I'm not in Spokane this weekend, because a) it's the Kan, b) the convention isn't a contested one, and c) my $0 blogging salary means my interest in forking over the personal coin to visit such a luxurious locale isn't terribly high as gas & food prices soar.
Regardless, for those interested in wading through the material, both the TNT's political blog and a blog at the Spokesman Review have done a nice job of reporting on events in multiple pages of blog posts.
My compliments to the Ron Paul supporters for apparently conducting themselves in much more respectable fashion than that which was originally foreshadowed. That's a pleasant thing to see since the biggest issues for the state GOP at the convention, given how the primary process unfolded, should be a) adopting a platform and b) uniting to have everyone work their tails off for Dino Rossi.
Final delegate result as described by one tally, McCain wins 33, Paul 4, and Mike Huckabee 3 (per the results of our Feb. 19 primary). Those four delegates for Paul are due reward for the work of his supporters working the caucuses, county/leg.district conventions, and the current state confab.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 31, 2008 07:04 PM | Email ThisI was a delegate (King County, 8th Congressional, 5th Legislative) at the convention, and let me tell you, the Ron Paul people were not as respectful as you may have been led to believe. They will do ANYTHING to move their agenda forward, no matter what it takes. The biggest lesson I learned is that you can't give these people an inch, because they will take a mile. I think we as Republicans have become soft, and we need to start fighting much harder against those who want to see our party go down in flames this November. That not only includes Hillary and Barack supporters, but Paul supporters as well.
Nick Jacob
Posted by: Nick Jacob on May 31, 2008 06:56 PMhttp://www.nolanchart.com/article3934.html
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on May 31, 2008 07:22 PMYour comments, and the comments of other people in the party, seem to boil down to "We were here first and who are you to come in here and tell us what to do?" That is a great way to expand a party base.
No wonder more people consider themselves independents or democrats than republicans- it is now a party more interested in finding people who will blindly root for "the team"- a top down organization- rather than an ideas based group.
Don't worry though, Nick- there are more of us getting in at the grassroots level everyday and soon you and your NeoCon buddies who, in seven short years, have destroyed a party and a country can join the Democrats where you belong. Big spending, big government, interventionist Empire building anti-intellectuals who think Sean Hannity is bright.
Posted by: RustyJohn on May 31, 2008 07:47 PM1) Pass a $3 trillion federal budget. Check.
2) Double the size of the department of education. Check.
3) Don't pay any attention to the Bill of rights, particularly privacy and due process amendments. Check.
4) Invade a country that didn't attack the United States and kill 100,000 people and, if other Americans question this immediately call them traitors and tell them they are not supporting the troops. Support of the troops is best shown by not allowing them to leave the military through stop-loss and killing them in countries overseas. Check.
5) Place cronies in positions of power instead of people who are competent. You're doing a helluva job, Brownie. Check.
6) Inflate the currency so the price of food and gas goes through the roof then crawl to the King of Saudi Arabia and beg for more oil. Check.
7) Fail to balance the budget, cause a credit crisis because the government has to borrow $500 billion a year to stay in business, and further devalue the dollar. Check.
8) Nominate someone who is marginally sane for President who knows nothing about economics and whose staff is full of lobbyists and Washington insiders. Check.
9) Denigrate anyone who has the principals of the two most successful members of the party- Reagan and Goldwater- and tell them they aren't "true Repbulicans" because they don't support killing another 100,000 people in Iran, having bases in 130 countries across the globe, or want sound money and economic policies. Check.
10) Elimiante the middle-class by turning a blind eye to immigration, unfair trade agreements, and ensure that laws favor only wealthy contributors and big business. Check.
11) Nominate a candidate for President who the party really didn't like to begin with who has voted to restrict political speech, grant amnesty to illegal immigrants, wants 100 years of more war in Iraq, and is a continuation of the President that has a 28% approval rating. Check.
Wow- what a party- damn those Ron Paul people.
And no Bruce, I don't care to refute your nonsense. I've had enough of fighting with you people over the last 48 hours to last me a lifetime, trust me. I'm sorry that you made absolutely NO impact at the convention, but you really need to get over it.
Posted by: Nick Jacob on May 31, 2008 08:16 PMFirst, since I'm a tinfoil hat person, I'd like to put my educational and professional credentials up against yours. Where did you get your post doctorate degrees from?
Second, no one can tell me what McCain stands for other than a continuation of Bush for 8 more years. His whole campagin seems to be anti-Obama more than pro anything.
Third, of all the fools I had the chance to watch during primary season none had brought forth any ideas to solve the problems we are facing today. There is no plan to get out of Iraq just "We'll stand down when they stand up" or "We have to stay for honor" and no discussion on foreign policy. Further, all the candidates, McCain included, just spout off Keynesian solutions to solve our economic problems that result in further devaluation of the currency or greater budget deficits.
It may be easier for some of you to latch on to a few of the lunatic fringe who support Paul and paint all of us with a broad brush becuase that involves not engaging in self critique of how far our party has strayed from any guiding principles.
I used to belive in this President, I used to believe in this party, I used to believe in this war but it is all b.s. 72% of the people in America are disgusted with this administration and those of us in the party are suppossed to click our heels and devote blind obedience to McCain even though he has no ideas that are different from W.
So, in the space below, rather than engage in name calling, list for me a dozen policy differences between McCain and Bush. If you can't, as a member of the party, how is the rest of the voting public going to vote for a guy who is identical to 28% George?
By the way- I will list what I believe in and what my candidate belives in:
Limited government,
Sound money,
A strong national defense,
A non-interventionist foreign policy,
Property rights and civil liberties,
Respect for the law,
A balanced budget,
A respect for Federalism...
I could go on, but by now you are probably finding those objectionable because the President sure doesn't belive in them and neither does the presumptive nominee.
Choices in November? Someone who wants to expand the size of government by 5% each year and someone who wants to expand the size of government 3% each year. Wow- what clarity and choice.
By the way- I'll also take my desired nominee's academic credentials and voting record v. McCain's and we'll see who is smarter and more principled and who is a hack that has been living off of his Vietnam war record for 30 years. Maybe McCain can send his daughter to Iraq to lose an arm or a leg to an IED- then she can shamelessly turn that into a political career and run for president.
Posted by: RustyJohn on May 31, 2008 08:28 PMYou made the Hannity crowd have to think- they don't know what that is- they're just used to listening to mindless drivel come through their AM radios and over FoxNews and then repeating it.
See, that is the difference betweent hem and us- they'll give up and we'll keep fighting for what we believe in. They kind of remind me of the nihilists in the Big Lebowski- they believe in nothing and, when confronted, cry like babies.
Posted by: RustyJohn on May 31, 2008 08:33 PMIn theory at least, they don't practice it anymore, power is divided between the states and the federeal government for several reasons. One of them is because- whether it be at the state or local level- the government should reflect the values of the people in the area and be responsive to their needs.
Each state, county or municipality is free to determine how they want to run their schools...oh wait, they used to be able to until No Child Left Behind passes. Different example...they are free to determine what medical and drug laws they want to pass and their state and then...oh wait, wrong example- the FDA and DEA will arrest people even if state law permits them to do stuff. Another example, the people in each state are free to determine who they live with and what type of marital relationship they want...oh wait, I forgot about the Republican party wanting to pass the Defense of Marriage Act. Let me see if I can come up with another example where federalism still permits the people in a state to make their own decisions......damn, I can't.
Anyhow, the party sometimes uses this as a reason why Georgia or South Carolina should still be able to fly a COnfederate flag over their respective state houses- that's about the only thing I can come up with. However, the party still mentions federalism and states' rights from time to time...
However, when it comes to foreign intervention, the NeoCon believes it is perfectly acceptable to have someone in Washington, D.C. tell people 12,000 miles away how they should live their lives, what religion they should follow, what type of government they should set up, etc. And then, when they try to change 10,000 years of culture and tradition in a foreign country they are shocked that it doesn't work and call for the extermination of those people.
So, in the NeoCon Republican party of the 21st century, Washington, D.C. telling South Carolina what flag to fly is bad- but Washington, D.C. telling countries 12,000 miles away what to do is good.
Posted by: RustyJohn on May 31, 2008 08:45 PMI agree with every word that Nick says......I was there, too!!
Posted by: Susu on May 31, 2008 08:58 PMIn the mean time the "right" will continue to compare Bush with McCain and beat McCain down because he is only 2% different from Obama (where did you get that figure anyway?)
Does this mean you are taking your marbles and going home or crossing over to the other side cause you hate Bush and have 11 points to present, or maybe start your own country and call it Minority?
Time to move on, whoops that might have been the wrong thing to say....anyway time together around the campfire and start remembering why we are on the trail.
Posted by: Ken Howard on May 31, 2008 09:25 PM
Battle at Spokane II
By the end of day one at the Republican State Convention in Spokane, it became obvious through the stream of complaints from Ron Paul backers, that the Party Archs, the bosses who are in thrall to McCain, have scripted and planned every moment of this event to benefit their candidate.
Complaints:
a) The Bosses would not allow physical counting of the ballots.
b) Ballots were observed thrown in wastebaskets and on the floor.
c) Speakers chosen by the Bosses spoke of "their candidate" McCain as the only candidate in the race, as if Ron Paul did not exist. Demands for equal time were denied. Early in the morning one Boss-supplied speaker began to prattle about how "our Republican candidate John McCain, the presumptive winner, etc... would do so and so when he got into the White House..." an immediate, very loud set of Booing began which turned into a now familiar chant, "Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul!!"
d) Printed ballots with no opposition candidates allowed! Straight out of Stalin's play book. I acquired a copy of one such ballot. When people began to write in Mickey Mouse and Josef Stalin as opposition they were told that no matter whom they wrote in, it would still count as a vote for the pre-printed candidate.
e) All of the delegates were told in very plain terms that if they did not turn off their personal video cameras, the cameras would be confiscated! And if people made a fuss over their cameras being stolen they would be forcefully ejected from the Convention Center.
f) The chairman who ran the proceedings from the podium constantly conferred with a Robert's Rules of Order guru. The chairman's power to override objections, rule statements inadmissible, to literally control who said what to a maximum extent assured the Bosses that no fundamental Paul rules or momentum would be allowed.
g) I was denied press credentials. I e-mailed my press application to the Republican Party office in Bellevue, WA on time. The next day I was sent an e-mail telling me that "Your organization does not meet our criteria."
My organizations were two, a Web based magazine which hosts news and commentary from all sectors called "Nolan Chart LLC" and The Whatcom Independent, not exactly known as a radical rag. I sent an e-mail back asking where I could read "the criteria" but of course got no response. Later after coming to Spokane standing on the Convention floor the first day I complained to Jeremy Doitch, an RP sub boss that there was no moral reason to exclude me from the Convention. He told me rather coldly, "This matter is closed. You are to leave this Convention Hall, the entire building which the RP has rented. If you don't leave immediately a police officer will escort you." Then these warm humans representing the RP turned on their heels and walked away.
Within this totalitarian atmosphere Ron Paul backers managed to still get delegates elected to go to Minneapolis for the RP National Convention. As of the end of Saturday the regions that had huge Paul majorities elected Paul delegates. Whatcom County which sent 31 out of 39 County pro Paul delegates to this Spokane convention is in Congressional District Two. There was a major allegation of cheating to get McCain backers in as delegates from Skagit County. Despite a fistful of evidence demonstrating fraud in that county, the Bosses refused to hear the complaints and a slate of McCain delegates was added into the mix and virtually NO Paul delegates were elected from CD Two.
There is excellent coverage of these points on YouTube as well. Search at YouTube on "battle spokane GOP convention"
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on May 31, 2008 09:29 PMHitler
Communist
Fascist
I was also told to burn in hell and I heard another woman referred to as a expletive pig.
This was my first convention and it was great to see so many Republicans all gathered together in one place speaking in one voice (for the most part), but I am left with a bad taste in my mouth due to the actions of a few.
Limited government,
Sound money,
A strong national defense,
A non-interventionist foreign policy,
Property rights and civil liberties,
Respect for the law,
A balanced budget,
A respect for Federalism...
Rusty, I hate to say this, but some of these are jsut statements that you can read on half the candidates flyers. I am not saying they are not good statements, but they do not have any substance behind them. No plans, just statements.
AS for the Iraq war, we could debate all day whether it was a good/bad idea, but we are there now. As a good conservative I beleive in personal responsibility; therefore how can we leave a country that we went into without it being able to stnad up on it's own? We did that in Afghanistan in the 80's. We helped the mujhadeen defeat the Soviets and then we left, without helping the Afghani's rebuild their infastructure. This lead to the rise of the Taliban. As for Isolationism, yep that worked really great after WWI. As a matter of fact I seem to remember it worked so great that it was a direct result of Hitler coming to power.
As for limited government, I am all for it.
As for strong national defense, I am all for it.
Property rights, I am all for it
Civil rights, I am for wire tapping of known terrorists how about you?
Respect for the Law, I am all for it to include upholding voter ID laws to make it more difficult for people to vote illegally (I heard that was not too popular with the Ron Paul Supporters at the convention though).
A balanced budget, I live by one every month with a surplas.
One thing I might point out Rusty, you kind of degrade your argument that Ron Paul supporters are well mannered when you hijack a thread the way you do. It just looks like you are trying to shout down everyone that disagrees with you instead of debating the issue like Bruce Guthrie has been doing.
I am not following your logic or lack thereof. Yes, my guy lost and what that means is I will continue to fight for the ideas I believe in. It does not mean I will vote for a party or candidate who is diametrically opposed to what I believe in.
This idea that if you don't follow McCain you must believe in what the Democratic party is pushing is absurd. Tell me of these ideas (I listed them above, too), which are adopted by the Democratic party?
Limited government,
Sound money,
A strong national defense,
A non-interventionist foreign policy,
Property rights and civil liberties,
Respect for the law,
A balanced budget,
A respect for Federalism.
None of them, although, ironically the last balanced budget we had was when a Democrat occupied the WHite House. That was because the Republicans followed their principles to at least some degree in the 1990s when they controlled the House and Senate.
Your comment is just another example of how far the current Republican party has strayed from what it used to believe in. Why not read Ron Paul's "The Revolution: A Manifesto" before you judge what we believe in? If you don't feel like giving 20 bucks for a book to someone you hate, then read Goldwater's "Conscience of a Conservative", Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom", Kirk's "The COnservative Mind", Patterson's book on Robert Taft, or Andrew Sullivan's "The Conservative Soul" to get an idea of how far this party has strayed from what it used to believe in. Be careful on the last one though- it is written by a gay guy so it might result in you getting cooties or something.
Again, the irony that I would be called or considered a Democrat for being a Conservative is laughable. You are blinded by either your lust for war (which is usually a good sign that you have never been through one) or your blind devotion to Party above Country.
I think the man himself answered your remarks better than I ever could...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPtrNIxqPCo
Posted by: RustyJohn on May 31, 2008 10:38 PMTrueSoldier- I didn't realize that debating issues was "hijacking" a thread- since the word itself usually implies taking over something by force or to rob or steal. This is an open forum and if the person who runs this blog finds it offensive they can delete my posts.
I am sitting at home watching a replay of the Yankee game on-line, which may be an utterly repulsive thing to do to Mariner's fans but is far from taking a gun and forcing someone to do something.
As for what your candidate believes in (I am assuming that candidate is McCain), no, he does not stand for those things although, as you mentioned, he may have them on his flier. Looking at his votes over the past 30 someodd years he is a consistent and regular voter against personal liberty and against personal property rights and free speech.
My guy, on the other hand, has a consistent and regular record of never having voted for a budget that is out of balance, never having voted for a tax increase, never having voted to increase the size of federal government and never having voted to limit my freedoms. And that is why it is such a frustrating thing to discuss because for once our Party had a chance to nominate someone who was a champion of the things we believe in as opposed to someone who puts them on fliers during election time.
It would be great if there was wiretapping of known terrorists, but who determines who is a known terrorist? The government. I like how all the things that led up to 9/11 were cause by government mismanagement or inaction yet I am told I must believe the only solution to prevent a future 9/11 is more government.
Not enforcing the borders or visa laws allowed the terrorists in. Not investigating tips to the FBI about terrorists training to take-off but not land planes. FAA policy to not resist a hijaking when it occurs led to three planes killing thousands of citizens. Planes that the government sent up in the wrong direction and unarmed couldn't stop those planes. It was only when citizens, individuals, who banded together to stop the fourth plane was when that horrible day ended.
Since that time I have McDonald's workers telling me to take off my shoes and not letting me bring water on to a plane, frisking 80 year old ladies for bombs and causing havoc on the airlines. We have a giant government agency, the Dept of Homeland Security, who couldn't even effectively respond to a natural disaster they knew was coming a week before hand.
We now have a government that engages in the same torture techniques as Nazi Germany, holds people turned over to us by 3rd world despots for torture who several times have turned out to be innocent individuals, several have been held for years despite the government knowing they are innocent.
We have a candidate who jokes about "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" and who has stated that nuking another country that never attacked us is acceptable. I have family, by marriage, in Iran and the fact that someone would so flippantly joke about killing them is far from acceptable.
We have had US citizens that have done nothing wrong held and arrested with due process. We are told by the government that these are all terrorists and we need to get rid of our rights and liberties that generations have fought and died for.
We have soldiers in Iraq that find it comical to shoot up Holy books, try to openly convert them to Christianity, and swept up thousands of Iraqis to torture in Abu Ghraib. Again we are told this is all acceptable because all these people are terrorists- and we should trust the government. Funny, but I don't remember these same people saying I should trust the government when they were at Waco or Ruby Ridge. It seems the government can be trusted depending on who the current occupant of the White House is.
So, while I find the statements some Paul supporters made to Ken to be rude and ridiculous to say the least, offensive given the genocide purpotrated by Hitler et all, what does McCain stand for? Is this the party of torture and war? He talks a great game about being anti-torture as a former POW but has not voted to limit it.
There was a time years ago when I dismissed all the evidence of the horrible things this administration was doing. I voted Republican in every presidential election since I was 18. I dismissed these reports and the incompetence as lies perpetrated by the Left, the "media" out to get the President and just accepted it the cost of being at war. But over seven years it is apparent that these horrible things are occuring and they cannot be dismissed and are immoral.
I cannot in good conscience vote for a person who would contniue these activities. If that makes me a "bad Republican" or results in some of us shouting out rude names, so be it. I would rather be those things than a bad American or a bad Catholic and what has happened to this country over the past few years is despicable. In addition to being morally bankrupt, the country is now financially bankrupt.
And if some of you fellow Republicans aren't aware of the total and absolute butt whipping we will receive at the polls in a few months it is time to open up your eyes and reevaluate what is going on in this party.
http://newsproject.org/videos/21
Posted by: RustyJohn on May 31, 2008 11:21 PMWhy should they have physical counting, rather than using scanners? Physical counting would only slow things down AND be less accurate. You keep the ballots so they can be physically counted later if necessary, but you don't waste time doing it unless it becomes necessary.
Speaking of McCain as "our candidate" ... oh please, could there be a more juvenile complaint?! He has enough delegates to win the nomination. He will win the nomination. This is, again, normal and not interesting.
Turning off video cameras ... so what? What has that got to do with anything? The rules disallow it, so it's disallowed. Big deal.
Conferring about Roberts Rules is ALWAYS done, is EXPECTED, is NORMAL, is GOOD. You want a convention without following the rules!?
And I couldn't care less who is and is not allowed press credentials, and I doubt anyone else cares either, except for the press, or people sympathetic to the slant of the excluded person.
So now to the two I left out, b and d. The former, we'd need more information about. Simply saying ballots are in the wastebasket means nothing.
As to the latter, what did the ballot include on it, and what would he have preferred? More information is needed.
So ... a whole lot of nonsense, it looks like to me.
The thing that bothers me the most about these loons is their unwillingness/inability to understand that their positions are fringy.
I've got some beliefs that are out there. I know they are out there. My general belief structure is libertarian. I support legalization of drugs. Adults should get to ingest what they want. But I understand that this is not a mainstream belief. I don't get all indignant and start rattling off reasons that mine is the only possible sane or reasonable belief. I recognize and respect that most others have a different opinion, and that they could even be right.
It's not what the Paulzis believe. It's the way they believe it. Like these convention posts.
"And then the chairman didn't count our votes, and then he like used Roberts Rules against us, and then he like misused the rules, and like he didn't let us prove that we were right, and like we really had a majority there, and like the other delegates were stupid, and like when we tried to make our perfectly valid points, they like wouldn't let us, cuz like they are afraid of us, cuz like we are the next revolution, and like Ron Paul rocks!"
Dudes! Listen Up! You get called Paulistinians, Paultards, Ronulans, and Paulzis, because you behave like jerks. Nobody is gonna listen to you if you are rude, arrogant, and offensive. You might be smart, but you are dumbshits. It's time to buy a clue.
Hairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on June 1, 2008 12:15 AM
RustyJohn: Almost everything I read that you said -- and no, I am not going to read it all -- is incorrect. For example:
Your comments, and the comments of other people in the party, seem to boil down to "We were here first and who are you to come in here and tell us what to do?"
Not remotely. More like, "we are a majority, and who are you to impose your minority view on the majority?"
Nick's Republican party to do list
Most of this is complete nonsense. Just because SOME Republicans -- or even most Republicans at the federal level, even Bush himself -- support something, doesn't mean Nick, or any, or even most, other Republicans do. For example, I support McCain, and I am dead-set against every item you listed. And I note that item 4 includes almost entirely false statements, as do several of the others, including 10 and 11.
And honestly, either you have no idea what McCain actually said about "100 years" in Iraq, or you are lying about it, because he never said he wanted 100 more years of war in Iraq. He said exactly the opposite. Either you've believed someone else's lies, or you're lying.
I am not going to bother reading anything else you write. It's not worth my time.
Maybe your problem is that you are apparently a Yankees fan. That would explain a lot.
I have supported Ron Paul's, and his supporters', participation in the process. I have bent over backward to defend them from nonsensical attacks about being non-Republican. I have been a fan of Ron Paul since before 99 percent of his supporters ever heard of him. But I don't support him for President because a. he can't win against any Democrat (except for maybe Kucinich) and b. I don't think he has the ability to implement any of his policies, except those he as President would have the power to implement unilaterally.
McCain has a MUCH greater chance of winning, and McCain has a MUCH greater chance at being able to cut the budget. Paul would WANT to cut the budget more than McCain, but he would have much less ability to actually do so. You have to be able to work with people to get things done. John Adams learned this lesson the hard way. Ron Paul, 200 years later, never did.
So fine, maybe I agree with Ron Paul more than McCain. But McCain will make a much better candidate, and a much better President. Agreeing with someone isn't enough.
Posted by: pudge on June 1, 2008 12:26 AMDo some reading. Think about what would have happened if John Adams had declared war with France. Not only would we have entered into a war we couldn't afford -- economically or politically -- but we very well could have lost the Union itself. Mixing military acts with political ones is circumstance-dependent. You cannot rationally say that every military engagement must be preceded by a declaration of war.
I don't know the text of this resolution that passed, but from the description it seems utterly nonsensical. It is borne of ignorance of history and law. And indeed, if it literally says what it seems to say from that description, it is unconstitutional, to boot, as it places additional restrictions on the power of the President that can only come via constitutional amendment. Granted, most power over the use of the military comes under Congress' purview, but not all: the President can act without Congress' approval if there's a clear and present danger, as the saying goes. He is obligated to do so. And if this prevents that, it is unconstitutional.
But even if it does allow for that, it's still stupid.
Posted by: pudge on June 1, 2008 12:32 AMNo. You lose your "sanity cred".
Posted by: pbj on June 1, 2008 01:37 AMRon Paul....The Revolution goes on!!!!!!!
Posted by: Fire Eater in Virginia on June 1, 2008 04:30 AMRon Paul....The Revolution goes on!!!!!!!
Posted by: Fire Eater in Virginia on June 1, 2008 04:31 AMThere you go on yet another rant about McCain and what he stands for. First of all if you had ever read any of my posts you would know that McCain is not my candidate, never was and never will be. My candidate was Fred Thompson, he lost and that is that. I have moved on and will try harder next go around to see the candidate of my choice gets the nomination. I commend all the Ron Paul supporters for their hard work and effort, but it was not enough to get your guy nominated, I think it is time for you to move on. I can understand your dislike of McCain, believe me I share your pain in him being the nominee and I will tell you I do not know if I will be able to hold my nose and vote for him in Novemeber (I will have to wait and see who his VP pick is). Nearly 30% of the posts are by you. I can understand your frustration, but you really are coming across as the guy who wants to shout everyone down so your voice is the only one that heard. That is not debating.
As for hijacking a thread, what I am saying is post something and give someone a chance to answer. Bruce Guthrie (whom I am sure will tell you I do not always agree with) at least gives a person a chance to respond before going on to his next post. You could learn allot from Bruce's use of posts and perhaps it would make your arguments more compeling next time around.
One last thing, you are not going to get very far with conservatives in general if you paint our troops with a broad brush when it comes to the few bad apples that have done some things in Iraq (and have been punished for)that they should not have done. It just makes you sound like an anti-military type and it is kind of hard to be for a strong national defense if you are going to paint all the troops as "We have soldiers in Iraq that find it comical to shoot up Holy books, try to openly convert them to Christianity, and swept up thousands of Iraqis to torture in Abu Ghraib."
Posted by: TrueSoldier on June 1, 2008 06:26 AMIf your a Ronulan, and you don't get your way, you call names.
I've been to several county conventions and one state convention, and while there was much disagreement at all of them, there wasn't any name-calling. One poor lady got up and quoted from the Declaration of Independence & called it the Bill of Rights, but she can be forgiven that as simple ignorance. At the state convention, the Snohomish delegation was particularly boistrous (it seems it's always the Snohomish delegation), but still, there was no name-calling.
We disagreed, we made our points known, and then we voted on what we all felt to be our principles. That's the way democracy works in a federal republic.
The Ronulans are going to go home with their baseball if they don't get their way. Nice of them to stop by and try to disrupt the party.
Posted by: steve miller on June 1, 2008 06:32 AMFirst let me congradulate Dr. Paul and his organization. He seems to have managed to get every voter for him in the primary elected as a state delegate.
If Clark County rules had required that candidates for state convention delegate were required during its county convention to state their presidential preference they would have never been elected. They knew this since it was requested at the county convention for them to do so and several angrily demanded that they not be required. Once I got to the state convention these same people were overwhelmingly the Paul supporters. Deceptive and Creepy.
Posted by: Nebisan on June 1, 2008 07:33 AMThe Ron Paul people showing up spoils the party.
There is no way to square these two positions, thus you will get complaints from the whiners like Harry, Nick, Nebian, Eric Earling, etc.
Ron Paul supporters or anyone with a brain is not going to be able to engage the party people in a real debate because that is not their motivation.
The real motivation of the party people is figuring out a way to elect Republican which normally involves a discussion about which conservative principles need to be thrown overboard and seeing if they can score free drink coupons or get into a reception with an open bar.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 1, 2008 08:10 AMIt's Ron Paul. Or Congressman Paul.
Each and every time you supporters of Congressman Paul refer to him as Doctor Paul, you reveal yourselves to be no different than the starry-eyed fainters at an Obama rally.
He's a congressman. Did you call Sen. Bill Frist doctor? Of course not. Yet it's Doctor Paul. /induce eye rolling
And RustyJohn is exactly what I think of when it comes to the majority of Ron Paul supporters - an obnoxious loudmouth who combines the worst elements of the hard left and the hard right.
If more of the even-minded Paul supporters would've bothered to keep people like RustyJohn in check, you'd have more supporters and maybe Congressman Paul would've had a better showing. But you didn't and now you're labeled with the rest of 'em.
And save yourself the namecalling about who I may or may not support. Nobody's getting my POTUS vote this year.
Posted by: jimg on June 1, 2008 08:33 AMCome on now. No matter what you think about McCain, he is more conservative than Bush, and at least no less so than Dole, and to my mind would be a much better President than either of them.
And even though Obama is pretty far left, he is the most respectable Democrat on the ticket since ... hm. JFK maybe?
I think this is the BEST choice we've had since at least 1992 ... maybe 1984.
Posted by: pudge on June 1, 2008 09:54 AMAs far as Ron Paul is concerned, I don't mind outsiders trying to keep the Republican party on track with its stated philosophy as G.W. Bush has served as less than a standard bearer for what I envision this party to be. This party has lost its way for the most part, but it is still the better choice in November. I just hope the Paul people use their heads and vote for McCain rather than piss your vote away with Barr, Paul, Mickey Mouse,etc.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 1, 2008 10:41 AMThe white supremacist American Nationalist Union also backed Sheehan's Crawford protests and endorsed David Duke for president of the United States in 1988. Now they are backing Ron Paul-linking to numerous Pro-Paul articles posted on LewRockwell.com.
Posted by: John Bailo on June 1, 2008 11:09 AMOh well, just like B-Ho and the Hillary, let em rant. Their insults, whines and rants reveal far more about them than anyone else.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on June 1, 2008 11:30 AMI look forward to your defeat in November; before you accuse me of supporting the Democrats, I don't. But since I'm going to lose no matter who wins, since all I want is a Constitutional government, I will revel in your anger when you lose.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on June 1, 2008 11:56 AMUntil this cycle, I never thought any group of people could out-whine and out-snivel the far left scum infesting the process.
Clearly, I was wrong. Ronulans would bitch about getting hung with a new rope. Thankfully, they'll fade away into a footnote of the richly deserved closet of political oddities.
And I will thank God for it.
Posted by: Hinton on June 1, 2008 12:31 PMI doubt there has been a proceeding conducted as fairly given the circumstances created by Ron Paul supporters. Luke Esser and the rest of the party leadership have been careful to observe the tactics and intents of the Ron Paul faction in other states and were exceptionally prepared to parry every thrust put forward. The claim that that parliamentary rules were broken is absolutely absurd considering the fact that one of the parliamentarians was an editor of the latest edition of Robert's Rules - so no dice there.
As far as Skagit County is concerned, it is patently obvious that the whole thing was a tactic on the Ron Paul side to 1) obviously decrease the numbers of the McCain side, and 2) to delay the proceedings in favor of fighting the platform battles. As a member of the delegation, I'm less likely to trust the word of a body of people who have PROVEN by their very actions and words that they are untrustworthy and trying be disruptive, than I am people that I know and trust like Luke Esser, Kirby Wilbur, and other members of the leadership. I voted against the Ron Paul people because they were sneaky, rude, angry, insulting, tactless, immature, arrogant, hypocritical, and hateful. This made EVERY motion they put forward suspect. Learn from it my friends.
But regardless, the fact is that the Ron Paul faction absolutely was trying to hijack the convention as they have attempted in other states. These are mostly people who couldn't get enough traction in their own crippled Libertarian party, but figured out that there is enough agreement on other conservative principles that they could sneak in unawares in enough numbers to possibly take over a party that DOES have some traction, capitalizing on the dissatisfaction and disgust they share with most Republicans for the current state of D.C. The fact that we differ on the war is proof of this. That is THE issue for Ron Paul supporters, as was evident at the convention. They are rabidly anti Iraq war, and tend strongly toward conspiratorial views.
We (McCain Republicans) were called Nazis and Fascists throughout that convention. When we voted not to add an amendment to the platform opposing animal tracking id, simply because it was already in a resolution, and wasn't appropriate for the platform document, we were called fascists and were accused of wanting the government to track each one of us. Every decision made by the body was spun this way by the Ron Paul people.
Lastly, the hypocrisy was just plain unbearable. On Friday, select Ron Paul supporters were armed with hidden radio devices, seen only by the wire running up to their ear, and a small microphone used to communicate votes, and tactics across the convention, and flags indicating how to vote. Every vote saw several Ron Paul supporters running up and down the aisles to tell their people how to vote. Many McCain supporters had signs indicating 'yes' and 'no' and they used them to indicate their votes and be seen. When the Ron Paul folks figured out their own strategy wasn't working, the next day they tried to get our signs removed, while secretly KEEPING their radio communications. Hypocrites.
And yes, we walked out to deny a quorum when it came time to cover the resolutions recommended as no by the committee. So, what? No rules were broken by doing so, and the Ron Paul people's tactics were simply turned back on themselves. What comes around goes around. Besides, they got a win out of that anyway, due to a slip up on the McCain side.
They are not happy, and I understand that since they lost this one for the most part. But for once, the Republican Party played hardball. If only they would play this well in D.C.
Posted by: Jeff on June 1, 2008 01:07 PMLuxuriate in the paradise you've created on the west side. You know, the one where you let Ron Sims tell you when to wipe your ass.
That'll help elect Rossi.
Posted by: Rey Smith on June 1, 2008 01:16 PMradio devices? I hope you had your tinfoil hat on so they couldn't scan your brain
Posted by: Andrew Brown on June 1, 2008 01:43 PMHere, here Jeff. This was a very well written and precisely accurate description of the events.
I went to the convention as a lukewarm McCain supporter wanting to ensure that we move the party forward in 2008 and get Rossi elected. I was no way prepared for the invasion of the ankle biters. I could see it if it was Huckabee, Romney, Thompson or even Gulliani. But Paul??!! Paul??!! It was like the United States being invaded by Lichtenstein. Wow, these people really take themselves seriously.
The most appalling was the resolution to remove the Yes/No signs. While they still had their radio communications and flags they wanted to McCain people to unilaterally disarm in the face of victory. That may be their strategy in Iraq, but the McCain people were not oblidged to adopt it. No matter how seriously the Paul people take themselves.
Posted by: Nebisan on June 1, 2008 02:04 PM"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree."
James Madison
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
Albert Einstein
Writing in all bold isn't a whole lot different then writing in ALL CAPS... it makes you look like you're yelling, trying to shout other people down, and generally makes you look a bit like a buffoon.
And it's hard to take buffoons seriously. Just sayin'...
Posted by: Mike H on June 1, 2008 03:09 PMThey presented themselves as normal run of the mill, former Silent Republicans finally out of the closet to help. They would mention Ron Paul and if it was not accepted, they moved into "my mind can be changed" and became elected delegates to the county convention.
What did they do at the county convention? All spoke the conservative mantra and when asked whom they supported, responded "uncommitted"
40% of the delegates elected from our county turned out to be Paul supporters. Reminded me of the convention the Christian Coalition took over the state party. I have to admit that group was more Republican than were the Libertarians who have tried to take it over this year.
Now the State Convention is over, I am looking forward to see if they will become the water carriers for the local GOP party, putting up signs, marching in the parades and working the fair booths with Republican Candidates, or if they will drift back to their Libertarian dens.
I hope not, otherwise they have proved they have done nothing to further Libertarian or Republican causes.
Posted by: Ken Howard on June 1, 2008 03:15 PMOf course, I am a lifelong Red Sox fan, born and raised in Southeast Massachusetts, so that probably colors my perspective a bit.
Thank you to everyone who participated in the state convention, except for those Ron Paul supporters who were rude and disrespectful. We all can do without them. I have many great friends who are Ron Paul supporters. None of them would have called an American soldier who has done nothing wrong a "baby-killer," as happened by some RINOs at the convention.
Yes, I will say it clearly: anyone who would call an innocent soldier a "baby-killer" is far less of a Republican than John McCain. Hell, they are far less of a Republican than even Jim Jeffords or Lincoln Chafee ever was.
As to debate, "TruthUnderYouNose," I see both sides pretty clearly. On the one hand, honest and open debate is something we should all strive for, and when I first heard that people walked out to prevent debate, I was not happy about it.
However, when the Ron Paul side uses delaying tactics in order to stretch debate specifically in the hopes that through attrition they will become the majority, then all bets are off, as long as the rules are followed -- which they were -- and I have no problem whatsoever with people walking out to make it harder to have a quorum.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say. If you're going to take avantage of the rules for your side, why complain about your opponents doing the same? You pretend to care about "debate," but really what you care about is winning. No one is fooled.
Posted by: pudge on June 1, 2008 03:18 PMWow I had no idea, that many Jews were in the US and in the Rep party.
Some people can't help but be children every chance they get.
Gezzz
First of all it is under your nose and you've missed it. Second, Boo Frickin hoo hoo hoo.
By accusing Esser of quoting the wrong section of Robert's Rules you are accusing an EDITOR of Robert's Rules who was sitting at his left. YOU LOSE THAT ARGUMENT since there is hardly a higher authority to appeal to on the matter. What better testimony is there to the honesty of Luke Esser? But I'm guessing it's a conspiracy between Robert's rules of order and the Republicans?
The only reason so many McCain folks stayed behind was because of a fumble on the leadership's part in communicating the strategy.
You see, we didn't have radios.
Next, what are we, suckers that we should knowingly help you in your efforts to destroy the state party by giving you information on alternates? This is the party defending itself, and was a perfectly legitimate move. It can give or deny information to whomever it chooses. Can't it? This was a perfectly legitimate move, and you are just pissed because they weren't dumb enough to just cough up the info. I thought Ron Paul believed in Liberty and freedom of association? Are you sure it's the Republicans who are fascists?
Again, what are we suckers? The Ron Paul faction wasn't altruistically concerned with voicing "opinions". Aside from the fact that they did that quite well by their catcalls and insults, their true objective was to derail the convention, and only a fool would deny that. It was plain to everyone. The Republicans were wise to it, and now you have nothing left but to cry about it. The Republicans walked out to thwart those efforts, and for the most part it worked.
What the Ron Paul faction was gunning for was an opportunity to wear the convention down, and revisit the National Delegate decisions from the day before. It was manipulative, but we saw through it. Nuts to you.
You are simply lying about agreeing to stop using radios. Those radios never ceased to be used at any time throughout the convention.
As to your quotes, you have proven the James Madison quote with your friends in the Ron Paul faction. Thank you for that. And as a tepid, highly critical, even disgusted supporter of John McCain(that's "thinking disrespect", so I must be a friend of truth), I would advise you to take his advice in your allegiance to Ron Paul and the misfits running that movement.
Lastly, (and this isn't pleasant to say about a group with whom I share 80% agreement) the Ron Paul movement is a cowardly one. It is aware that it cannot survive on its own because its views on the war are so out of phase with the mainstream, so it uses sneaky and underhanded tactics to manipulate a party that can survive to achieve its purposes. Yes, I said cowardly.
P.S. Posting in bold is tacky.
Posted by: Jeff on June 1, 2008 03:34 PMThat should burn up some people. LOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 1, 2008 04:36 PM*Jeff*
I sat with MANY McCain supporters that thought it was VERY wrong to walk out and they were mad that the others walked out.
I said we stopped using the radios to tell people how to vote... didn't say they stopped using them... they could have been on cell phones - would that have been better?
We wanted to have a chance to voice our concerns and be heard. We had no illusions of having Paul become president.
Yes, some Paul supporters were very rude. And I personally was mad at more than one of them. There are always a few "crazies" in a large group. I am sure that you wouldn't like it if people judged you because of a few "crazy" McCain supporters, would you?
My problem with "what are we, suckers that we should knowingly help you in your efforts to destroy the state party by giving you information on alternates?" We are all members of the Republican Party. Just because you don't like Paul doesn't give you the right to exclude him the SAME access to information that other candidates have. Paul is a legitimate candidate, and I thought that the chair is supposed to be impartial on matters between Republican candidates? The Chair in Pierce gave us the complete list of all delegates and alternates, because he is FAIR. He understands that we are active and can help grow this DYING party. More people voted in the Primary for Obama in Washington than voted for all the Republican candidates -combined.
"The Republicans walked out to thwart those efforts, and for the most part it worked." I am a Republican. My husband is a PCO. I am a homeschooling mother of 4.
I don't appreciate your tone and disrespect.
You haven't heard. Obama left his RACIST church!
Not that it matters after 20+ years.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 1, 2008 05:11 PMI think you aren't getting me. It's exactly what Susu (60) said, hypocrisy. I'm fine with communication devices. What I'm not fine with is the gross hypocrisy and cowardice that occurred when the Paul faction realized it wasn't helping them, to try and get the signs taken from McCain supporters.
I am perfectly aware that Paul supporters understand he doesn't have a snowball's chance of getting elected. So I'm left with the enigma of figuring out what all the ruckus was about, and it certainly wasn't (with the group as a whole anyway) about "being heard". It was about derailing the convention and if possible, John McCain. It simply cannot be argued that the Ron Paul movement merely wants to be heard. The idea is ridiculous. There are so many other ways to be heard than to try to take over a convention and make it a circus. If you were one of the few civilized Paul supporters, then fine, but why didn't you appeal to that unruly crowd of punks and misfits to respect the proceedings and quit the catcalls and insults? I would have loved to have seen just ONE person with a Ron Paul sign/shirt/beard go up and confront them.
And anyway, how many of those Ron Paul supporters do you suppose will be around in the Fall to support the Republican candidate? You might be, and if so, I applaud you. But the movement around you will not be. Will they show the same zeal in keeping Obama out of the White House as they've shown in trying to make the Republican candidate look ridiculous?
Lastly, I stand by the right of the party to be circumspect and aware of the assaults coming its way. Should the Republican party "fair" its way into demise? We're asking the party to toughen up and fight, and you're asking it to give in when the hoards come running.
As has been said ad nauseam, the Paul faction and the rest of us have most things in common. But the central point of concern in the Paul faction is the war, and we will stiff-arm you every time if you come to us with that agenda. You are as good as a liberal to us if you come knocking with that agenda. We will play the hardest ball we can, shut you out of getting whatever information you don't have a legal right to, and use RROO to our advantage, whatever means within the law to repel you. So if you want to be welcome in the party, get rid of THAT plank. It is THE bone of contention and you can't even think of hoping for a good reception with it.
Posted by: Jeff on June 1, 2008 06:04 PMBesides, we've won two World Series this millennium, and the Yankees have none.
And Massachusetts is a lot like Washington. People often tend to vote Democratic, but they are generally conservative outside of a certain gepgraphic area around the one large city, and most citizens like low taxes, and to be left alone, even if they get sucked in by the socialist propaganda about raising the budget billions of dollars to pay for schools.
I can only hope we don't get into a Big Dig like they did. The one big thing I disagree with Dino on. :-)
Posted by: pudge on June 1, 2008 08:55 PMComplaint:
a) The Bosses would not allow physical counting of the ballots.
Response:
All of the ballots were designed as bubble scan sheets - this machine count was done to prevent any perception or accusations of "manipulation" that would inevitably arise if there were humans tallying the votes.
Complaint:
b) Ballots were observed thrown in wastebaskets and on the floor.
Response:
I certainly saw none of it, and there was no challenge that I heard on the validity of the vote counts or totals.
Complaint:
c) Speakers chosen by the Bosses spoke of "their candidate" McCain as the only candidate in the race, as if Ron Paul did not exist. Demands for equal time were denied. Early in the morning one Boss-supplied speaker began to prattle about how "our Republican candidate John McCain, the presumptive winner, etc... would do so and so when he got into the White House..." an immediate, very loud set of Booing began which turned into a now familiar chant, "Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul!!"
Response:
Many of the speakers were McCain supporters - or at least supporters of the presumptive Republican nominee. Understandable, since many of the speakers were GOP elected officials who could be expected to support the party and its likely nominee. That said, there was no indication that Paul supporters were denied a forum. In fact, Lew Moore - Ron Paul's campaign manager, and Michael Delavar, a Ron Paul supporter and candidate for congress spoke from the main stage along with the other speakers. In fact, John Carlson - the designated keynote speaker - shared the podium with Lew Moore during the keynote. Not sure it could have been more inclusive.
Complaint:
d) Printed ballots with no opposition candidates allowed! Straight out of Stalin's play book. I acquired a copy of one such ballot. When people began to write in Mickey Mouse and Josef Stalin as opposition they were told that no matter whom they wrote in, it would still count as a vote for the pre-printed candidate.
Response:
There were no ballots with printed names. Ballots for delegates and alternates were simply numbered bubble sheet ballots. Each congressional district caucus had a list of candidates who had filed listed on a pre-printed worksheet - write-in candidates were posted on a board during the caucuses and assigned a number on the ballot. There were printed slate sheets, distributed by the McCain campaign, with a list of recommended delegates and alternates. This was the "unity" slate and consisted of recommended delegates who were supporters of both Sen. McCain and Gov. Huckabee. These recommendations were not ballots. Additionally, the Paul campaign spokesperson - as a first action Saturday morning - made a motion to simply adopt the recommended "McCain" slate in its entirety without debate.
Complaint:
e) All of the delegates were told in very plain terms that if they did not turn off their personal video cameras, the cameras would be confiscated! And if people made a fuss over their cameras being stolen they would be forcefully ejected from the Convention Center.
Response:
I was one of those delegates - and I never heard a single word about cameras of any type. There were cameras everywhere - and I saw no one hassled nor did I see or hear anything from the chair, or from the facility security about the use of still or video cameras. I did hear about an incident involving a Paul supporter and a video camera. Apparently he was acting inappropriately and was asked by the facility management to leave the property - the incident involved a video camera from what I heard. However, there was no official ban on such devices.
Complaint:
f) The chairman who ran the proceedings from the podium constantly conferred with a Robert's Rules of Order guru. The chairman's power to override objections, rule statements inadmissible, to literally control who said what to a maximum extent assured the Bosses that no fundamental Paul rules or momentum would be allowed.
Response:
The entire convention was being run under rules that were voted on and approved by the body. This convention, like most conventions, caucuses, board meetings, association meetings, etc. was primarily governed by the parlimentary rules laid out in the most recent edition of Robert's Rules. The WSRP intentionally hired the editor of this edition in an effort to make certain that any dispute over the rules could be handled by the most authoritative expert available. Any exceptions to Robert's Rules were explicitly pointed out in writing, made available to the body, and approved by a majority of the body at the start of the convention.
Complaint:
g) I was denied press credentials. I e-mailed my press application to the Republican Party office in Bellevue, WA on time. The next day I was sent an e-mail telling me that "Your organization does not meet our criteria." My organizations were two, a Web based magazine which hosts news and commentary from all sectors called "Nolan Chart LLC" and The Whatcom Independent, not exactly known as a radical rag. I sent an e-mail back asking where I could read "the criteria" but of course got no response. Later after coming to Spokane standing on the Convention floor the first day I complained to Jeremy Doitch, an RP sub boss that there was no moral reason to exclude me from the Convention. He told me rather coldly, "This matter is closed. You are to leave this Convention Hall, the entire building which the RP has rented. If you don't leave immediately a police officer will escort you." Then these warm humans representing the RP turned on their heels and walked away.
Response:
Can't comment on that - no knowledge of the particular situation.
A few other points:
The writer alleges a "totalitarian atmosphere" - which simply is not true. There majority of delegates did not support Ron Paul's candidacy. That they voted to block motions forwarded by Paul supporters, and use their majority to move on motions and elected delegates they supported is not indicative of a "totalitarian" process, but rather a democratic process.
There has been discussion about the use of radios and signs by McCain campaign leaders and Paul campaign leaders to communicate during the convention. Both sides were using these devices, and it was in no way inappropriate. There were approximately 1,300 delegates on the floor - not including the alternates. The McCain campaign was better organized and better prepared with regard to the use of these devices. The organization by the McCain campaign whips was proving very effective. So much so, that a motion was made by the Paul campaign to disallow the use of signs to communicate with the delegations - despite the fact that the Paul campaign was doing the same thing - but without the same degree of success.
There was a clear strategy by the Paul campaign to stretch out the proceedings - hoping enough McCain delegates would leave - that they could begin rolling back rules, and revisiting votes that had already been made on delegates, the platform, etc. There is nothing wrong with such a strategy - I think it was good, hardball politics. And it began to work toward the end. However, the McCain team was able to regroup and bring the convention to an end - by the rules.
I'm sure there were harsh words from individuals supporting both McCain and Paul. As anyone who has seen my other posts on this blog with regard to the Ron Paul campaign, I'm pretty fair and reasonably objective in my assessments. It was clear to me that the Paul supporters were the most guilty of hurling unwarranted remarks. The Paul supporter sitting directly behind me was continuously calling people "Nazis." I challenged him, expressing that I felt his comment to be out of line, and requesting that he be more civil. He responded with profanity. Several people I know and trust has similar experiences. I did not witness a similar level of behavior coming from the McCain side. If it was happening, it wasn't happening around me - seated in the King County 36th LD seating area, and spending a lot of time in the public areas of the convention center.
On the whole, the lack of sympathy for the Paul supporters seems to have been brought on in large part because the Paul campaign was, admittedly, engaged in a strategy - during the precinct, legislative district and other caucuses - designed to obfuscate their true agenda. I believe they felt this was a practical thing to do - however, it created a deep sense of mistrust, and many longtime members of the Republican party - and remember, this was a Republican Party process - felt that lack of honesty was unacceptable.
I appreciate much of what Dr. Paul stands for - and believe the GOP needs to be more attentive to the issues raised by the Paul campaign. However, the Paul supporters, in general, were not interested in being part of a compromise - unlike supporters of Gov. Huckabee, Gov. Romney, Sen. Thompson, Mayor Giulianni, etc. These folks all came together as Republicans and are (mostly) supporting the party and its presumptive nominee. I would invite the Paul supporters to do the same, and work within the party to effect the change they wish to see.
Posted by: Brian White (airfoil) on June 1, 2008 09:14 PMI look at America (our economy especially) as a sinking ship. There are holes all over the ship, with water gushing in, and those who point out those holes are ridiculed and called "unpatriotic" or "trouble makers" by those who either don't see them, or choose to ignore them. Some people quietly point out the holes, while others shout and scream "There are holes in the ship and we're going to sink and you're an idiot for not seeing them!" Either method gets the message across, but the latter is the one that people often refer to and cause them to dismiss the notion that anything could be wrong. As I always see with things like this, people choose to attack the messenger, rather than address the message.
Well, I for one have my life vest already on, and am just waiting for the inevitible. To those out there that still believe that our present course of action will lead us to prosperity, well, good luck with that. See you on the other side... or will I? Hope you folks can swim.
Posted by: Jackson on June 1, 2008 10:04 PM"I will revel in your anger when you lose."
Um, last tiem I noticed it was the Ron Paul supporters taht were the "angry" ones over their candidate not getting nominated. My candidate has been out of the race for awhile (he realized he was not going to win so he bowed out gracefully) and you do not see me going off on some rant about how it is unfair that he did not get the nomination. Nope instead I have been working at doing what I can to see that other candidates that I like get elected in the general election (and no I do not mean McCain).
Posted by: TrueSoldier on June 1, 2008 11:08 PMI think you're acting childishly, personally.
It's admirable to stick up for your beliefs (even if they are unconstitutional beliefs, like that war-declaration requirement that many Ron Paul supporters backed), but at the end of the day, if you want to fix the holes in the ship, then ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING. Don't just hope. Don't just back a symbolic candidate who can't win. DO SOMETHING.
For example, join the local GOP and work to have your principles implemented locally. Join the McCain, or Rossi, campaign and try to have an impact on issues from the inside.
I don't even mind that people are supporting Paul at this late stage. Bully for them. The more the merrier, as far as I am concerned. But when it is "Ron Paul or nothing," then you've lost me, because then you are saying "my way or the highway," and that shows extreme childishness and naivite. It shows a complete lack of understanding of politics, of history, and of the Constitution.
No one gets their way in this country. No one has a majority for their views. Everyone has to work with people they disagree with. Everyone has to compromise. That is how America was DESIGNED to work, and you treat it like it's some abhorrent twisting of the Constitution, when in fact it's the other way around.
It is amazing to me that Ron Paul supporters talk more about the Constitution than anyone else, and yet they know so little about it.
Posted by: pudge on June 2, 2008 12:26 AMBut this was an isolated incident. And I'm sure there were other isolated incidents. But it is disingenuous to characterize all Paul supporters by his behavior.
I'd also like to address the ballot issue for the allocated slots. I do believe there was something terribly wrong with the idea of having the presidential candidate's campaign select who could be on the ballot (a decision by a tiny minority, the executive board) and the idea that there would be only ONE candidate to choose from. Yes, according to the rules (not adopted by the delegation, but by the state committee, another tiny minority of Republicans), the winner of the primary is given allocated delegates. That shouldn't mean the candidate chooses who gets to be on it. There were other McCain supporters that wanted to go, but were on the unallocated ballot. Why couldn't they be competition for the allocated candidate. So state delegates had only ONE choice. And if you didn't want to vote for that person, if you left your ballot blank or wrote in another candidate, it would be considered "invalid". Usually it takes a majority to get a candidate elected. But only ballots that selected the "right" candidate were counted. Thus, it was impossible to NOT get a majority. Does anyone else see something wrong with this? Why even vote?
Also, no candidates for national delegates (allocated or not) were allowed to give speeches. We were voting by congressional district (which usually span several counties), so what are the chances you would know everyone there? Very slim. The rules did not allow the voting delegates a choice in the allocated position in their CD, and didn't allow an informed choice in the unallocated positions. True, the rules were adopted by the body, but many didn't read them, including some McCain supporting candidates, and were quite surprised they wouldn't be permitted to speak. Also, the promoted alternates were not permitted to be seated until after the voting on the adoption of rules. And credentials committee members who were also delegates, were fit to be tied that there was debate and voting going on without them.
And as for the motion by the Paul supporter to vote in the "Unity" slate for the at large delegates by acclamation: Yes, that was a move to speed things along, since it was already rigged. It was likely that there would be only one candidate for each allocated slot, so why waste our time distributing ballots, and waiting on the counting to find out (shock), the one candidate on the ballot for each slot was elected? The only real business left was to debate and adopt the platform, as Eric says. We had already united behind Rossi.
What was really disruptive behavior was all of the parliamentary maneuvering to try to shut off debate on the platform, point of order, after point of order, by the McCain leadership. And motioning to set aside a section for debate "just to speed things along", while knowing that only one delegate is allowed to move to set it aside, and there might be someone with a more compelling reason to set it aside, is obstruction of the debate. You gotta wonder: why are they so afraid of debate? That others might actually be persuaded on a point or two? Paul supporters were accused of wanting to drag on the debate. Not true.
McCain leaders were dragging it out without discussing the issues. They did an organized walkout, led by many county leaders, refusing to hand over their badges to alternates waiting. Is this what they meant by "Republicans on the March"? And then when it was determined we still had a VERY strong quorum, they marched back in, and all lined up to the microphone to obstruct the debate on the issues. Calling for roll call votes twice, then questioning the legitimacy of the remaining delegates, by calling for a checking of the badges (even while there was such tight security to get in to the only door for delegate seating area). This was shameful behavior by the McCain leaders, and I believe many eyes were opened as to how desperate our leadership is to squash debate!
There were many highlights of the convention though: passing the resolution against unconstitutional wars while the party poopers left the room, the spontaneous singing of "God Bless America" and the "Star Spangled Banner" in unison by the 700+ remaining delegates, and then the "the wave" across the floor while the counts by county were being totaled. So much for the stereotype Ron Paul supporters. It was inspiring and was great American fun! The McCain leaders succeeded finally in shutting us down after fillibustering, but the mood was still very high for Ron Paul supporters as we exited to a culminating rally in front of the convention center--somewhere between 500-600 of us, and then a march around the center and a rally across the street. "RON PAUL REVOLUTION! LEGALIZE THE CONSTITUTION!"
Many have said it was the most exciting thing they've ever been a part of! I'm one of them. I look forward to building our party up and welcoming in this new movement. Anyone who wants to shut them out of our party doesn't belong.
Posted by: Michelle on June 2, 2008 01:42 AMAMEN & HALLELUJAH!
Posted by: C.B.Ross on June 2, 2008 02:45 AMMy friend was asked by a very young McCain supporter, "Why are all you Ron Paul people so g*d*mn UGLY?!" She said nothing and shrugged it off with ease. So, if someone else being called an *expletive pig* by a, apparently previously offended, fellow Republican reaaaly offends you perhaps politics is not for you. It can get ugly - it's the nature of the thing. But more importantly there is this little thing called Liberty that we Republicans hold dear and you can not SAY you believe in, for example, a person's right to express themselves freely and then fault them for doing that.
Hypocrites who tow the party line without conscience always end up on the losing end of truth and justice. You have a history book, you know that already. But, hey, if you want to go down with the ship, go ahead, I won't stop you - that's Liberty afterall. :)
Posted by: Liberty_Belle on June 2, 2008 04:06 AMMy friend was asked by a very young McCain supporter, "Why are all you Ron Paul people so g*d*mn UGLY?!" She said nothing and shrugged it off with ease. So, if someone else being called an *expletive pig* by a, apparently previously offended, fellow Republican reaaaly offends you perhaps politics is not for you. It can get ugly - it's the nature of the thing. But more importantly there is this little thing called Liberty that we Republicans hold dear and you can not SAY you believe in, for example, a person's right to express themselves freely and then fault them for doing that.
Hypocrites who tow the party line without conscience always end up on the losing end of truth and justice. You have a history book, you know that already. But, hey, if you want to go down with the ship, go ahead, I won't stop you - that's Liberty afterall. :)
Posted by: Liberty_Belle on June 2, 2008 04:08 AMI defy anyone to show me where in the Constitution it says we cannot use the military without a declaration of war. This is a fantasy that does not exist. All the Constitution says is that Congress passes declarations of war; it does NOT require declarations of war in any circumstances whatsoever.
This is how President John Adams was able to wage the Undeclared War with France. And if he had been forced to declare war, then the United States may not even exist today. Not only does the Constitution not require declarations of war, but it would be foolish for it to do so.
Posted by: pudge on June 2, 2008 07:54 AMOr did he shun it?
He is up for election as Secretary of State this year don't forget.
Posted by: Betty on June 2, 2008 08:30 AMAnd, please read every comment. You also stated that the Paul delegates were very civil. Maybe because you were one of them?? As I stated previously, I did not go as a McCain delegate, yet when I did not vote as the Paul people liked, the verbal abuse was put forth.
Posted by: Susu on June 2, 2008 08:40 AMI'll let someone else debate you on that issue of whether or not Congress must declare war.
What I want to know from you is: Do you support the behavior of the mass walk out and obstruction of the process of the McCain and GOP leaders? This is important to know. Also, what about the limitation of only one candidate per allocated slot?
Posted by: Michelle on June 2, 2008 09:55 AMI am against using procedures to quash debate. I am also against using procedures to lengthen debate so that a minority can gain majority status through attrition. That doesn't mean I'd never engage in either one, but by default, I am against those things. If someone is just going on and on about something stupid (like maybe a broken traffic light near his house), I am in favor of cutting him off, of course. And most relevant here, if someone is using one tactic to lengthen or shorten debate for their own political purposes, I have no problem with others using similar tactics to fight that, as long as the rules are being followed.
Again, what is good for the goose, is good for the gander. Seems fair to me.
If you're telling me there were no such delaying tactics from the Ron Paul side, well, I am hearing from others that there were. If you're saying rules were violated in this walkout, I see no example presented of it.
Again, I can only speak to principles, not to the facts on the ground: I have no problem fighting fire with fire, as long as the rules were followed, and that I'd prefer it if no one used any delaying or obstruction tactics and that we actually got to debate the platform and resolutions.
And I'll say it clearly: if there WERE no significant delaying tactics, as I described, to gain a majority through attrition, then I would likely NOT be in favor of walking out. At that point, I'd consider it the loss of those who decided to leave early. Yes, it might mean my side loses some battles, but that is how democracy goes: you have to show up.
I would have listened to my fellow McCain supporters (yes, I am one now!) for arguments for leaving, and remained open-minded to hear all sides, and again, I wasn't there, so I won't pass judgment on those that were. This is just the best I can say from afar. Note that Geri Modrell didn't walk out (I was told).
As to the one candidate per allocated slot, I am still hazy on the details. Let me take a stab. We had our primary, and that determined 51 percent of our delegates to the national convention, based on percentages of allocation determined before the primary. You're saying that the WSRP decided to allow the campaigns that won delegates to say who those delegates would be, and no others would be allowed? I see no problem with this. The right of the convention to choose those delegates was already taken away by the WSRP and handed over to the primary voters. It seems to me that allowing the campaigns to pick the delegates is a reasonable way to ensure to the primary voters that their choice would be honored.
As to why there was voting for them, it seems to me the choice still had to be approved by the larger body. If the convention decided to go another way, it had that opportunity.
I think your real problem here is that the primary voters got the 51 percent in the first place, and on that I have no quarrel.
Posted by: pudge on June 2, 2008 10:55 AMYou're a really bad attorney and if you are ever nominated for an office that requires fidelity to the Constitution, I can't vote for you because, despite general agreement with you on principles of governance, you are unqualified to parse even the modicum of legal language it takes to read that document.
If you are appointed to the Supreme Court, I will not vote to confirm you... if I happen to be in the Senate.
However, I will strongly recommend that you play and sing for my inauguration... if I am ever elected President.
Posted by: Doug Parris on June 2, 2008 11:35 AMYou have been rejected by the GOP.
We at the Libertarian Party are spreading out the welcome mat for you.
Please join us and continue the rEVOLution!
Bob Barr's campaign has hired a lot of Ron Paul staffers.
Ron Paul will never endorse McCain.
It is too early to say Ron Paul will endorse Bob Barr, but I think this is the next best thing for those who value the Constitution.
www.lp.org
Welcome! We won't insult you the way the GOP has. Ron Paul's views are both conservative and libertarian. You have a natural home in the LP.
It really feels good to be a member of a political party that really wants you as a member. It feels good to be in the majority, even if your party is in the minority. (By the way, for this election cycle that describes the GOP as well!)
Check it out!
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on June 2, 2008 12:16 PMActually, McCain supporters were given false information about what our intent was. I know this for a fact, because I caught John McKay speaking into his radio telling the minions, that our purpose was to "drag out the debate". That was a deliberate LIE and I called him on it. Our purpose was to debate the platform. As you said before, there is nothing wrong with making points of order or points of information to clarify the process and ensure rules are followed. The use of these are not in themselves stall tactics. But the abuse of them are. Why would we want to use stall tactics when our purpose was just to debate the platforms?
As a RP county leader, I can tell you that we planned to stay away from the war issue as much as we could (though we can't control what any individual would do), and focus on the areas we have widespread agreement with the party (as opposed to widespread agreement with the general populace on the war), to make our platform stronger on the issues of widespread agreement. We succeeded in some cases, but failed when we were obstructed by the tricks I mentioned.
But when the walk out took place, and it was determined we still had a quorum one delegate saw his opportunity and moved to pass the resolution about the war.
You said:
And I'll say it clearly: if there WERE no significant delaying tactics, as I described, to gain a majority through attrition, then I would likely NOT be in favor of walking out. At that point, I'd consider it the loss of those who decided to leave early. Yes, it might mean my side loses some battles, but that is how democracy goes: you have to show up.
That's exactly what happened. Many fre-thinking delegates who were not Paul supporters stayed to take part in the debate. Many of them were disqusted at the leadership's behavior. And note: Geri Modrell DID leave. I know this because she was nowhere to be found and not available to take the quorum count for our county. Neither was delegation's vice chair, Greg Putnam, so the delegates asked me to take the count. But Geri came back, presumably, to save face. And accordng to one McCain supporter in Snohomish Co., he was instructed by "senior county party members" to walk out. There will be video available for all of this soon. It will be interesting for all to watch.
And yes, I have a real problem with the 51 percent going to the primary winner, because it was clear that the primary was open to massive interference by Democrats, which directly influenced the results. But that is an entirely different matter. I was arguing with the idea that no choices on the ballot for allocated spots. Since I was forced to vote for a McCain suppoter, to prevent my ballot from being invalidated, there were McCain supporters on the unallocated ballot that I might have supported. I would have probably voted for Frank Dittoe for that allocated spot, knowing that he would have casted his ballot for McCain, and voted for 2 Paul supporters in the unallocated spots.
Not having read the whole thread, I'd like to add about the ballot counting that in the 1st CD we waited over an hour for the machines to count 148 ballots. Our Chairman was disgusted with the process and was ready to count ballots by hand, but was told we had no choice. We had enough tellers with enough experience that the job could have been done in 15 minutes.
As for name-calling by Paul supporters, let me add that a quiet and dignified and first-time alternate Paul person in our district told me that she had never in her life heard such rudeness as came out of the mouths of the McCain supporters behind her.
Posted by: Sue on June 2, 2008 01:17 PMThe McCain people were thankfully prepared for the Paulistas brown shirt tactics and were able to fend them off. Keep in mind that these are supporters of Ron Paul!!! Not Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee who people actually voted for but Ron Paul!!! How in the h*ll did we end up with his national chairman speaking at the convention? I am so glad that the McCain people and the State Party decided that enough is enough.
Posted by: Nebisan on June 2, 2008 03:22 PMRon Paul had a majority of delegates from Clark Co. The credentials challenge was of the members that the Clark Co. chair appointed to committees, when they were supposed to be elected. The delegates had the right to choose their committee members, according the Clark Co. Republican Party rules. The young man you're referring to was very articulate and knowledgeable of the issues. So what if he's young?
Posted by: Michelle on June 2, 2008 03:43 PMhe had an extremly limited understanding of robert's rules of order and was only acting on behalf of the parrisite and his henchmen.
ron paul lost, the revolution is dead, find a new party to torment.
Posted by: rplost on June 2, 2008 03:51 PMBy the way about the committees election, nobody called me and asked who I wanted elected to head the delegation. I was a state delegate. Were only Paul supporters allowed to vote? Was it because I didn't know directions to the Bat Cave or know the secret handshake?
Posted by: Nebisan on June 2, 2008 04:10 PMPutting aside what the constitution and the founders did or did not intend, do you think it is a good idea to give the power to both start wars and execute them in the same branch of government?
I always thought it was a good idea to divide such powers and am glad to see the WA state GOP agrees with me.
Posted by: Lysander on June 2, 2008 04:45 PMI am not an attorney. I never claimed I was.
However, I will note the fact that your entire post was nothing but an ad hominem logical fallacy. If you have actual points to raise against things I said, feel free. Otherwise maybe you shouldn't dig yourself a hole.
This is expected though. No one has ever been able to show me anywhere in the Constitution where a declaration of war is required to use military force. Ever. Instead, they either bring up things in the Constitution that do not back up the case at all, or they, as you did, resort merely to personal attacks.
Glad you like my music though. Did you see/hear Christine, Christine, Christine?
Posted by: pudge on June 2, 2008 04:45 PMAgain, I wasn't there. I can't hope to parse out the facts of who intended what, or what tactics took place; though I do value your perspective and I thank you for sharing it, I just won't comment on it beyond what I've already said.
As to Geri, being out temporarily is not the same as walking out. People do take bathroom breaks, answer phone calls, and so on. Let's not assume/presume what her "intent" was, just as the McCain supporters shouldn't have done so to you. Deal? :-)
As to the ballot for allocated delegates, if you didn't like the choices, then just don't vote for the allocated delegate positions. Was that not possible? Again, I see no problem with the party giving the campaign the opportunity to name the delegates, since this was something already taken out of the hands of the convention delegates and given to the primary voters. The way you said it, it sounds like you had to vote for every allocated position to vote for any unallocated positions, but that sounds incorrect to me.
I can understand how someone would disagree with that, but from where I sit, the party has a responsibility to the primary voters (because they created that responsibilty for themselves) to make sure that the allocated delegates are McCain supporters, and that is one acceptable way to do it, to me.
Posted by: pudge on June 2, 2008 04:47 PMIn what case do you think the executive branch started any war by itself? If you think "Iraq," then you must be unaware of the fact that Congress both gave prior approval, and continued funding, for it.
Or are you just speaking generally? My point about unconstituionality and the President was not that the President has the authority to "start wars," unless you define every aggressive military act abroad as "starting war."
The President clearly has authority to use the military abroad in the absence of congressional approval/denial, in extraordinary circumstances where time won't permit waiting. Iraq is not such a case, since obviously there was plenty of time (and, that approval was provided by Congress).
But what if in late summer 2002, before Congress acted,