The Ron Paul Machine vs. the Republican Establishment: 6 Steps Toward Unity
This year’s election is for all the marbles. President Barack Obama, his administrative cronies, and his allied radicals on the Hill are hell-bent on continuing their “fundamental transformation” of America from a republic of law into a neo-feudal plantation. Most activists right of center understand the gravity of the situation and recognize a proverbial time for choosing.
However, there is another battle erupting within the Republican Party which is just as consequential. A civil war is taking place between established activists and new entrants rallied around Ron Paul. This battle for the soul of the party has the potential to leave both sides — and thus the party itself — in tattered ruins, accomplishing more than any leftist subversive could ever hope to.
A March caucus in Missouri turned into a scene of civil unrest as the temporary chair acted to thwart the Ron Paul organization. Chris Good reported:
“It’s like the Hatfields and the McCoys around here,” St. Charles County’s former GOP chairman told ABC News, after police arrived on-scene with a helicopter and removed Paul backers.
In Alaska, the state party has been under withering assault by the Ron Paul campaign, which has accused the former of administrative shenanigans intent upon disenfranchising those delegates supportive of Paul. The Alaska Dispatch reported in April:
[Evan Cutler, a Paul 2012 organizer for Alaska] echoed what the Paul for President campaign’s lawyer spelled out in an April 17 letter excoriating [longtime Alaska Republican Party chairman, Randy] Ruedrich for what amounts to party mismanagement that threatens to violate “rights of Alaskans to participate in the political process.” The letter, from David A. Warrington of the Virginia law firm LeClairRyan, takes Ruedrich to task for frustrating Paul supporters “at every turn” for not accepting checks, not promptly returning money orders, confusing credit card processing, and other alleged misdeeds.
The complaints swing both ways. ABC’s Jason M. Volack relayed:
… there are signs that Paul supporters are willing to make the nominating process messy.
They’re accused of muddying county conventions in Colorado and Iowa [in March].
In Iowa, a half dozen counties reported disruptions during conventions. The most egregious example occurred in Polk County, where Paul supporters illegally tried to become delegates.
“They were abrasive, offensive, and self-centered,” said Kevin McLaughlin, GOP chairman in Polk County.
In Colorado, Ron Paul supporters shouted down Denver County GOP Chairman Danny Stroud, demanding rule changes in favor of their candidate.
“A small, loud group attempted to hijack the assembly and trample on the rights of those who took time out of their busy lives to participate in the political process,” Stroud said in a statement to the Denver Post.
Really?
In Minnesota, Twin Cities conservative talk radio host Mitch Berg took to the air after being bumped from his local convention’s delegation by Ron Paul supporters.
I note with extreme irony that I, who ran two years ago for the CD4 executive offices as an insurgent, as a reformer, as someone who was there to change things up and bring things down to the grassroots, was being referred to as “the establishment” today in the convention.
Berg’s co-host, Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey, ran unsuccessfully for national delegate at Minnesota’s 2nd congressional district convention. The Ron Paul organization swept the state’s congressional conventions, picking up nearly all the national delegate and alternate spots in a rout which prompted one activist to tweet, “Ron Paul Libertarians took the Republicans out of the Minnesota Republican Party today.”
With rhetoric thus heated on both sides of the Ron Paul divide, many GOP activists are concerned about what kind of disruptions may be in store for the national convention in Tampa, and what kind of chaos might ensue when Mitt Romney officially secures the nomination.
Is unity possible? Only if both sides take full measure of the long-term stakes. Here are six steps toward reconciliation.
6 ) Reject the Cult of Personality
Ron Paul is going to die. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but sooner than later, the 76-year-old civil libertarian will be no more.
Does liberty die with him? Is Ron Paul the only candidate on the face of the earth qualified to advance libertarian principles? Is there a plan for a world without Paul?
These are questions which Ron Paul supporters need to ask themselves if they hope to affect policy in the long-term. Even in the campaign’s best case scenario, where Paul is the GOP nominee and defeats Barack Obama for the presidency, there’s still the Congress to contend with. Contrary to the behavior of the current administration, the president is not a king. Law still originates in the legislative branch. So what does a President Paul do with a lawmaking body that rejects his ideas?
If the “Ron Paul revolution” is indeed that, and not a movement of ideas with a serious strategy to affect real policy in the long-term, then it is little more than a cult of personality with limited political relevance. Worse than a waste, such an effort turns destructive as GOP activists committed to defeating Barack Obama are trampled in its revolutionary mosh pit.
5 ) Place Personal Integrity Above Political Victory
Integral to his liberty is a man’s word. Respecting the rights of others requires that you do what you say, that you honor agreements and uphold pledges. Participating in party politics involves the pledge to support the party’s platform and endorsed candidates. It is therefore incumbent upon true libertarians to do what they said they would do.
Too many Ron Paul supporters fail to recognize that their freedom to associate is a two-way street. A political party does not exist as a means to affect independent ends.
As an independent voter, you are at liberty to exercise your vote and apply your campaign support to whomever you like. However, when you make the decision to voluntarily associate with a political party, to become an officer or delegate, you pledge to support that party’s endorsed candidates. This does not make you a “party hack.” It makes you a guiding force poised to affect long-term change. You can still disagree with the party. However, the choice to participate in its processes is the choice to support its outcomes, whether you wholly agree with them or not. If you don’t like that, the honest choice is to not participate in the party.
Even so, withdrawing participation does not make strategic sense. In politics, support is currency. When you withdraw your support, you lose your currency and thus any leverage you had to affect change within the party. How does that advance your principles?
4 ) Commit to Long-Term Impact
There is a difference between a campaign and a movement. The objective of a campaign is to affect a specific political outcome, elect a candidate, pass an initiative, etc. The objective of a movement is to change political orientation. The latter is a far loftier goal than a single campaign can accomplish.
The progressive movement has been a multi-generational effort which began more than a century ago. While particular campaigns may have made great strides toward affecting progressive goals, no single campaign was a make or break moment.
The same will be true of the movement to combat progressivism. With that in mind, it is vital that its strategy contain long-term contingencies. Campaigns have an expiration date. Movements do not. Looking beyond the current campaign is essential, and requires fostering relationships and building coalitions around shared principles.
Political parties provide a ready-made infrastructure for fostering relationships and building coalitions. They are built to channel disparate ideas and efforts into a single platform and particular campaigns. While it is certainly true that principles are often diluted in this process, it remains the most effective means for actually changing policy. The goal of the liberty movement should therefore be to win a controlling stake within political parties and thus affect platforms, candidacies, and ultimately policy.
Candidates vying for the Republican endorsement for U.S. Senate in Minnesota. Dan Severson, Kurt Bills, and Pete Hegseth.
3 ) Because You Can Is Not a Reason
Is it asking too much to apply some level of discernment before wielding newly acquired power? This author serves as a volunteer on the campaign of Dan Severson for the Republican Party endorsement to challenge Minnesota’s U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar. The story of that race is a case study in how the Ron Paul machine has overplayed its hand to the detriment of both itself and the party.
March saw the race for the endorsement completely upended. Severson was one of three candidates who had announced several months prior. The other two dropped out at the same time. Within a week of their departure, the race saw a new entrant in the person of National Guard Captain Pete Hegseth.
Hegseth’s announcement was the culmination of a lengthy draft campaign which laid groundwork for his entrance into the race while he completed a tour of duty in Afghanistan. The juxtaposition of Hegseth and Severson presented Republican delegates with a choice between a candidate whose background suggests political class grooming and a candidate who has long engaged both grassroots Republicans and the Tea Party.
Ron Paul supporters should find much to love in Severson’s stated positions. He is vehemently against Obamacare, SOPA/PIPA, and the controversial provisions of the NDAA. He has called for the elimination of entire federal departments, including education, energy, and the EPA. Severson wants to audit the Federal Reserve and move toward sound money. His stump speeches are punctuated with references to the Constitution, which he compares to the pre-flight checklist which kept him safe during his 22 year career in the Navy as a Top Gun fighter pilot.
Alas, rather than rally behind a candidate so oriented, the Ron Paul machine in Minnesota decided to pluck a first-term state legislator out of relative obscurity and piggy back his U.S. Senate campaign upon that of Ron Paul for president. Kurt Bills, said candidate, may be more faithfully attuned to the particular tastes of Ron Paul (he earned the congressman’s endorsement). But does that translate to being well-positioned to defeat a popular incumbent in the general election?
It seems that those running the Paul/Bills operation don’t particularly care. Ideological purity is valued above the practical consideration of finding a liberty-friendly candidate with appeal beyond the Paul echo chamber. Because Bills supporters are not content to get only most of what they want in a candidate, it seems increasingly likely that they will end up with nothing they want once votes are counted in November.
2 ) Embrace the Next Generation of Activists
Perceiving an onslaught of newcomers intent upon eviscerating the party in a vain attempt to advance a single campaign, many long-time Republican activists are up in arms. Legitimate concerns have in many cases festered into a blanket rejection of any Ron Paul supporter, sometimes excluding Tea Partiers or new activists of any stripe.
The GOP cannot afford to turn people away. Just as Ron Paul supporters must confront the fact of the congressman’s mortality, established Republicans need to confront the fact of their own mortality. None of us are getting any younger, and someone needs to carry on the good fight against the statists on the Left. Politics is a numbers game, and the GOP is in danger of losing by attrition.
Rather than brainstorming ways to keep new activists out of the party, leaders within the GOP ought to pick up where woefully inadequate public schools have utterly failed, and teach basic civics. As an activist in both the Tea Party and the GOP who is relatively new to both, I can attest to the difficulty of finding a path toward meaningful participation in the political process. The number one question asked at Tea Parties remains: What can we do? The answer can and should be provided by the GOP, to the benefit of each.
When they move together, better get out of their way.
1 ) Build Coalitions Around Issues of Agreement
This advice swings both ways. There are an unfortunate number of Ron Paul supporters who vet other candidates with a Ron Paul litmus test that must be passed 100%. Don’t want to end the war in Afghanistan this afternoon? Warmonger! Don’t want to end foreign aid to Israel? Zionist! Don’t want to immediately decriminalize drugs? Tyrant!
More traditional Republicans get hung up in the same way. End the Fed? Quack! Bring the troops home? Isolationist! Reevaluate the drug war? Pothead!
In either case, folks tend to miss the forest for the trees. While disagreement on these and other issues is legitimate, and the consequences of policy in these areas should not be trivialized, we cannot afford to lose sight of the larger consequences if we allow division on these issues to split our forces in combat against the grand schemes of the Left.
Reagan’s oft quoted sentiment is nonetheless apropos:
If you agree with me 80 percent of the time, you’re an 80 percent friend and not a 20 percent enemy.
Whether you support Ron Paul or not, if you are a Republican, chances are you agree that the economy must be liberated from excessive taxation and regulation, that individual liberty and local control are under assault, and that spending must be dramatically and truly reduced. Why not unite on that?
Disagreements on more obscure policy aren’t likely to be settled in one election anyway. Legislators and executives are not kings. If something like the decriminalization of drugs is ever going to occur, it won’t be because one guy got elected. It will be the end result of a cultural sea change. In the meantime, one guy could be the vote that repeals Obamacare. You have to pick your battles.
The progressive movement has a 100+ year head start on our effort to combat it. In that time, the Left has already gone through the growing pains currently manifest within the Republican Party. They had their impractical radicals intent upon dramatic and abrupt revolution. They learned, as Van Jones put it, to “forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends.”
In a similar way, today’s American patriot must learn to forgo the cheap satisfaction of a cathartic protest for the deep satisfaction of a significant political accomplishment. Only, we do not have a century to work with. Our learning curve must be dramatically reduced. We need to unite now!
Such unity is possible if we look to history and allow the experience of others to serve as a short cut. New activists must be integrated with haste. That will require humility and vision from all concerned, a willingness among the new to learn from the established, and a willingness from the established to mentor the new.
I am a conservative who has always voted Republican. I am not a Paulite, and reject Paul. That said, the Republican Rulers who operate the Party machinery, clearly have been tilting the process to result in a Romney win for over a year. This manifested itself in events like the Iowa mistaken winner anoouncement, which was not given to Santorum, and the Maine mis-call, and a whole series of other actions that worked to help Romney. The obvious favoritism has disenchanted serious conservatives about the Republican establishment, which is simply not conservative. There may be some “co-existence” but there will not be peace, because the Establishment has different goals than conservatives. We saw this just recently in Indiana and Nebraska, where the Establishment is still fighting to keep conservatives off the ticket. In this respect, I tip my hat to the Paul supporters. Use whatever means to extract conservative policy out of the Republican machine which is by its nature a force defending the status quo of big government.
Seems to me a big chunk of the electorate will end up saying much the same, though in many different ways.
Paul gets the respect he often deserves — which is to say plenty, even from those of us who would not vote for him. He’s seen as a worthy part of the solution, along with a rich list of other Republicans entitled to feel shafted by RNC illuminati and media bag-carriers. The denial is as deep as you’d expect. Put politely, the Stupid Party is still alive and well and wedded to the quaint idea that Romney attracts loyalty and adulation because, well, because Important People Say So. The other point of view: end times for the GOP are dead ahead.
Meanwhile, the Romney paperweight is rolling your way. We’ll survive Romney (barely) and so will our country. The GOP is another matter. Eviscerations and recriminations start early next year. Götterdämmerung 2016?
Indeed, what do the Scriptures say? “How can two walk together unless they be in agreement?” and “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” If the GOP remains a house divided, it will soon be a house torn asunder.
If Romney chooses Rand Paul as his VP nominee, he will win the election. Bet on it!
“Ron Paul” could well be chosen for vice president. Mr. Romney will have as much say in the matter as Mr. Obama had in accepting “Joe Biden”, meaning little or none.
I wrote RAND Paul and I meant it. Rand Paul would make a fine choice for VP, better than any other alternative. And he would bring the disaffected Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and other Independents usually ignored by the RINO GOPe back to the Republican Party.
From what little I have seen of Rand Paul, and the fact that he is a son of a very good man, I would tend to agree with your assessment. But, this is Presidential politics and the stakes are very high for what remains of freedom minded Americans. Romney should do a thorough job of vetting Rand Paul, and if he can pass the smell test, he would bring a lot to the table. But, we can’t afford another loss to the Communist Party of America, so if Rand has any serious baggage, Mitt can’t choose him. I hope Mitt is including him on the short list, but I hope Mitt doesn’t mess up his opportunity to strengthen his ticket. I also hope that Mitt does not have to reveal anything damning about Rand Paul in order to get Ron Paul zealots to come along for the big campaign against the real enemy. As to the process, it is flawed but the behavior of the Ron Paul supporters at Colorado’s Republican State Convention did not help the Party at all. They may see Mitt Romney as Obama Lite, but I don’t. I see him as the only chance to get some of our liberties back. ABO2012
You are mistaken. Romney has voiced 100% commitment to military spenind increases and war with Iran as well as continuation of nearly every Obama program, including a revised version of a federal healthcare mandate. Independent sources caslculate a 1/2 Trillion debt increase under Romney policies.
We are teetering on the brink of default and fiscal collapse at the current debt and deficit levels. That collapse will be manifested by hyperinflation and ultimately anarchy. How much freedom do you think we will have in the military crackdown that results?
Dr. Paul’s supporters understand that the biggest threat to our nation is not some malicious enemy army but rather our own economic bungling and corrupt thievery.
Ernie, please don’t inform me that I am mistaken when you base your opinion on forecasting done by other people who are merely expressing their own opinions. I do not any more take your opinions as facts than I do the opinions of the “experts”, whose opinions you recklessly describe as facts. You are entitled to your opinions and I am entitled to mine. You cannot refute opinions with opinions, no matter how much you believe in them. Now then, it is still my opinion that Romney is our only chance to defeat the Communist in our White House. I believe that is a more urgent problem than whether Romney is conservative enough for me. The truth is,(pay attention here) I am more conservative than you or any other supporter of Ron Paul. But I am also acutely aware that no person, who is as conservative as myself or Ron Paul, could ever win against comrade Obama and his media minions. I am also convinced that electing a yellow dog would be a better result than the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama. Finally, I believe that if you had any clue what the difference between a Libertarian and a Communist is, you would share my opinion. That is why I would suggest you begin your intellectual odyssey by reading “Witness” by Whittaker Chambers.
My mistake. Sorry.
As it happens, the same applies to “Rand” as well. To put it another way, I completely agree with you, but for different reasons.
I think Rand Paul would be a very interesting choice. He hasn’t been touted as one of the favorites so he’s under the radar. I believe it would give the MSM and the Obama camp a class 5 wedgie. I would enjoy seeing him debate the Gaffe Master.
The chances that a ROn Paul voter will listen to reason is rather slim. Fanatics rarely do. The games they are playing with the uncommitted delegates says it all. At the very best, its bad faith, even if its not technically cheating.
These Ron Paul followers are the only young people who have shown any understanding of what makes the American way of life unique. That said, most of them don’t have fully developed frontal lobes and their youthful zeal is, consequently, very understandable. They have the rest of their lives to learn from the missteps of their initial forays into the political world, and we should remember that they are our only hope for the long term future of our supposedly inalienable rights. I want the Republican Party to embrace them for their considerable aptitude.
The fanatics are the big-government neocon zombie voters who would rather vote for similar-to-Obama Romney than vote for a constitutionalist like Ron Paul.
Look at the hijacked Tea Party. Ron Paul wants to eliminate the entire IRS and income tax, balance the budget in three years without raising taxes, and the Taxed Enough Already party says, “No thanks!”
And if Ron Paul had any clue what the affect on our society would be when such draconian changes are made he would roll back his time frame for those changes to something more realistic. What he would cause is economic chaos, on the short term, not a free market panacea.
Balancing the budget in three years is “draconian?” Must be why the “fiscal conservatives” don’t intend to balance it for 30 years. Wouldn’t want to be “draconian.”
Let’s balance it in 10 years then. All we’d have to do is freeze spending at its current bloated insane level. Any takers? How about you John Boehner? How about you, Paul Ryan? No? Didn’t think so. How about balance it in 20 years then? No? Didn’t think so.
And was it their fault that they didn’t propose something that could never be passed by the Democrat Senate or signed by the President? Try to figure out who the real obstacles to tax and spend reform before you lump people, whom you don’t know much about, into the same bag. As to my comment, consider this. People always eventually get paid exactly what they are worth to a company, no matter what the tax rates become. The only real issues are how fast the economy is able to adapt to the changes. The same goes for spending. If you make draconian spending increases, like Obama has, you end up with an economy that can’t adjust to the changes and get rolling again. Don’t you think the economy would suffer a real setback if spending by the government was radically reduced? Yes, eventually there would be very positive results, but for a good many years we would spend trying to feed the millions of people who would lose their jobs as a result. The desired results would come no quicker than if the same spending cuts were enacted over a longer period of time. I am not sure this amount to an economic truth. But, it is the political truth that draconian cuts in spending, done immediately, will result in draconian changes in the political landscape. For instance, we would likely end up with a Fascist or Communist style government and have no hope, even within your lifetime, of seeing a better economy emerge. It took us over a century to create this welfare state and it will take us many years to re-create a free market economy for free people.
Bad faith? Fanatic? What part of planet kool-aid are you from anyway, rip?
Ron Paul supporters aren’t generally fanatics. They are just generally young, and they shouldn’t be blamed for that, I says.
You’ve got a “Stop Scott Walker” Barrett for Wisconsin ad on your website. I don’t know how much control over google ads you have, but you should definitely complain about that.
I figured it was PR’s attempt at sick, hyperironical humor.
Don’t complain, click. The more PJM readers who click on the ad the less money the Barrett campaign will have to convince voters that are actually up for grabs.
Their money is just as green as that paid for pro-Walker ads.
Most activists right of center understand the gravity of the situation and recognize a proverbial time for choosing.
It’s been clear since the beginning that Prez Barack is all about closing on the deal, like a mortgage closing but with lots more lawyers, paperwork and money involved. He’s more of a closer than he is a leader. When he descended onto the scene from the Faculty Lounge, the socialists were already in control on the Hill and in the permanent gubmint. Harry, Nancy, Chuck, Barbara, Hillary, and let us not forget their lighter weight RINO siblings like Arlen, Olympia and, above all, George. Both Georges.
The U.S. Constitution hasn’t really mattered for a long time. So, the two wings of a single socialist ruling elite was able to evolve into the robust thing it is now, primarily because of the news entertainment industry’s ability to program mass opinion. The real power brokers are humble folk like Bob, Ba Ba, Oprah, Pinch, Bill, Katie, Matt, Greta, George (both the one on ABC and the Hollywood dreamboat), Ellen, and thousands more knowing and eager souls with a talent for communication. That’s bandwidth they control, and they ain’t shy about using it.
This article successfully illustrates the problem that I have with the GOP even though I don’t support Ron Paul. Under Section 5 we have “Integral to his liberty is a man’s word. Respecting the rights of others requires that you do what you say, that you honor agreements and uphold pledges.”
I fully agree with that statement but it’s in stark contrast to the continuing behavior of the GOP. I’m sure you recall the words of John Boehner prior to the 2010 elections about all the stuff the GOP would do… they’ve done none of it. None of it. They’ve done nothing to make matters better, they’ve only embraced the politically expedient to further increase our debt and weaken the economy. It’s a clever trick requiring me to honor commitments you claim I made yet blithely ignoring firm commitments you actually did make.
Love Ron Paul or hate him but Ron Paul at least has principles that he’s willing to both articulate and stand by. The GOP… not so much. Yet I constantly hear/read that I must support the GOP because (insert floundering self-contradictory statement).
I see Ron Paul as being vital to the GOP because of the hope that he’ll ultimately force the GOP to firmly and irrevocably embrace smaller government and fiscal responsibility. The Establishment wants to talk platitudes and sound bites because those don’t really mean anything and they’re not binding. It’s perfectly natural that the Establishment would want to silence Ron Paul because if he’s successful then the GOP will have honor any commitments or be destroyed by the voters in the next election. How can this be “the most important election of our time” when the Establishment consistently refuses to tell us exactly what they intend to do with the newly bestowed power? Somehow that doesn’t speak “honesty and integrity” to me. Instead, it reeks of the same political opportunism that got us to where we are.
This article successfully illustrates the problem that I have with the GOP…
Yes, and the key question is how we got ourselves in such dire straits. The answer is the nation lacks an opposition party. Instead, we get the RINOs, who’ve let the frame shift progressively more leftward every election cycle, without complaint. For example, a few years ago when RINO “leaders” Boehner and McConnell quietly allowed the budget baseline for spending negotiations to be based on the 2008 fed budget instead of 2007. These two inept (but esteemed) gentlement, impelled by their RINO caucus members, also let the debt ceiling “debate” be hijacked to the advantage of socialists. I could go on, but whose got the time to recount the long list of what we already know.
You certainly are an Alarmed Pig Farmer. What would you expect a majority of only one House of Congress to accomplish while their political opponents control the Senate and the Presidency? More damage must be done to the enemy before we can get worried about friendly fire, I say.
I see the Paulites as the anti-Tea Party crowd. More like the “occupy the Republican party” people. Their childish rants and anarchist thug mob tactics come straight from Alinsky. Their screw Israel principle is in opposition of party principles and downright neo-Naziish. I applaud any tactic used by the republicans to keep them out. Fight fire with fire.
If George Soros, the DNC, or both aren’t funding some of the Paultard activities as a false flag operation, they should be. States such as mine, Alaska, which should have one of the most robust Republican Parties in the Nation, have a Party in dissarray. And, of course, in addition to our usual whackjob libertarians, we have the fine hand of Sarah Palin through her puppet Joe Miller poised to pose himself as the standard-bearer of the Party in the ’14 race to take back the Senate seat the USDOJ stole from Senator Stevens. We should have a front-rank, experienced Republican officeholder as our nominee, and instead we’re going to have to deal with self-styled “true conservatives” and libertarians insisting on a whackjob like Miller. Begich must have been dancing a jig when he learned those idiots had taken over the Republican Party of Alaska.
I find it typical of neoconjob hypocrisy that you are so bellicose and pugilistic in your provocation of those in the liberty movement while simultaneously carping about a lack of cooperation and civility within our party. It takes a special kind of soullessness to believe, as you bully punks apparently do, in some sort of royal entitlement to cast aspersions on people. It’s as if you, like crows, feel raucous squawking lends you relevance. It does not.
Now let me assure you of one other thing. Your jig is up. We are sick of you neoconjob thugs and your self-aggrandizing pomposity, your ignorance, your arrogance, your deceptions, your betrayals, and your deviant obsessions with coercive power. You are corporatist scum. You are crooks. You are factually no different from the communists, who you only actually quarrel with over who gets what cut of the loot, loot you steal from children not even born. Children that you have the unmitigated gall to claim you stand for and protect. You are shameful and vile in your pretensions and I deplore you to seek guidance from your ministers. But whether you do, or do not, we are not putting up with you any more. We are taking our party back and there is nothing at all that you can do about it. Blither all you want. No one cares. Not anyone at all.
Exactly. The young Paulbots heard the “free to smoke weed” argument, joined up, and re-closed their minds.
Too bad the fake conservatives who pretend to be for states rights can’t get their heads around the fact that the legality of marijuana also falls under states rights and so should be decided by the states.
The government amended the Constitution TWICE for alcohol prohibition. Then they got smarter/more devious and just distorted the commerce clause instead for marijuana.
You know, the same commerce clause that is used to justify Obamacare that Republicans are against.
Just another example of fake conservative hypocrisy.
“young paulbots”
Lets see, those young “bots” have to research to even find Ron Paul. How much research have you done?
They are not all young, but they are well informed on the issues, they read the bills, the executive orders, the laws – do you?
They bother to study the history no longer allowed to be taught in schools, so are self taught critical thinkers – do you bother to search out educational opportunities to teach yourself?
Were YOU aware that Germany was taken over in decades by election fraud, etc? Did you know that some of the declared purposes told to the German people sounded good? Like “profit-sharing in the great industries” {Very similar to take from the 1% and share with all}
The Party said that a “strong centralized government” {we hear that now, and with the destruction of our legitimate government and being put under the VERY watchful eye a police state and military, hmmm}
It demanded the creation of a strong central power with unconditional authority, {Democratic (Progressive) political declarations}
a “reconstruction” of the educational system {Another thing we are hearing today}
The National Socialist German Workers Party felt it was needed to end civil liberties and
there could be no freedom of the press – the press had to completely support the Party
Do you recognize these: A separate government was set up within the legitimate government within the Party to exercise outside the law every sanction that any legitimate state could exercise and many that it could not {Obama’s “Czars”, TSA, DHS}.
The Party had its own secret police, its security units, its intelligence and espionage division, its raiding forces, and its youth forces {DHS, TSA, look up “Obama youth”, etc on youtube.com}.
It also established administrative mechanisms over time to identify those who supported the legitimate government {Patriot Act, NDAA, warrantless searches, warrantless spying, warrantless tracking, DHS, TSA, etc}.
They “encouraged” the populace to inform on their own neighbors, friends, family {“See Something, Say Something”, and other videos the DHS put out here in America}.
Eventually they organized and dominated every phase of German life {as is being tried here thru the UN laws, and executive orders, bills, laws made here}.
“Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government. Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart.” Justice Robert Jackson, Chief U.S. Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials
A presidential decree was created suspending the extensive guarantees of individual liberty contained in the constitution of the Weimar Republic. Those decree’s were restrictions on:
Personal liberty,
On the right of free expression of opinion – including freedom of the press, On the right of peaceful assembly,
The right of association, and
Violations of the privacy: postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications; and
No need for warrants for house-searches,
Orders for, confiscations as well as restrictions on property, etc
all taken away under the guise of “keeping the people safe” {much like what is happening within the USA today, as all of the “restrictions” on our freedoms are “for our own safety”}.
Significantly many were arrested as “belligerents” – no real crime committed, just disagreeing with the destruction of their legitimate government.
Secret arrest and indefinite detention; without charges, without evidence, without hearing, without counsel, and no court could issue an injunction, or writ of habeas corpus, or certiorari. The German people were in the hands of the police, the police were in the hands of the Nazi Party, and the Party was in the hands of a ring of evil men who wanted to run the world. {NDAA, Patriot Act, various executive orders, warrantless arrests, etc}
This takeover from within the German regime itself did not just happen; it was planned and prepared for over a long period of time and with no small skill and cunning. Their seizure of the German State, the takeover of the legitimate government there, their subjugation of the German people, their terrorism and extermination of dissident elements, all these are ends for which they acted in concert; and all these are phases of the conspiracy, a conspiracy which reached one goal only to set out for another and more ambitious one. The intricate web of organizations, which these men formed and then utilized to accomplish these ends of destroying the legal government there and installing their own.
{The same long-term planning and preparation, the takeover of our legitimate government, etc are paralleling that of the past in Germany. The people are doing nothing, as happened in Germany. The elected representatives the people sent to the different branches of our government are working against us here – but who are the “behind the scenes players” that our traitorous reps, law enforcement agencies, and military are assisting in the destruction of the USA?} (Are all law enforcement agencies and military involved? NO, but they are taught and STRONGLY encouraged to follow orders without thinking if it is an illegal order; even though they can be prosecuted for following an illegal order)
The concept then was to control the world; the concept now is to make a one-world “government”. Is there really a difference?
Try reading the Opening Statement by Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States http://www.roberthjackson.org/the-man/nuremberg-trial/
Just the opening statement will teach you a lot.
Well, in his first term in Congress, Ron Paul was my Representative. I know a lot of his political history and it is a decidedly mixed bag. He embraces the economic philosophy of Popper, Hayek, and von Mises, but his social issues philosophy is something else. He needs to carefully reread some of the works of those authors and discover that the only thing that can enable free markets to work in large societies is learned moral values which will support those economic freedoms in the presence of the innate values found as basic to human survival in the small primitive cultures of our origins.
This is a ludicrous accusation that I hope you will take back. Pauls position on Israel is that our soldiers should not die and our taxpayers should not pay for the defense if Israel. There is 0 correlation between Ron Paul views and the Nazi’s. In fact, Benjamin Netanyahu AGREES with him.
This article is nonsense, it’s telling us if we want to make a difference we should just shut up and obey the Republican party and only then will we be able to make a change. This is difficult for a rational person when we look at the horrific track record of being anything but conservative once they are actually in office.
Speaking of, the House recently passed H.R. 4133. Basically writing a blank check to defend Israel and buy them various weapons. Meanwhile, we’re nearly 16 trillion in debt, and almost no one in Congress is serious about defending the U.S. borders.
Ron Paul supporters started the Tea Party in 2007. Look up the videos on Youtube. They’re plain as day. Even Fox News commentators will say it.
Ron Paul and Paul supporters are what the TEA Party originally stood for and what they Pretend they still stand for. And what fake “conservatives” Pretend they stand for.
Small government, less spending, have Congress properly declare constitutional wars, states rights, the Bill of Rights, etc. These are things fake conservatives pretend to care about, but all they do is pay lip service to them. Heck, look at poster boy for fake conservatives Paul Ryan and his “conservative” budget plan they all love. It doesn’t balance the budget until the year 2040!
Or how about Lindsey Graham and his love for indefinite detention based only on being accused. Or how about all the “fiscal conservatives” who can’t find more than 100 billion dollars to cut out of a hugely bloated budget. Or how about the support for gun-grabber Mitt Romney. Obama’s banned fewer guns than Romney has.
Ron Paul gets his talking points straight from the Constitution. And the fake conservatives know it, but they have no real argument that stands up to Honest Ron Paul so they have to make things up.
Gee. You’ve been reading the Hufpo again, haven’t you scotty?
” I’m sure you recall the words of John Boehner prior to the 2010 elections about all the stuff the GOP would do… they’ve done none of it. None of it.”
And just what is it that they could do with a small majority of only one body, genius? If they pass legislation or a budget, the communist, excuse me, Democrat controlled Senate won’t even bring it to a vote. Contempt citations or articles of impeachment are like peeing your pants in a dark suit; it gives you a warm feeling and nobody notices because the House has no law enforcement authority. The only power they’ve had is the essentially negative power to refuse to fund programs or refuse to approve continuing resolutions. Comrade Obama has proven willing to threaten to cut politically vital programs or even shut down the government if he doesn’t get his debt ceiling increases and his CRs. Reasonable people may disagree as to whether he is bluffing and should be called, but it is not unreasonable to decline to provoke the electorate with causing social security checks not to go out, or a US debt default coming up on a Presidential election. Political junkies may understand that the only way granny wouldn’t get her check is if Comrade Obama decides not to send one, but it would take more than three words to explain it to the average moron, so you can’t explain that Obama is lying when he blames it on the Republicans.
The reality is that the only time you can actually DO anything in a legislative body is in the immediate aftermath of an election or in the case of an executive with a four year term in the first and, maybe third years. The Country is so divided and Congressional majorities have been so narrow that doing anything controversial is likely to cause you to forfeit the majority. Boehner’s objective has been to try to do nothing that would endanger his majority, maybe improve his majority in ’12, and hope for a Republican Senate, President, or both. Not getting the Senate will still make it difficult to actually do anything, but a Republican President willing to veto a CR will force even a Democrat Senate to act on legislation. As it stands, Reid can have the Senate do essentially nothing so long as CRs keep the government running.
The Pubs’ failure to win the Senate (& stupid Nevada voters sending that despicable Reid back to DC) was among the hugest disappointments to my mind that went down in 2010.
That was the labor unions that got Harry Reid re-elected. He has been in bed with them for his entire career and he got nationwide support from them for his campaign. If Harry the Senate majority leader lost, the Democrats would have lost everything and they knew it. They put more into that campaign than has ever been done before in a small population state. The Republicans did not have the resources to beat Harry Reid in Nevada in 2010. In 2016, if he runs again, we will. ABO2012
Nominating the one candidate that the NV gaming industry simply couldn’t abide re-elected Reid.
And just what is it that they could do with a small majority of only one body, genius?
You’d have a point if there were any difference between the GOP controlling only one body and the GOP controlling the Presidency, House and Senate. It’s a shame you can’t seem to recall what happened from 2001-2006. Your argument boils down to “wait until the next election, then you’ll really see something!” except we’ve seen the Establishment GOP in action. As the old saying goes, excuses are like Socialist Policies, everybody has one and they all stink. If the GOP can’t do what the country needs then the country doesn’t need the GOP.
What the GOP doesn’t need is self-styled “true conservatives” who think the R stands for Redneck rather than Republican.
Art, you should take note of Susan’s well written response, the Republican Party treads on the edge of the cliff and you are forgetting w/o the heart and votes of the Tea Party insurgents in 2010, the Republicans likely would be on the way to extinction. I’m very much like Susan, a 30 years straight R voter that will no longer do so except as a half stop measure vs a worst choice.
What is it going to take to get you (& others with similar sentiments) to see how much influence the constituencies actually have over the major two parties? Again for the umpteenth thousandth time, the entitlement mentality that is soooo well entrenched serves to guide the Republican Party away from real, honest-to-God small gov’t objectives. It’s no small wonder really just why it is the Republican Party is so “establishment,” as it reflects better than the far right what the American people (this includes Republican voters) want.
Actually, the Republicans have a good sized majority. If Nancy Pelosi had that same majority do you think she would have fought with the same lack of energy as Boehner. The House controls all spending bills. The house could be forcing serious investigations of the unconstitutional activities of the Presdient. The House could do a lot, if it had serious leadership. It does not. Boehner does not see himself as leder of the opposition party. He is more a subservient seeking to moderate the agenda of the President. That has been what he has accomplished, in a very limited way.
what did they do the last time they had the Senate, House, and Presidency? They surely must have balanced the budget then, right?
Never trust a politician. If their lips are moving they’re lying.
I see RP and his followers as that screaming baby who must have what it wants or else it’ll scream some more.
The article is nice but the chances that anyone will move together is halfway to China right now simply because both sides are pretty opoosed.
I personally want smaller government but think there must be middleground between Libertarian no government ever and the Liberal all government all the time stance.
That makes me a tyrant to them.
“I personally want smaller government but think there must be middleground between Libertarian no government ever and the Liberal all government all the time stance.”
Even a middle ground is going to be a tall order in this era of I-gotta-have-mine mindset of the entitlement mentality that will doubtless never die until such a time the money really does run out. Even Tea Party types could be heard saying “hands off my Medicare!” when protesting Obamacare. Any discussion of simply reforming (let alone scrapping) any of the sacred cows (Medicare, Medicaid, SS) is met with such resistance, many pols consider it an act of political suicide.
The “sacred cows” are not really my concern. Reform them or scrap them.
But there does need to be a lot of reform in the way gun sales are carried out.
Now to clarify I’m not talking more laws but more the kind that enforce some positive behaviour and lower the paperwork. A more advanced qualification test that earns one a permit to buy as many of a certain kind of gun as they like.
Sign something to prove you are the permit holder and flash the permit and walk out the door with one gun or eleven.
Drug legalization is also not something I’m in favor of or gay marriage however if it’s put to a state vote and passed then I’ll swallow it.
So, in a nutshell, you want to ignore the second amendment by implementing alternative violations to it rather than just ending the ones we have now, and you want to continue the “war on drugs” which has absolutely no Constitutional foundation?
Sorry to the author and both sides, Paul may be out to lunch on some of the issues but the “mainstream” GOP is becoming the democrats of 20 or 30 years ago (where will they be 30 years hence?). The GOP can’t just posture and hope to co-opt the libertarians and TEA movement, the GOP needs to get back on the liberty train and ride further down the track.
“So, in a nutshell, you want to ignore the second amendment by implementing alternative violations to it rather than just ending the ones we have now, and you want to continue the “war on drugs” which has absolutely no Constitutional foundation?”
“So, in a nutshell, you want to ignore the second amendment by implementing alternative violations to it rather than just ending the ones we have now”
Wrong on the first part. Right now you need to wait weeks and sign a mountain of paperwork per gun and even when you do you don’t necessarily know how to use it or care for it.
By replacing all that with a one shot course of learning the “care and feeding” of say a handgun as well as classes on defensive shooting and laws associated with it you replace the mountain of paperwork and a waiting period with one or two sigs and same day walkout for any gun of that type for (just a foundation) 10 years where you will need a basic refresher.
Run on the profits of those interested and handled by the NRA.
That is a common sense approach. Letting people take their guns home faster and in greater numbers if desired while still pushing forward the various responsabilities and care a gun requires for the safety of owners and bystanders.
Just ending the ones we have now will never happen without a common sense replacement. It will never pass legislation and would be a serious mistake especially in these stressful times.
“and you want to continue the “war on drugs””
Have resourcesa available for states to take advantage of. Sort of an Opt In for anyone not interested in legalizing.
“which has absolutely no Constitutional foundation?”
That is subject to interpretation.
Keep in mind also this quote:
“Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment… laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind… as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times….
We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
“…the “mainstream” GOP is becoming the democrats of 20 or 30 years ago…”
This surprises you as you consider the fact that the Democratic Party has been completely taken over by the hard left? Where are the blue dogs to go? With the entitlement mentality (sorry to sound like such a broken record, but again, it bears mentioning) so well established, the far right is in the fight of its life for a mere pinky-toe hold, let alone a real place at the table in the arena of ideas & policies. The percentage of the electorate that wants big-gov’t programs that are designed to guarantee practically a cradle-to-grave assurance of never falling through the safety net is simply too large & too influential. About the only thing that will ultimately set everybody straight is for the whole damned thing to collapse when the money runs out. JMO.
Sorry if I cam across to strongly. While I agree it’s dumb for people to own guns who know nothing about them, but, they still should have a right to, and we’re in agreement about drugs, definitely a tenth amendment issue in my opinion.
If the federal government was really doing it’s job it would force the states and cities to drop their anti-second amendment laws, it’s right there in black and white, “. . . shall not be infringed.”
Carn,
Sounds like you need to come to Texas, takes ten, maybe 15 minutes to buy a gun.
“they still should have a right to”
Rights are the poor man’s replacment for responsabilities. There should never be a right without a responsability and in the case with guns irresponsable use is detrimental to things like keeping ones blood inside their body and breathing.
The biggest barrier is the liberal “Wild West” argument. Well fine then. The course they take will turn out people with an understanding of all facets of gun use. Not just tareget-shooting or hunting or self-defense but all three.
“shall not be infringed.”
Back then firearms where an easy number to factor. I have one shot to do whatever dirty business I like and 4 other people will end me because we have roughly the same weapon.
Now? You have guns capable of wholesale mayhem and so a harder lock on them is required.
And if we ever get to PEWs then you’ll see still more laws because restrictions must increase based on the possible lethality of a weapon.
Not a paper written before basic bolt actions were invented.
With all due respect, you’re wrong. The framers had lived through a war on their own soil, they knew full well the difference between a farmer armed with a musket and a soldier armed with a musket, a bayonet and grenades. Yet they used the term “arms” which meant and still means those weapons an individual soldier might wield, as opposed to “ordinance” referring to crew served weapons like cannon. The second amendment has nothing to do with self defense or hunting, it has everything to do with keeping the government honest by allowing the people to be as well equipped as the soldiers of that government.
Do I want full auto weapons and grenades? No, I don’t. Do I think they are allowed by that “paper written before basic bolt actions were invented” that you seem to hold in low esteem? Yes, I think they are. You see, our rights guaranteed in the Constitution do not rely on what JustAl, or Carn, or some bureaucrat in DC or a state capitol, or a city hall think are “needed” or “appropriate”.
By your argument free speech and the freedom of the press could also be curbed because, obviously, the framers could not have foreseen electronic communications.
Your defense of government contravention of the Constitution is why libertarians will always stand apart from “main stream” republicrats.
““Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment… laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind… as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times….
We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.””
“If my granny had wheels, she’d be a wagon,” Mr. Scott of Star Trek. A quote that has exactly the same force of law as yours.
The Constitution was specifically written so that anyone who was considered literate at the time could understand it. But it takes a great deal of education to subvert it I suppose. Quote who you will, let them do your thinking for you if you will, the Constitution isn’t a play on words, it’s the law of the land, it’s real, it’s relevant, and it beats the hell out of your world view in my opinion.
““Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment… laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind… as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times….
We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.””
“If my granny had wheels, she’d be a wagon,” Mr. Scott of Star Trek. A quote that has exactly the same force of law as yours.
The Constitution was specifically written so that anyone who was considered literate at the time could understand it. But it takes a great deal of education to subvert it I suppose. Quote who you will, let them do your thinking for you if you will, the Constitution isn’t a play on words, it’s the law of the land, it’s real, it’s relevant, and it beats the hell out of your world view in my opinion.
What? I can already buy as many guns as I want. You must live in a commie state or something. I can go buy 20 semi-auto AKs right now with 75-round drums for all of them if I want, and it would take about 15 minutes. I wouldn’t be surprised if DHS knocks on my door a few days later to check me out, lol, but I could buy them.
Hudson’s got some great advice for both sides in the Paulite vs Establishment Republican battle. Unfortunately, neither side is likely to follow this advice without a push from elsewhere. Principled Conservatives and/or Tea Partiers are this force if they so choose. In fact, there’s already a fair amount of agreement between Paulites & PCTP’s and to a lesser extent, between PCTPers
and EstabRepubs. In which direction conservative Tea Party types throw their support will depend on which side shows a willingness to accomodate and accept less than 100% jam down of their policies. Sad to say, both the Paulites and establishment have exhibited more than their fair share of jackbooted tendencies. Here’s hoping that changes. Ideally, the Paulites (maybe led by Rand), will forge a consensus with principled conservatives on radical cuts in federal departments, entitlement reform, & true federalism on drug policy & elsewhere. Reform of the Fed Reserve as well. Paulites ideas on foreign policy tho are a non-starter.
What jack-booted tendencies have Paulites exhibited? All of the caucus corruption has been on the establishment GOP who change and break their own rules to thwart democracy. In 2008 and in 2012, high-up people in St. Charles, MO admitted to trying to subvert the elected delegates, and even tried to get all of the delegates thrown out, because THEY didn’t like who the delegates supported.
Athens, GA. The county was thrown out because the establishment played dirty and disregarded delegate election rules.
How many “parking lot caucuses” have had to be held this year because of the establishment’s jack-booted behavior? Too many is how many.
Excuse me, but, “jackbooted”?
You want to accuse the Paul supporters and delegates of exactly what the MAINSTAYS of the party have done. In Oklahoma, two SEPARATE Romney supporters punched two different Paul supporters. Yet WE were in the wrong? Hmm. In Louisiana, the other day, TWO Paul supporters were assaulted and badly injured when off-duty policemen, hired by the mainstays, took them down. These were not “kids” they assaulted; they were older gentlemen, including one with a prosthetic leg, and one will surely require surgery due to these assaults.
SO, you are trying to say that the Paul folk, who were there to follow the rules (in each and every state’s convention) and DID follow the rules, tried something underhanded? From my vantage-point, it was the regulars; the mainstays, who acted underhanded and disgusting. These people who work to destroy the party are those who should be forced out.
Yet, when the MAJORITY shows up for Paul (because you cannot find enough ‘regular GOP’ to show for ROMNEY), you consider this some sort of affront? Amazing. Wake up. Wow.
I think you may have missed the memo, but it isn’t just a war between Ron Paul’s supporters and Mitt Romney’s supporters. It is much broader and deeper than the media or those working the ‘game’ inside the RNC would like to admit. I have voted GOP for 30-years (straight-GOP-ticket every time), and I am walking out of the GOP. Not because I am angry (even though I am), not because my candidate lost (even though he did – Newt), and not because I like the Democrats any better (I actually loathe them, too)… but I finally figured out, after all these years, the party of ‘conservatism’ was merely a marketing tool to get my vote. My family left the Democratic party to vote for Reagan. I voted for Reagan in 1984 when I was old enough to vote. And, even though the GOP party platform was written to fit Reagan’s brand of conservatism, the actual behaviors of those carrying the GOP banner over the last 30 years is not reflective of that platform or Reagan’s ideals. I want a smaller government, I want less money spent, I want us to be a PROUD nation .. and I am sick of wimpy Republicans being beat up by Godless and immoral Democrats. This party has no backbone.. and no soul. The fact that Mitt Romney was coronated by the establishment early on.. pretty much sums up why the GOP lacks appeal with the grassroots conservatives. You don’t really care what we think, you just need our vote. Well, here’s a newsflash — Until I see evidence that the GOP is going to behave differently (as in conservatively), then they will not be getting my vote again. I am finished taking orders from the RNC.
Welcome to the ranks that will serve to promote leftist candidates by default (by refusing to support Republican candidates who may be centrist but are not so far to the left it isn’t funny).
There is a two party system in this country for a reason. The reason is that people like you are simply unwilling to cast a vote for anyone who runs in a third party or independent.. even when they don’t like the two choices offered by the major parties. Well, I’ve had enough of this. If you go look at the latest polls, it is ridiculous that the electorate puts up with a corrupt two-party system when only 40% of themselves call themselves Democrat or Republican… that leaves 60% of us picking the candidate that we loathe the least. I am going to vote Libertarian in November. I don’t agree with Johnson’s positions on a host of social issues, but at least I won’t be contributing to this rigged two-party tyranny. WE NEED TO TAKE THIS GOVERNMENT BACK .. economic Armageddon is on the horizon. And you can call me names and tell me I’m an idiot all day long for voting 3rd party, but I am telling you the truth: If we don’t break up that D.C. money machine in a hurry.. there may not be a next election. Mitt Romney won’t do a thing to reverse the course we are on, and I am NOT going to help the GOP and America jump off the cliff.. I’m going to keep sounding the alarm until folks wake up and STOP THE INSANITY.
Your points are well taken….for a world in which deep pockets don’t make the difference. Ever wondered why a third party cannot snag enough power in order to make a real difference? Money. M O N E Y. The PACS & other influential groups who funnel the large amounts of cash around are not going to support a third party. I am not sure exactly just what is behind that, but the pattern has been consistent over the course of many years that the financial support that is so vital to political success in this country goes to the major two. Thus, it is upon these major two parties that the focus must be. Far better it be, IMO, to support the candidates who belong to one of the major two whose political platforms come closest to the policies & approaches you embrace & hold their feet to the fire once they are elected into office than to throw your vote away in support for a candidate who doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected. But hey, knock yourself out spinning your wheels but don’t complain when you see the small c’s garner more seats in Congress or the big seat at the WH.
Calling republicans “small c’s” is a complete misdirection. They’re at least as progressive as most that carry those “small l’s”. There’s a reason the rank and file call those in the GOP “RINO” – and it has nothing to do with how old and grey they are.
Thanks, Susan; I agree with you completely.
However, I have decided to take a chair within the party so that I have SOME say-so, in order to change it from within. I am now, officially, a precinct chair. It takes a few hours a month (busier in election seasons, which is always, in Texas), and the perk is? I have a VOTE in those once-monthly committee meetings.
I wish you would consider this, rather than leaving the party; stay and change it. Make them be what they say they are. You can always vote how you want to vote (third party or whatever). You can campaign for individuals you like and not for those you don’t appreciate. But, you are exactly the sort of intelligent (and awake) person the NEW GOP needs.
If we do not stay and rebuild it from the ground up, it will never change, and in my opinion, it will be dead before next election-cycle.
When you are forced to choose between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, what’s a patriot to do?
Susan @11 – The oddest thing is how offended the GOP drones here sound, as if baffled that the peasants no longer doff their forelocks. No, not just peasants, we’re all rednecks given to wetting ourselves, sad dopes in thrall to the left, etc., etc. Righty-ho…
Yes, it’s still early, but IMO those who no longer subscribe to biz as usual add up to an absolute majority, concentrated in the middle of the electorate; you’ll find significant numbers of disgruntled Democrats there, and many Independents and Libertarians. Folks like me are well to the right, though I don’t yearn for Rapture and, on special occasions, I’ve learned not to eat my peas with a knife. More important, I like and can work with the folks in the middle without difficulty because we share many of the same concerns. Anecdotally, I’m sure this is not unusual in any way, and the numbers are large.
So hang in there and vote your conscience. Exactly how to vote, for many, will be a local decision based on local issues and local candidates more than party. And many will decide at the last moment, as usual. The easy decision — to dump Obama — is already made.
It remains to be seen how badly the GOP screws up.
#11 Susan: “……I want less money spent…..” That is a sound statement. I don’t agree with a lot of what Ron Paul says. But at least he’s taking the right talk in terms of getting the federal budget and deficits under control. Ron Paul is one of the few in Congress; Senator Tim Coburn (R-OK) is another; who actually advocates for across-the-board cuts in spending.
Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, and their like in the House talk a good game about cutting spending. They’re taking on the welfare-handout complex, but seem deathly afraid of crossing the military-industrial complex. Mitt Romney wants to increase defense spending. Defense can’t be sacrosanct while entitlements are on the cutting block.
“It is much broader and deeper……..” Indeed it is, and not just for the reasons outlined by Susan. I’ll continue to carefully evaluate conservative candidates who will commit to responsible government & cutting spending. I won’t vote for self-proclaimed conservatives who insist on telling me what my religious beliefs should be.
That should read as “Senator TOM Coburn…..”
Nope. Defense is a listed function of the Federal govt per the constitution. Entitlements are not listed anywhere in the constitution. One can try to make the argument through the general welfare clause, but doing so requires Orwellian doublethink.
As for voting for people that want to control your personal life, well that is also a red herring. For as we can readily see the works of our Statist nomenklatura. The list of govt agencies born to oversee our daily lives is massive in scope and power. The progressive and the fundamentalist are fruits of the same tree.
Yes, defense is in the US Constitution. But after that, the devil is in the details, so to speak. In early 2009, the GAO released a study of Pentagon procurement programs. 66 of 94 programs studied had a collective $260+ billion in cost overruns. The TEA Party “outrage” over that spending was non-existent.
As for “voting for people who want to control your personal life,” guess you don’t follow the workings of the religious right very closely. Does a woman, in discussion with her family & doctor, have a right to a first term abortion? Or is that decision to be made by the State? Can a woman make that difficult decision without having to first submit to a transvaginal sonogram, as in Texas? Then there is the whole dust-up about contraception……..
Unconstitutional wars and invading country after country in the name of “preemptive war” isn’t “defense.”
Are Romney and Obama the same on most issues? Try, ALL ISSUES.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljzKR9mePiY
I would add another
7) Recognise that the era “business as usual” in the form of endless growth of government departments and regulations and the “print and spend” mentality that drives it, is coming to a very rapid end.
The United States spends over 40% MORE than it earns to run a goverment that is too BIG and SPENDS to much.
The can has already hit the wall in the PIIGS, it will soon do the same here.
The next administration (Obama OR Romney) and the Congress will be forced to “man up” and make some VERY hard political decisions OR watch the United States undergo an economic implosion that is likely to end in hyperinflationary collapse just like Argentina in 2001.
Transforming the United States into a broken third world country, it’s change and one that China, Russia and Iran will be happy to monetise.
It costs money to defend the nation and California is a very big prize (once you remove the mouth breathers).
I hope that Ron Paul tells his followers to vote for the Republican standard bearer no matter who he is. Is Mr. Paul man enough to do that or will he split the vote and possible enable obama to win? Keep remembering that Obama was elected by only 30% of registered voters. There was a 58% turnout and of the people who actually voted, 52% voted for Obama. Multiply 0.58 and 0.52 and you get 0.30. Just 30% of registered voters saddled us with Obama. Forget about the polls and just vote. Don’t be complacent, but we can win.
You don’t understand Paul (or his supporters) at all. They are looking for a RESET, a return to America’s pre-empire, republican roots. They are not rooting for a team, they are not playing the kabuki anymore, they are going to be able to look themselves in the mirror Nov 7th.
They’re idiots and false-flaggers who are going to re-elect the communist.
…says the guy that supports Bush 3.0, aka Romney.
You know it’s impossible to take anyone seriously when they try to get high on the horse talking about how evil those people are that support liberty, while simultaneously endorsing a guy that wants to impose universal healthcare, gun control and abortion. Dude, you are so full of the GOP Kool-aid those of us that have opened our eyes can’t even read your comments without risking a heart attack.
Go ahead and have that heart attack and die before the election. That way some Democrat can vote in your name; that’s more legitimate than you fools voting for the communist by voting third party.
If all the fake conservatives would vote for Ron Paul or someone like Gary Johnson, the communist won’t win, and neither would the big-government “moderate.”
So why don’t all the fake conservatives do that if they don’t want the communist in the White House to win?
The GOP establishment zombies have already pretty much guaranteed an Obama win by pushing Romney. How is he different from Obama again? In most ways, he isn’t. So even if Romney wins, you and the country still lose.
Paul would actually pull more votes away from Obama than he would from Romney.
Romney and Paul would both get the “anyone but Obama” vote. But Paul would also pull in independents and Democrats who are against the same big-government crap both Romney and Obama are for.
Ron Paul is the only one who can beat Obama. But the GOP establishment would rather have four more years of Obama than have an HONEST person as President. They know Ron Paul would actually do what the fake conservatives always SAY they will do… he would reduce the size and power of government. But the establishment GOP won’t allow anyone to take their power away.
In the end, which is worse, four more years of Obama, or eight years of Romney? Tough call. A big problem with having Romney there is he has an R in front of his name, so all the fake conservative zombies will just lap up whatever crap he and the establishment feeds them.
Why did Ron Paul supporters start the Tea Party in 2007? It was because of Bush and the big-government Republicans. What’s changed since then? Not much, except for the Tea Party got hijacked by big-government Republicans.
You hope Ron Paul will tell HIS supporters to get in line behind Romney? You cannot know a thing about Paul or US, his supporters, to think that could or would happen. There is a major disconnect between what Republicans SAY they are and they want, what the usual candidates ARE, and what Ron Paul IS: a TRUE Conservative Republican. As I am also conservative and agree with a great majority of Paul’s issues (and really, his intent, following the constitution), there is no way I would ever go with Romney. He doesn’t even understand the Constitution, nor does he care about following it (same as Obama, by the way).
IF the GOP does not get it through their thick skulls, this time, I worry we will be a dead party, next time. My question has been, rather than invite and accept *and perhaps listen to* these lovers of liberty and the constitution INTO the party, why are so many RINOS bent on refusing to even hear US? I have voted both Dem and Rep, and even INDY in my thirty-six years as a registered voter; I tend to go for the person rather than the party, but at heart, I am a true conservative. And, I am generally what the party does not want, just like Dr Paul? I will never comprehend that.
I do wish you all would look up Dr Paul and hear what he says, as well as examine his record; the man is For REAL, unlike so many in the recent past (-since Reagan– who I DID vote for, first time, on the say-so of Dr Paul). Unless you think about what you want and consider a vote for Ron Paul, this country is most likely heading for a crash like she’s never seen. And it’s our last try, here; let us all PLEASE get together for sanity’s sake!
By the way, I have filed to be precinct chair in my area; because there was so little interest in such, I won by default. It again begs the question; WHAT does the old-guard believe they are saving from the Ron Paul Conservatives?
“However, when you make the decision to voluntarily associate with a political party, to become an officer or delegate, you pledge to support that party’s endorsed candidates.”
What manner of Bolshevik nonsense is this? Do you really want to convey the message that if you want to join the Republican party and participate in its affairs you must be prepared to throw away your principles and good judgment if the establishment demands it? This is an argument I would have thought more worthy of Democrats. Is man made for The Party or is the party made for man?
For 50 years a spineless and duplicitous Republican leadership has spit on the virtues and principles it supposedly adheres to, serving up failure after failure as this country has moved steadily leftward. When the rank and file object to this, they are chastised for their temerity, called unrealistic or insulted as rednecks or lunatics as in some of these comments. We now live in a financially and morally bankrupt country, ruled by a ruthless and utterly unaccountable despotism with no regard for the rule of law or common decency. This predicament is as much a creation of the elitist, spineless, self-serving GOP establishment as it is any machinations of the Democratic progressives.
He is absolutely right, Mike. This is a political party, not a political institution. There is nothing in our Constitution about political parties and they are not subject to any election laws. They can choose their candidates in the back room of a bar, if they want to. Most political parties have a closed nominating process. It is to the Republican Party’s credit that they have a partially open process. Ron Paul, like all other Republicans, benefits his political career by running for office as a member of the Party. He owes the Party his allegiance because, without them, he has never won an election, and he never will, and he knows that, even if you don’t. Political parties have no virtues or principles. All political issues boil down to yin and yang so, in the USA, we boil down to two major political parties who battle for platforms that appeal to the most voters. It wasn’t until the Democratic Party became completely co-opted by the Communist Party, that the idea of two parties, both being loyal to our Constitution has been skewered. ABO2012
Hang on there, Bucko? “Ron Paul has never won an election”? Well, golly-gee, than can you please tell me how he’s a 12-term representative of the great State of Texas?
He has not won a REPUBLICAN election (for POTUS) for one reason. The party is no longer run or attended by conservatives, and the party has been this way since the Reagan era (I say, and some say it was Nixon, yet I digress)..
IF the party members did what they espouse they say and WANT, Ron Paul would have won, long ago. The man is honest as the day is long. He cares about the personal liberties of ALL Americans. He cares about adhering to the Constitution of these United States.
And you NEOCONS have taken over the party. Yet you grumble about those YOU elect or select (from the backrooms) not doing what you wanted done? Why not think, at least twice, about whom it is you give your vote to, rather than just go with whatever the highest up in GOP/RNC tells you to go with?
I AM a Republican. I AM a true conservative. I AM supporting Dr Paul until this race is over or he WINS. Preferably, for this nation, he WILL WIN it, as I believe only he will bring this party back together.
Same old story. Mainstream R’s and Walter Hudson wants the Paul supporters to compromise their constitutional principles just one more time in order to get the win. Then its back to business as usual. More debt, bigger government and less freedom. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I don’t think the so-called center of the Republican Party has learned its lesson yet. If they can’t at least come close to a constitutional pick for VP I don’t think they deserve a win.
So, if you don’t get your way, you’ll help re-elect the communists by staying home or voting third party?
Not at all, if you and your ilk also voted 3rd party, or, since you want to get your way are you willing to re-elect the communists for the sake of loyalty to the gop wing of the republicrat party?
How many communists are running as GOP candidates & for what offices?
Read this really slow. . . if you and the rest of the GOP join the 3rd party the effect is the same as everyone interested in the 3rd party joining the GOP. Therefore, your argument above that voting 3rd party, is equally applicable to blindly voting GOP. . . you want others to abandon their principles for the sake of winning. . . so why don’t you?
Your response is just as nonsensical no matter how quickly or “slow” I read it. LOL.
@JustAl and the other “true conservatives” – If I wanted to be a Libertarian, I’d be one. If I wanted to join the Constitution Party, I would. You people want a party that might sometimes be able to win a Congressional District in the rural South or West. I want a Party that can govern the Country. Following the crazy-assed libertarians with Barry Goldwater got us the worst modern electoral defeat by a Democrat. Crazy 3rd party types went with crazy as a s*(thous rat Ross Peeerow and gave us Clinton. There’s a good argument that “true conservatives” staying home gave us Comrade Obama, and if you’re stupid enough to be unable to see a clear distinction between an avowed communist and a middle of the road Republican, I don’t want to be in a party with you.
Bingo Al! I don’t agree with Ron Paul on everything, but your comments are spot on. If anyone is going to re-elect President Obama it’s the RINOs who put party before The U.S. Constitution & the ldeals this nation was founded on. Art Chance, you can call me all the names you want, but don’t waste your breath. I won’t waste my time trying to talk sense to you. Get your “GO GOP!” pennant & join the cheering section. The worst kind of slave is the slave who continually puts the chains on himself.
No worries, Al. I got it. I got it the first time.
I also do not comprehend the “party first” or “party loyalty” above all else, no matter HOW bad the candidate IS (wow; ROMNEY? really>?). And, I don’t WANT to get it. I want them to listen to us, as the true conservatives WITHIN the party, and to actually take a listen to Ron Paul. I wish they would investigate his voting-record so they could see he DOES what they say they want DONE.
But, getting past that party-only mentality feels like such an insurmountable thing, I sometimes don’t know why I try,
TO ALL Republicans; Please, take a look at Ron Paul. IGNORE the news (they are not there to help you). If you have to, ignore the “majority” or the old-guard in your state’s GOP. Really listen to the man. I think you will finally see what you have been looking for, all of these years. Don’t do it for me; do it for yourselves, this country, and our children, okay?
Art, I do appreciate how you take these people to task, saving me the trouble (beyond my little one-sentence retorts with an air of well-deserve derision).
It’s pretty simple Art, I demand a constitutional government. I’ll vote for the candidate that will give me one. If the Republicans can’t give me a candidate that meets that criteria then I will go elsewhere.
Paul 2012: A Heart of Gold
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ZRDhugmBBg8
John Wayne and the Pledge of Allegiance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Jf3MQpffBc&feature=related
You should’ve seen what happened at the GA GOP convention on May 19th. The establishment was voraciously unwilling to reject section 1021 of the NDAA because it might implicate them in rejecting Romney.
Then, when this was discovered they panicked and withdrew the Resolution. Please note that the Resolution had already passed by an overwhelming majority of the delegates.
This is despite the fact that even the Obama administrations attorneys (which also represent several congressional supporters of the NDAA) admitted in court that it could be used to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial (Hedges v. Obama).
You can watch both the original Resolution from the GA District 12 convention, then the Establishment GOP’s rejection of it at the GA State Convention on YouTube.
The depravity of some of the Romney supporters will make you sick to your stomach
You might want to check this out.
#11 shawn: “Calling republicans “small c’s” is a complete misdirection.”
You misunderstand my post completely. I am talking about the far-leftist Democrats who have overtaken that party. RINOs are merely moderates. BIG difference. If you don’t see it, I cannot help you. Vote Romney or stay home.
RINOs aren’t moderates. They’re big-government fake conservatives. They can’t find more than 100 billion to trim from the budget, they can’t find ANYTHING to trim out of national “defense” (“defense” of invading other countries and policing the world and then being surprised when other countries don’t like that), they push for budgets that won’t be balanced until the year 2040,
they’re more than happy to “indefinitely detain” people who are merely accused of a crime, they’re more than happy to let the federal government not the state government ban drugs they don’t like, heck, they’re even more than happy to let government murder U.S. citizens. ..and yet they are so scared of government overseeing health care. Overseeing health care, bad. Indefinitely detaining or even killing you without transparency or due process, good.
It’d be funny if it wasn’t so tragic.
I posted yesterday (but it did not appear for some reason) in response to someone above to the affect that we get the politicians who are a reflection on us. Failing to support GOP candidates lends support to the Democratic Party by default. If you don’t already know it, the Dems have been completely taken over by the far left. Their ideas & approaches to official policy are so similar to that of outright communists, it’s not funny. To date, such a claim cannot be made about the Pubs with credibility.
Which party is for wiretapping and indefinitely detaining and even killing U.S. citizens without transparency or due process? Which party wants to elect a gun grabber for President? Which party wants to elect a Goldman Sachs guy for President? Which party refuses to get serious about the debt? Which party loves TSA?
Tell me which party is against those things so I can vote for that party.
Right now, all the above. This is, to say the very least, not a good thing. Bear in mind though the far left holds those goals really dear. The Pubs have been essentially out of power now since 2006 if I am not mistaken. The 9-11 accounts for some of the programs about which you speak. Sure, I’d like to see the TSA completely dismantled, 2nd amendment threats handled as they should be, etc. But it’s not about to be done as long as the Dems are in power. There is a better chance with the Pubs. Beyond that I cannot imagine how these battles can be won. Third party is utterly hopeless. Without the financial backing, no third party is going to etch its way to a place at the table in the arena of ideas & policies. These things have to be accomplished within the confines (as odious as they may be) of the system. Otherwise it’s a case of breaking out the hard metals & spilling some blood. You ready for that? Are enough others ready for that?
Republicans love that stuff you mentioned more than Democrats do. The last time around, some Dems actually voted against the Patriot Act. Republicans, not so much. Obama, warmonger that he is, still pales in comparison to the GOP warmongers.
We could have had an honest constitutionalist for President. But nope. Republicans love Goldman Sachs and gun grabbing and big-government wiretapping and indefinite detention and unconstitutional wars too much to let that happen.
If we can survive till then, the bell should be tolling for the big-government establishment by 2016. Richard Lugar’s election loss puts a smile on my face.
If all the various factions of the right did was agree to cut actual spending and fix the budget and debt in a reasonable period of time, a whole lot of positive stuff would get done. If the right is stuck not being able to find more than 100 billion dollars to cut, and keeps raising the debt ceiling, and doesn’t want to balance the budget before the year 2040, then we’re pretty much doomed.
It amuses me to say it, but if the various factions of the right would agree on real and serious spending cuts to stop the runaway debt, then fighting about things like the Patriot Act and NDAA would be good problems to have. lol.
Let’s talk about “decorum” at conventions. Let’s talk about the corruption in Athens, GA and St. Charles, MO. And how about Oklahoma. There’s also Arizona, where the lights were literally turned off on the delegates and mics turned off and then the meeting illegally adjourned. Let’s talk about the Romney supporters physically assaulting Ron Paul supporters. These things are all on video.
Let’s talk about the RNC promoting Romney as the nominee even though he hasn’t won. Let’s talk about the Georgia governor pushing Romney and then when she gets booed on it accuses the people of being Obama supporters. Let’s talk about Romney supporters passing around fake delegate slates at caucuses to confuse and undermine the voting. Let’s talk about the Alaska GOP shortening the time to pay your delegate fees and then making it hard to pay them.
Let’s talk about big-government conservatives who think the Constitution doesn’t say anything about when you can or can’t wage war. Let’s talk about big-government conservatives who would put a gun-grabber in the White House who supports TARP and is a favorite of Goldman Sachs. Let’s talk about the big-government conservatives who say they are for states rights, except when it comes to something they don’t like like deciding the legality of marijuana.
Let’s talk about what hypocrites big-government conservatives are.
Ron Paul supporters have a clear agenda for where they want our country to go: The US Constitution defines our government. We have a Constitutional Republic form of government, which has some similarities to democracy in that it uses democratic processes to elect representatives, etc.
The CRITICAL DIFFERENCE is that a Constitutional Republic has a Constitution that LIMITS THE POWERS OF THE GOVERNMENT. It is the blueprint for the government structure. It divides limited power between three branches, creating checks on its power. The Bill of Rights sets limits on the government, making clear it has NO POWER to infringe on rights we already naturally possess, or to limit traditionally held privileges, such as trial by jury.
The Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison – The powers of the government are limited by the Constitution. The Constitution is “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently…an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution, is void.” It is “the Supreme Law of the land,” and any act of the government must be consistent with it. Only those acts made “in pursuance of” the Constitution also have this rank. It is higher than the government and its laws, for the Constitution created both.
Worth repeating: It is higher than the government and its laws, for the Constitution created both. The states created the Constitution of the United States for specific purposes, mostly to deal with foreign affairs and to see that the states traded equally with each other – that Ohio did not charge the people living within the state one price and those from out of Ohio another (example).
Judges, when they rule on laws, must often choose between the Constitution and a law. Since the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, they must invariably choose to enforce the Constitution and ignore the law. Their Oaths also require it (They take two Oaths)
Equally important is that the three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees are required to take a solemn Oath to support and defend the Constitution and NOT an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity. All who serve as US presidents take a solemn Oath to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the US Constitution”. Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.
Legally:
Solemn: “legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”.
“Bound – Being under legal or moral obligation”
That is their accountability to the People. Please note in the following Oaths that they are sworn to support and defend the US Constitution before ANYTHING else. Everyone who serves are temporary representatives, the Constitution is forever unless “We the People” decide to change our government, or we are taken over from within like the legitimate German government was.
While reading the oaths, think about this: If there were never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each Oath require it of those who take the Oaths?
President: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Justices:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
and “I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
Everyone else: Everyone else: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Military: “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”
We need to dump the “party system” because they parties are also corrupt and in it for their own power.
“We need to dump the “party system” because they parties are also corrupt and in it for their own power.”
Who is “we?” Sounds rhetorical but it’s not intended that way. Unless you have the Deep Pockets on your team, you cannot even begin to pave your way to such a lofty goal. Governments are by nature corrupt because they are run by people who control the money flow. I really cannot imagine how those of us who are outside that loop can wrest the control away. Plus one must consider at what point is the proverbial critical mass. Is it any small wonder the 2nd amendment is so important. If they do manage to take that away, we’re really toast.
Right– it is all corrupt, so let’s not bother striving for anything better?
Is this why the GOP is suicidal? Have the members simply given up? Is that the problem? If so, WHY are they fighting so hard (including PHYSICALLY/ Violently) to hang on to their “powerful seats”? WHY do they want those who are true conservatives OUT?
I just don’t get it.
Will Ron Paul urge his supporters to vote for the Republican candidate, or will he just take the chance that enough other Republicans/Conservatives will vote for the Republican Standard Bearer so Mr. Paul doesn’t enable obama to win? Keep remembering that Obama was elected by only 30% of registered voters. There was a 58% turnout and of the people who actually voted, 52% voted for Obama. Multiply 0.58 and 0.52 and you get 0.30. Just 30% of registered voters saddled us with Obama. If Ron Paul doesn’t join in the fight by aligning his followers with the leader he is a RINO himself.
Big-government Republicans are enabling Obama to win by pushing Romney. If those people were serious about not wanting Obama to win, they’d be voting for Ron Paul.
Don’t put it on Paul if Obama wins. It’s the GOP’s and fake conservatives’ fault for pushing “the presumed nominee” who no one except Goldman Sachs actually wants: Romney.
Ron Paul doesn’t even tell people to vote for himself. …much to the chagrin of his supporters. Seriously, he has rallies with 8000 people at them, and he gives a good speech and talks about liberty and freedom and the Constitution and things, yet he doesn’t tell people who to vote for, including himself.
Btw, I’m sure everyone’s seen all those huge rallies of Ron Paul’s all over the news, right? I’m sure they’ve been covered extensively here on PJM, right? You’d think the news would cover something like that anyway…. maybe you can only see them on youtube.
I could go along with some of what you say if it had practical application to this election. I’m having a hard time seeing the difference between Obamacare and Rombamacare. I have a hard time seeing the difference between trillion dollar deficits and Romney saying he won’t borrow any more money “unless it’s for a good cause.” Personally I don’t care if this country collapses under Obama or Romney. I only care that it is going to collapse if we don’t turn it around and get it headed back to where it came from. “THE CONSTITUTION” Right now the only difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is SPELLING. They are both willing to sell this country and it’s people out for the privilege of saying that they were the last President of the United States but it wasn’t their fault that we lost our freedom,our liberty and our rights. It was the other guys fault,I only inherited the problem from everybody else who came before me.
Wake up America!! You’re about to lose your country for the sake of THE PARTY. (You can put in Republican or Democrat) If you don’t turn this country around it won’t matter if it’s Republican or Democrat. IT WON”T BE OUR COUNTRY ANYMORE!!!! WAKE UP
See and experience the Third World
Without having to leave America
(Reelect Barack Obama in 2012)
So, it is yet another post asking, WHY IS THE GOP SUICIDAL?
Why does the GOP cut off it’s collective nose to spite its face?
WHY are we having Romney shoved down our throats when Ron Paul is much more of what the party SAYS they want in Romney? Why not just vote for the one man whose record proves he IS what he says? WHY would Paul’s constituents consistently elect and re-elect him, were he NOT what we all know he is?
Please; read the Republican Mission Statement. Then, check out Ron Paul. For the kicker, also check out what Romney has done and says he wants to do. I think you will find much more of a conflict of interests between Romney and Republicans than you would ever find when it comes to Paul.
Unless we fix this, this year, the party will be broken beyond repair. People are dropping out faster than any other time. Delegates are not showing-up to state conventions! Republicans, all across the country, have lost interest- other than in ONE THING, and that is keeping out of their ranks the ONE MAN who really is a Republican; Ron Paul. What, as the party is killing themselves, are they saving the party FOR? After this year, I believe it will be about as relevant as the Whigs or the Tories.
If you want to save the party and this country you have only one option; Ron Paul!