You're right. They are free to nominate whoever they chose. And by they, I mean the delegates. I'm going to explain this in detail, because I get the feeling you & several people here, like myself a couple of years ago, don't fully understand the process. Depending on what state you live in, there are different ways of becoming a delegate. In caucus states, like kansas, delegates are elected at a precinct level by your very own neighbors. Often times, only showing your willingness to dedicate yourself to the republican party and proving you are level headed person that represents the morals, desires & principles of your peers is enough to prove your ability to be a state delegate. If you are able to gain enough support and enough people show up to your precinct caucus, you can be voted a delegate. Not because you support Ron Paul, Newt Gengrich, Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum, but because your neighbors trust you as someone that has similar morals, principles & interest - and your best interest is their best interest.
The difference between this method & a democracy is obviously the popular vote is used at the very lowest of levels. A true democracy would take everyone's votes into account at the very highest level (the nomination & then again for the president) and there would be no delegates. Here's why delegates are important: How many people do you know invest any time into educating themselves on who the best candidate is? Who checks to make sure a presidential candidate's voting record jives with is campaign? Who does enough research to hold politicians accountable when it turns out they're a big fat liar? Certainly not the average voter. I would say you, and maybe three or four other people in this thread are that dedicated to learning as much as possible about these candidates. Think of it this way, a democracy would work if it were electing a president to govern your city block. You would know if he mows his lawn, yells at the neighbor kids or smokes weed in his basement. You know if they would represent your best interest. In a republic, these delegates do the research and because the masses elected them due to their morals, wishes & principles - They represent the masses with 1 vote for president. The process becomes slightly circumvented by binding the delegates to agree with the popular vote if there is an agreeance between all of the masses (otherwise known as a majority) However, in the event a candidate does not gain the necessary amount of delegates, and the masses are not in agreeance, delegates are no longer bound to vote in accordance with the popular vote of their precincts and are indeed free to vote for whoever they wish to be the republican nominee. This very process is the definition of a Republic. Individuals being granted
power by their peers to represent them in voting. And THAT is why no one will have the right to bitch and moan if Ron Paul gets the nomination through a brokered convention. They gave the delegates the power to put him there. People get too wrapped up in this being a popularity contest. What's popular among the people is NOT what's in their best interest. Sarah Palin COULD NOT beat Obama. Period. Yet I know hundreds of Republicans that worship the ground she walks on and can't seem to understand why she isn't running. Republicans want Obama GONE. They would vote for any republican to achieve that. I know tons of Liberals that would vote for Paul if he was an option - much more than conservatives that would refuse to vote for Paul if he were the only republican option.
As to Ron Paul not being a republican. How is it fair to change the stance of the political party to accommodate the current crop of candidates, while suggesting someone is not a republican, who happens to be an individual that has tailored his very principles from some of how the republican party was formed. You may say the republican party has not changed, but that is not true.
The First Republican President to take office was Abraham Lincoln. Lets look at some of his principles; In the industrial sector he fought for the Union to be formed. While Ron Paul is not a strong proponent of the Union, he believes in the right to work states. Here's a direct quote from his web site: "While Ron Paul supports the right of every American to join a private sector union if they wish, he believes, like most Americans, that forcing workers to pay union dues just to get or keep a job is wrong." Lincoln supported the Unions because they advocated for the laborers. Ron Paul also advocates for the Laborers by giving them a choice whether they want to be in a Union or Not. Lincoln valued the founding fathers and often fell back on their principles during debates. His approach to abolishing slavery was based off of the concept that
ALL men are created equal - even though his main motivation was to empower unions- but whatever. There isn't a single republican nominee in the past 20 years that has quoted the founding fathers as much as Ron Paul. But speaking of Slavery - "Free Soil" ring a bell? Early republicans wanted to provide a free market to the newly freed slaves by giving everyone a chance to purchase land rather than be give free worthless swamp land to live on. Slaves were begging for the right to pool their $$ to purchase land that they could actually farm & build wealth on. Republicans wanted to allow them this right, with principles built on smaller government - a.k.a Not interfering with civil liberties. Surely you can draw comparisons of allowing a free market within the social & welfare politics with slaves to the non-interventionist accusations Dr. Paul deflects by suggesting Foreign Aid does nothing to actually help people on a permanent basis but causes them to be dependents on government. Don't give them a hand out - Allow them to participate in helping themselves. People that call themselves republicans don't acknowledge this because it's not popular. Very few people admit to this line of thinking - but it's been a recurring message over the years. Take a look into what a social engineer is if you want more info on this subject. I've a great article if you're interested
Lets see, What did you provide as examples...
national defense, social security, medicare, medicaid, the war on drugs, foreign aid, Israel and the Middle East, trade policy, gay marriage, internet gambling, the environment,
National Defense: early republicans only concerned themselves with their own civil wars - Not other peoples civil wars. If our current crop of republicans would adopt a free market - no one would give a crap about isreal and oil in the middle east. I covered Trade Policy & Foreign Aid already and gave examples why I think Ron Paul is in line with Republican thinking. Gay Marriage. Oooh. I was hoping you would say that one. Ever heard of John C. Fremont? First guy to run as a republican, but anyway - his campaigns were often linked to the "Free Love" movement. Can you guess what that's about? Basically open marriages and women able to be whores - but given that all men are created equal, I would imagine if a woman was able to sleep with whoever she wanted, two dudes were certainly allowed to fornicate. Doesn't sound very conservative does it? It was definitely one of the original principles of the Republic. The environment. I don't know dude - He's open to drilling for oil any where & any time. Not sure how that's not a common republican view. War on drugs. You got me. Prohibition was put in place by Republicans - but it was also repealed by a Republican. Call it even? Internet gambling... Is this really an issue? I don't have much on national defense. But I think there's a lot of misconception of his actual stance. He's a strong supporter of the right to bear arms. He voted TO authorize military force to hunt down Osama Bin Laden and authored legislation to specifically target terrorist leaders and bring them to justice. Here's a link to read more:
Ron Paul on National Defense/ He's also Pro-Life. Certainly a very Republican point of view - you conveniently left that out. Oh, and he actually has a voting record and a philosophy that makes one believe he's not a liar when he says he will repeal Obamacare. Social Security - He wants to eliminate taxes on them. REPUBLICAN POINT OF VIEW. Medicare medicaid - lot of spending cuts - smaller government yada yada yada. Read above about early republicans holding principles of smaller government. You could even compare this to my foreign aid argument. But I can go on and on.
So if you're still reading this, I have more examples of how much the republican party has changed in it's history. The last forty years of the 1800's, the first congressional republicans to ever exist passed some pretty major legislation, the first government funded educational system, a national banking system, sky-high tariffs, the first income tax, paper money with no commodity driven backing all while allowing a huge national debt. All those things sound more like a bunch of democrats to me - certainly not conservative.
