the presidential preference. This vote is a non-binding survey merely intended to indicate Maine Republicans' preference for President. Delegates were also selected for many towns to the Republican State Convention.

Aroostook County volunteer coordinator of the Ron Paul 2008 effort, and Vice-chairman of the county Republicans, Steve Martin of Amity, had this to say about the upset results. "I love Aroostook County people. They are the most independent-minded and deeply-considerate folks in Maine. It is clear that Dr. Paul's message of reduced government, lower taxes, personal liberties and non-interference in the internal matters of other nations struck a cord here in Aroostook County. Dr. Paul's opposition to a Northern Maine National Park coupled with his deep respect for private property and gun rights also played a part in sweeping all three caucus locations."

The county Republicans will be meeting again for their regular monthly meetings at the Presque Isle Inn & Convention Center on Saturday morning, February 16th at 9:00 AM.



With all Aroostook towns reporting, the results were as follows for Aroostook's 3 caucus locations:

Fort Kent:
Ron Paul 3
Mitt Romney 2
Mike Huckabee 2
John McCain 1

Houlton:
Ron Paul 16
Mitt Romney 11
Mike Huckabee 8
John McCain 4

Presque Isle:
Ron Paul 29
Mitt Romney 27
John McCain 17
Mike Huckabee 16

Aroostook County totals with percentages:

Ron Paul: 48 votes 34.5%
Mitt Romney 40 votes 28.8%
Mike Huckabee 26 votes 18.7%
John McCain 22 votes 15.8%
Undecided 3 votes 2.1%

http://www.mainemediaresources.com/ffj_ ... onpaul.htm

Mod Edit - Bashing a Candidate we support

[quote="CitizenJustice"]MOD EDIT quote]

Right

RP winning in a single small County that has 200 voters. He has lost big in the State When it comes to the real deal, He's in a race for last. Time to face the facts.

Updated 9:34 p.m. EST, Feb 2, 2008
All County Results
Romney 2,362 52% 0 68%

McCain 958 21% 0
Paul 851 19% 0
Huckabee 268 6% 0
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primar ... /state/#ME

No comment...

Paul is entitled to the votes he receives. I'm happy that there are voters in Maine that understand we have a problem in this country with Liberal politicians running us into the overtaxed Solicalized system.

I'm not a quitter either so I'm not about to tell him to get out of the race.

Historically, we have had candidates die on the campaing trail. What do you think will happen, if Romney supporters suddendly find him out of the race? I wouldn't pick on Paul, he may be all you have left.

Dixie

He will be in the race long past Huckabee, that's for sure! He received another 5 milliion for this quarter. He's not going anywhere anytime soon. Let's consentrate on getting MC CAIN out. By the way how does MCCain have the money to stay in the race? Didn't think he had the money now all of a sudden he does. What gives!? 8O GO GO Ron Paul!!!!!!!!! :D :D

My feeling is that Paul won't win. If McCain wins then the principles that Paul stands for will lose. Both of the main ones, the war, and the border security and illegal immigration.

I would rather Paul worked with Romney to at least win on one of his principles, which is the border. No one in the Republican party will work with him on this foreign policy.

I don't see Paul being offered any positions in any of the other candidates administrations. So for personal reasons he has nothing to gain which leaves he principles and issues. It comes down to how much can he win in his principles? My only guess the closest one that would work with him is Romney who would help to get illegal immigration and border security resolved.

So Paul is in a lose/lose proposition with anyone but Romney who can give him a win/lose in principles.

ok.

Good for Ron Paul!

Just wondering, was he born 200 years to late?
Gotta love this guys tenacity.

"I am concerned for the security of our great nation, not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces from within." General Douglas MacArthur

YEAH!!! Go Ron Paul! Thanks for posting this Darlene.

The number one reason we keep getting the quality of elected people we have, is that we are DISCOURAGED from voting our consciences. In the past I have been derelict in my civic duty by voting for the electable candidate. Many of my friends had agreed with me on my real choice, but did the same so that the "evil one" would not be elected. If we all had voted our consciences instead of falling into the trap, we may not be in the mess we are.

CitizenJustice



Your posts are highly inflammable. You make me want to say things the mods won't approve of.

Your opinion is just your opinion.

Tell the whole truth if you really love the truth! These tactics are less than the standard of idealism that Ron Paul supporters are supposed to be known for.

This post marginalizes the wider truth that Romney won the whole state. Ron Paul posters should tell the whole truth rather than isolated facts that tend to mislead the public into ignoring Romney's overall victory in Maine and also undermines the genuine viability of Romney over Paul.

Selective reporting of the news has the effect of marginalizing the truth.

By engaging in these tactics, Ron Paul supporters are diminishing the chances that conservatives will choose Ron Paul as a 3rd party candidate to oppose McCain in the event he becomes the Republican nominee.

I don;t understand how you can say that Romney and Paul have the same values. I don;t know how you can trust Romney to do what he says. We elected Bush because he ran on a small government platform and what the hell happened? If RP had the vote of everyone who says he can't win he so I won;t vote for him, he could have. He is the only one talking about the Patriot act, the Real ID, the federal reserve etc. and those are really important issues because it infinges on our civil liberties and if the government can get away with this they can get away with anything.The only reason you like Romney is on his newly found position on Immingration. The best perdictor of future behavior is past behavior. I understand how you feel that we all RP supports should gether together to defeat Mccaine, however, that is just how we get into the positions we get into with our elections of presidents. We very seldom get who we want because we comprimise.

I side with most conservatives who support the Patriot Act and Real ID.

In some cases we need more laws and in other cases we need less laws.

Though I am not religious, I also think adultery and some other moral examples of decadence and degeneracy should be criminalized.

In summary, I think Western Civilization has become far too libertine and decadent. I we need liberty under the law. Too much liberty results in licentiousness and anarchy and makes us vulnerable to cultural and literal invasion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I side with most conservatives who support the Patriot Act and Real ID.

In some cases we need more laws and in other cases we need less laws.

Though I am not religious, I also think adultery and some other moral examples of decadence and degeneracy should be criminalized.

In summary, I think Western Civilization has become far too libertine and decadent. I we need liberty under the law. Too much liberty results in licentiousness and anarchy and makes us vulnerable to cultural and literal invasion.

---

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." – Thomas Jefferson

It would seem to me that your opinion runs counter to that of our Founders, and would lead to the kind of authoritarian State that we've been fighting AGAINST for over 230 years. Your support for laws like the Patriot Act and the RealID Act expose you as someone who might be better suited to residence in Cuba, Russia or Venezuela than here in the U.S. of A. That or you don't realize the evisceration on the Bill of Rights these travesties of law have caused.

If adultery were criminalized, then most of America would be in jail! I do not condone that behavior, but, it is not my business what someone does in the bedroom. We have to look out for the safety of our nation. Close our borders and fix our financial problems. Our deficit is out of control and still going up as I write this. A threat of a DRAFT is coming also. There are so many important things at stake right now. It is and always will be Ron Paul all the way!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I side with most conservatives who support the Patriot Act and Real ID.

In some cases we need more laws and in other cases we need less laws.

Though I am not religious, I also think adultery and some other moral examples of decadence and degeneracy should be criminalized.

In summary, I think Western Civilization has become far too libertine and decadent. I we need liberty under the law. Too much liberty results in licentiousness and anarchy and makes us vulnerable to cultural and literal invasion.

---

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." – Thomas Jefferson

It would seem to me that your opinion runs counter to that of our Founders, and would lead to the kind of authoritarian State that we've been fighting AGAINST for over 230 years. Your support for laws like the Patriot Act and the RealID Act expose you as someone who might be better suited to residence in Cuba, Russia or Venezuela than here in the U.S. of A. That or you don't realize the evisceration on the Bill of Rights these travesties of law have caused.

---

No, when you suggest I would be happier in Cuba or Russia, you are putting me into the opposite extreme. During the era of the Founding Fathers the laws governing moral behavior were much stricter than the libertine standards of today where anything goes and where we believe "if it feels good, do it". I'd need to do some checking, but I think that adultery and sexual deviancy probably were criminal offenses in the days of Jefferson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I side with most conservatives who support the Patriot Act and Real ID.

In some cases we need more laws and in other cases we need less laws.

Though I am not religious, I also think adultery and some other moral examples of decadence and degeneracy should be criminalized.

In summary, I think Western Civilization has become far too libertine and decadent. I we need liberty under the law. Too much liberty results in licentiousness and anarchy and makes us vulnerable to cultural and literal invasion.

---

Now I understand why you are trying to sway people from Ron Paul. :roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexcastro

If adultery were criminalized, then most of America would be in jail! I do not condone that behavior, but, it is not my business what someone does in the bedroom. We have to look out for the safety of our nation. Close our borders and fix our financial problems. Our deficit is out of control and still going up as I write this. A threat of a DRAFT is coming also. There are so many important things at stake right now. It is and always will be Ron Paul all the way!

---

Quote:

---

If adultery were criminalized, then most of America would be in jail!

---

That's the same argument the Dems use about criminalizing illegal immigration. But in actually, it would be "attrition by enforcement".
Adultery and other unmentionables have destroyed the American family and now our civilization is heading for its imminent demise. . .unless we wake up and restore many of our stricter ancient laws that made us into a civilized society.

Jonathan,

You can't legislate morality. Look at the disasterous "War on Drugs" that we've been fighting since the infamous Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. Total failure, and the enrichment of criminal cartels with untold BILLIONS of $$$.

Aversion to things like adultery was caused by religious influences, not political ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USPatriot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I side with most conservatives who support the Patriot Act and Real ID.

In some cases we need more laws and in other cases we need less laws.

Though I am not religious, I also think adultery and some other moral examples of decadence and degeneracy should be criminalized.

In summary, I think Western Civilization has become far too libertine and decadent. I we need liberty under the law. Too much liberty results in licentiousness and anarchy and makes us vulnerable to cultural and literal invasion.

---

Now I understand why you are trying to sway people from Ron Paul. :roll:

---

Patrick Buchanan best summaries my views on the decline of the moral basis of Western Civilization in his book "Death of the West".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Jonathan,

You can't legislate morality. Look at the disastrous "War on Drugs" that we've been fighting since the infamous Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. Total failure, and the enrichment of criminal cartels with untold BILLIONS of $$$.

Aversion to things like adultery was caused by religious influences, not political ones.

---

Of course you can impose sanctions on morality. There are laws prohibiting theft and dishonesty (fraud and perjury), and there used to be laws that sanctioned sexual misconduct. Religious and political agendas have often coincided.

Jonathan wrote:

Quote:

---

Tell the whole truth if you really love the truth! These tactics are less than the standard of idealism that Ron Paul supporters are supposed to be known for.

This post marginalizes the wider truth that Romney won the whole state. Ron Paul posters should tell the whole truth rather than isolated facts that tend to mislead the public into ignoring Romney's overall victory in Maine and also undermines the genuine viability of Romney over Paul.

Selective reporting of the news has the effect of marginalizing the truth.

By engaging in these tactics, Ron Paul supporters are diminishing the chances that conservatives will choose Ron Paul as a 3rd party candidate to oppose McCain in the event he becomes the Republican nominee.

---

I just posted the article from the FORT FAIRFIELD JOURNAL, I didn't author it.
That is what we do here.

If you like I have a folder full of anti Romney articles that I can start posting when I have had enough bashing from the Romney people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USPatriot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I side with most conservatives who support the Patriot Act and Real ID.

In some cases we need more laws and in other cases we need less laws.

Though I am not religious, I also think adultery and some other moral examples of decadence and degeneracy should be criminalized.

In summary, I think Western Civilization has become far too libertine and decadent. I we need liberty under the law. Too much liberty results in licentiousness and anarchy and makes us vulnerable to cultural and literal invasion.

---

Now I understand why you are trying to sway people from Ron Paul. :roll:

---

Patrick Buchanan best summaries my views on the decline of the moral basis of Western Civilization in his book "Death of the West".

---

And I bet you didn't vote for Pat because "evil might win"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

No, when you suggest I would be happier in Cuba or Russia, you are putting me into the opposite extreme. During the era of the Founding Fathers the laws governing moral behavior were much stricter than the libertine standards of today where anything goes and where we believe "if it feels good, do it". I'd need to do some checking, but I think that adultery and sexual deviancy probably were criminal offenses in the days of Jefferson.

---

Prior to the Revolutionary War we were under strict rule of the Monarchy of Great Britain. The Monarchy, if you read some of the books when we were colonies, had strict rules against adultry and other privacies. Liberty gives us freedoms for moral people when you remove those freedoms, because of adultry, you punish the moral people! Your view seems to be in line with the Monarchy of old, and when Catholicism was the government, in result no freedom of religion!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

That's the same argument the Dems use about criminalizing illegal immigration. But in actually, it would be "attrition by enforcement".
Adultery and other unmentionables have destroyed the American family and now our civilization is heading for its imminent demise. . .unless we wake up and restore many of our stricter ancient laws that made us into a civilized society.

---

What does this have to do with the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT??

If people want stricter laws against porn or alcohol or whatever at the local level, they can make stricter laws. I've been in "dry counties" before when I traveled. Under the Constitution, the federal government is not authorized to run people's lives. If you are seriously calling for more federal control over individuals' lives, you should consider switching to the Democrat Party.

Lets face facts a pro war candidate won't win the general election. McCain won't win Mitt won't win. Sure it plays well in the primary but when the rest of Americans vote Mitt and McCain are unelectable, I think we're going to have a third party win this time. So if you want to waste your vote on Mitt do so it's your vote. The RP people know this and think he will be that third party candidate. We have to keep the fire burning long enough to catch on in the real election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexcastro

He will be in the race long past Huckabee, that's for sure! He received another 5 milliion for this quarter. He's not going anywhere anytime soon. Let's consentrate on getting MC CAIN out. By the way how does MCCain have the money to stay in the race? Didn't think he had the money now all of a sudden he does. What gives!? 8O GO GO Ron Paul!!!!!!!!! :D :D

---

I WAS ASKING MYSELF THE SAME THING. WHERE IS JOH McCAIN GETTING ALL HIS MONEY FOR ADS? I've seen several on CNN and FOX news breaks. I thought he was out of money. I bet he is getting chuncks of money from LaRaza and other groups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sturmruger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

No, when you suggest I would be happier in Cuba or Russia, you are putting me into the opposite extreme. During the era of the Founding Fathers the laws governing moral behavior were much stricter than the libertine standards of today where anything goes and where we believe "if it feels good, do it". I'd need to do some checking, but I think that adultery and sexual deviancy probably were criminal offenses in the days of Jefferson.

---

Prior to the Revolutionary War we were under strict rule of the Monarchy of Great Britain. The Monarchy, if you read some of the books when we were colonies, had strict rules against adultery and other privacies. Liberty gives us freedoms for moral people when you remove those freedoms, because of adultery, you punish the moral people! Your view seems to be in line with the Monarchy of old, and when Catholicism was the government, in result no freedom of religion!

---

I wasn't talking about the pre-revolutionary days but rather the post-revolutionary era when there were laws sanctioning against adultery and other forms of sexual deviancy. There was much less sexual freedom in the early 1800's than now. Too much liberty is anarchy. We must have liberty within the boundaries of the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enchilada_Non_Grada

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

That's the same argument the Dems use about criminalizing illegal immigration. But in actually, it would be "attrition by enforcement".
Adultery and other unmentionables have destroyed the American family and now our civilization is heading for its imminent demise. . .unless we wake up and restore many of our stricter ancient laws that made us into a civilized society.

---

What does this have to do with the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT??

If people want stricter laws against porn or alcohol or whatever at the local level, they can make stricter laws. I've been in "dry counties" before when I traveled. Under the Constitution, the federal government is not authorized to run people's lives. If you are seriously calling for more federal control over individuals' lives, you should consider switching to the Democrat Party.

---

I am calling for more federal control of illegal immigration and our national borders. I am getting the impression that Ron Paul supporters think the federal government should have less control over these problems rather than more control.

Quote:

---

I wasn't talking about the pre-revolutionary days but rather the post-revolutionary era when there were laws sanctioning against adultery and other forms of sexual deviancy. There was much less sexual freedom in the early 1800's than now.

---

This is NOT calling for "more federal control of illegal immigration and our national borders'. This is asking for a return to the Victorian era....aka as legislating morality.

"The government cannot protect people from themselves otherwise it becomes tyranny" - paraphrase from Ron Paul

I think, our Constitution EMPOWERS THE STATES.
In my opinion I want the Federal goverment out of my life.

Do they have to criminalize gays and lesoians too
And what about religion liberty, woukd it be a crime other religion than yours ?

Time to close this thread.

why?

Quote:

---

liberty under the law

---

Isn't that an oxymoron?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enchilada_Non_Grada

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

That's the same argument the Dems use about criminalizing illegal immigration. But in actually, it would be "attrition by enforcement".
Adultery and other unmentionables have destroyed the American family and now our civilization is heading for its imminent demise. . .unless we wake up and restore many of our stricter ancient laws that made us into a civilized society.

---

What does this have to do with the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT??

If people want stricter laws against porn or alcohol or whatever at the local level, they can make stricter laws. I've been in "dry counties" before when I traveled. Under the Constitution, the federal government is not authorized to run people's lives. If you are seriously calling for more federal control over individuals' lives, you should consider switching to the Democrat Party.

---

I am calling for more federal control of illegal immigration and our national borders. I am getting the impression that Ron Paul supporters think the federal government should have less control over these problems rather than more control.

---

You are all over the map, dude.

Yes, the federal government should be securing our borders. It's one of the few things they should be doing!