Well very interesting article, like the GOP has been so wonderful and respectful of the Ron Paul Supporters, NOT. As a Ron Paul Republican, I strongly suggest that the GOP stop pretending as if they are the one's wronged here. Give us a break, why not spend the time working with your SECURED nominatee on reading the teleprompter. If only the GOP would stop allowing Karl Rove to run the party, we might have a chance of retaining the White House with a total reform of our own party. Face it, the GOP has placed our entire system of process into a world of corruption and special interest, we are not about to walk away from this process without an ETHICAL fight for what is right. Let's see how the ethics play out, McCain advisers should take note 20% of his own party don't support him.

What the GOP fails to realize is there are many Ron Paul supporters out there who are not Republicans. People like me are watching very closely and seeing what kind of party the GOP is. The way they treat our movement, will depend on if I join the party. I think Ron Paul should abandon the GOP and start a new party. Because the way it looks from here, the GOP is a party for old people that would rather go to war than be free. The internet is changing things, buckle up.

Sorry, Dave, but Ron Paul's supporters didn't 'disrupt' the Georgia Republican Convention as you state here. We were all duly elected delegates and, as such, were participating in our party's convention no differently than any other delegates.

It was not Ron Paul's supporters who claimed that McCain was like Jesus Christ, that was Georgia Republican State Chair Sue Everhart. It was not Ron Paul's supporters who refused to allow a call for 'division of the house' on a vote to approve Newt Gingrich's "American Solutions" platform, that was acting chairman Randy Evans, who was Newt's former counsel. And lastly it was the state GOP themselves who voted to change the rules on Friday afternoon without a quorum of delegates present in order to keep Ron Paul's supporters from making nominations from the floor on Saturday in opposition to the state GOP's list of nominees to the National Convention.

Because of reporting like yours the Republican establishment believes were are rogue outliers in the Party bent on causing havoc rather than genuine conservatives who are frustrated with our Party's contradictory and unprincipled leadership. The 'backlash' to which you refer here comes not because Ron Paul's supporters are wrong, but is instead a result of Republicans angry that RP supporters won't just shut up already about how far off course our Party has strayed.

Ron Paul supporters are not a nuisance, Dave Nalle, we are a reality check to a GOP establishment that seems hell-bent on shooting itself in the head. It is high time the party quit trying to resist us, as we're the only ones fighting to get the gun out of its hand.

Georgia Delegate

P.S. For those who are interested there is 30 minutes of video footage of the Georgia convention at thecharminitiative(dot)wordpress(dot)com. Unfortunately it doesn't show Sue Everhart's McCain/Jesus remark, nor does it show the Ron Paul supporters standing to vote for suspending the rules to allow for floor nominations. What it does show is Randy Evans' condescension toward those who foolishly thought they were at a political convention where open debate was allowed.

We love this! Your panties are all in a knot, and we're making you uncomfortable. Get used to it.

Are you serious when you write that Paul supporters are harming efforts to move the party in a more pro-liberty direction?
The only pro-liberty promises I have heard from Republicans (or from Democrats for that matter) are coming from Ron Paul! If Paul supporters don't make noise, our civil liberties are going to continue disappearing faster than unbiased reporting in the media.

You know Dave, all us supporters of Ron Paul that are supposedly so "disruptive" I really hope that everyone who is a supporter of the good doctor still vote for him in November and really disrupt the establishment! As far as us harming moving the party in a more pro-liberty direction, what do you have to say about John McCain who wants to restrict free speech and even wants blogs to go through government approval before they can be posted. How exactly is that pro-liberty?

Cherry Picking: The Executive loves it, the Mass Media runs with it, but the people aren't going to buy it.

So, apparently the primary characteristics of Ron Paul supporters are that they cannot read and are bizarrely paranoid. That's the only way I can explain the first series of posts here, because they seem to have come to the conclusion that I'm attacking their movement, when the opposite is the case here.

As should be clear from the article, I think the Ron Paul movement has something very positive to contribute to the GOP. My concern is that it's being thrown away because their tactics are driving away the allies they need to actually break the stranglehold of the blue hairs and change the party. That's why it's all about 'backlash'.

Dave

This is America and all voices should be heard. The GOP is going down the wrong path, I still can't believe they backed McCain, he is a minibush. Ron Paul supporters see this, the rest of the country sees this except for the GOP. Ron Paul supporters by the numbers are getting involved in their local GOP and we are enthusiastic. Ron Paul inspires people like Obama inspires people, except Ron Paul has the track record to prove it. Obama is going to clean McCains clock in debates, because McCain is an empty shell. Ron Paul is the only candidate that I will continue to support, he walks the walk...its the message he brings to the American people. Ron Paul cares what happens to this country.

Sorry, Dave, but Ron Paul's supporters didn't 'disrupt' the Georgia Republican Convention as you state here. We were all duly elected delegates and, as such, were participating in our party's convention no differently than any other delegates.

Where did I say that here? The only thing I said about the Georgia convention was:

In Georgia Paul supporters had insufficient numbers to sway the convention, and found themselves essentially shut out. As their efforts from the floor were voted down they ended up leaving the convention and achieving little or nothing.

This is totally and completely untrue. Yes, lots of Ron Paul supporters discussed this a long time ago but the Ron Paul campaign decided that that was not the right thing to do. The campaign, above all else, wants us to act with integrity and to do this would not be taking the high road.

I was just at my republican state convention, were you? The McCain people were the ones who used the rules against us. They used Stalin-style tactics such as handing out ballots that only had one name on them and they would not count any write ins. (They always got 100% of the vote, sound familiar?) They tried to use Robert's Rules to cut off all debate or dissent. They even walked out in order to prevent any form of debate (which is the whole point of going to the convention at all) and they "lost" people's paperwork and wouldn't let them participate. Why are people not writing about that?

We have always acted with dignity. We have played by their rules without using them against them. If you don't believe me, tell me one single time when we have actually used Robert's Rules in order to disrupt the convention?

And also, you speak about how we're creating "backlash" you couldn't be further from the truth. At my convention I've heard a ton of people saying how they were McCain supporters and after seeing the McCain campaign's actions they decided they were in the Paul camp. Every convention we go to people come over to our side and it's BECAUSE we act with integrity and it's not politics as usual. That's why we fight.

In Indiana, we did the only thing we could do: stood to vote no in opposition to the hand picked selection of delegate, electors, and committeemen. We didn't cause a scene or disruption.

The utter shocked look on people's faces from the surprise of us daring to disagree with the party was discouraging to me. I didn't go to the convention to be a rubber stamp sheep. I'm a part of the team when the team follows the rules.

Funny thing is, we're not enemies. Most of the Republicans I know in Indiana can't STAND McCain, and only barely tolerate Daniels. Why is it they just can't see that we're on the same team?

I hope Texas gets some headway with their lawsuit. I'm thankful in my county/district, the leaders are respectful, excited about having us involved, and are true conservatives. Unfortunately, I don't think that's the case state or nationwide.

Ron Paul lost.

Move on.

Clav,

Dave writes yet another of his Ron-Paul-and-GOP-internal-politics screeds, with the usual predictable response.

I'm done even reading them. Let's all move on!

I am just old enough to recall that similar charges and countercharges circulated about the Goldwater people during the times prior to his finally securing the GOP nomination.

So will it always be when a failing, flailing entrenched smug atherosclerotic gerontocracy finds itself unexpectedly -- and these things always understandably are unexpected -- challenged by the young turks, in any organization at all times and in all places throughout history.

Apparently McCain "would rather be right than President." Recall that strategy worked out so well for President Henry Clay.

The GOP of the neocon establishment ilk needs some years out of power in the desert for the surviving elements to come to terms with the egregious failings of the past decade or so.

What is fascinating to me is that it took the Democrats decades longer in power unchallenged to become as arrogant, cynical and abusive of office as the GOP became since 1994. I hate to say anything nice about them then or now, but I have to wonder why. Perhaps it was the messianic zeal of the religious element who felt that they had a divine mandate to rule in all senses of the word.

It would be better in the long run so as to avoid having the message mixed when the November rout occurs, if McCain were to pick one of the cloned dwarfs who stood with him on the stage to be his running mate. Thank goodness Ron Paul has ruled out running with McCain so long as McCain holds the positions he does. That forecloses the possibility that the electoral discrediting of the GOP in 2008 will be confounded in the popular mind with the views of authentic Republicans in the Taft/Goldwater/Paul tradition.

This is totally and completely untrue. Yes, lots of Ron Paul supporters discussed this a long time ago but the Ron Paul campaign decided that that was not the right thing to do. The campaign, above all else, wants us to act with integrity and to do this would not be taking the high road.

The truth is that this the description of tactics being used by both sides in this article is based on what's actually happening at the state conventions.

I was just at my republican state convention, were you?

If you had bothered to read the article you'd know it's not until next week.

The McCain people were the ones who used the rules against us. They used Stalin-style tactics such as handing out ballots that only had one name on them and they would not count any write ins. (They always got 100% of the vote, sound familiar?) They tried to use Robert's Rules to cut off all debate or dissent. They even walked out in order to prevent any form of debate (which is the whole point of going to the convention at all) and they "lost" people's paperwork and wouldn't let them participate. Why are people not writing about that?

If you had read the article you'd know that this is what I'm reporting on. This is the backlash mentioned in the title.

We have always acted with dignity. We have played by their rules without using them against them. If you don't believe me, tell me one single time when we have actually used Robert's Rules in order to disrupt the convention?

Follow the links.

And also, you speak about how we're creating "backlash" you couldn't be further from the truth. At my convention I've heard a ton of people saying how they were McCain supporters and after seeing the McCain campaign's actions they decided they were in the Paul camp. Every convention we go to people come over to our side and it's BECAUSE we act with integrity and it's not politics as usual. That's why we fight.

What you're describing here is backlash against the backlash, and I guess that's a good thing - but the problem is that it doesn't get anything accomplished.

Dave

@ Georgia Delegate

The McCain camp didn't have much of a choice but to change the rules to supercede Robert's Rules. They had to make a decision that would bring about the most good to the majority of the party. Allowing the Paul people to make nominations from the floor in opposition to the ones that were already chosen by the nominating committee would have been a disaster. The convention would have never ended. The same is true with all the other state conventions. The GOP leadership has to "bend" the rules so to speak in order to prevent the Paul people from taking over or from influencing other delegates that may or may not understand certain GOP positions/resolutions. I thought Randy Evans did a superb job of "quelling the rebellion" even though as it turned out, the Paul people didn't have a majority. Contrary to popular opinion, the purpose of the state conventions is NOT to elect national delegates...those are already elected by the nominating committee. The purpose is to celebrate the Republican Party, and every four years, we celebrate the Republican nominee for President. If you want to be a national delegate, you have to earn it.

Knowing that, you have to admit that the Paul people were treated very fairly. The Paul people were the ones that were disrupting the convention and even booing the chairman. When things got out of hand, or when a Paul person was contesting a resolution that absolutely did NOT need to be contested, Randy Evans would politely and professionally rule their motion "out of order" or even turn their mic down. One guy was hauled off by security I think because he wouldn't shut up, and he seemed to be threatening the chairman. This is the kind of stuff that we (and especially the chairman) had to put up with. And we weren't going to tolerate it. As they say, "desperate times call for desperate measures".

Look, McCain wasn't my first choice, but as the primaries progressed, it was clear that he was the choice of the majority of the Republican Party. At that point, I knew that I had to align myself with his candidacy and support him. That is what you need to do. Join the Republican party or create your own party. As of now, you really don't belong in the GOP.

Support McCain!

Odd, that last description doesn't sound like the prior claim of Paul supporters "acting with dignity and respect".

Clearly there are two very different perspectives here.

I do think that our last Georgian is off-base in suggesting that the convention is for no purpose but to celebrate the party and candidate. There ought to be provisions for reasonable challenges to delegates and to changing the slate of delegates at the convention.

The nominating committee process allows for very little input, and those who aren't part of the in-group do deserve some sort of voice, and the convention may be the only place they can be heard. So they ought to be heard - but their demands should be reasonable and not disruptive and they shouldn't be trying to completely take over conventions. There needs to be a process where the factions can meet part way and work out a compromise which benefits everyone fairly.

Dave

To all you McCainiacs

What should be important to everyone is whoever gets picked should fulfill their job according the country's rule book, the Constitution.

When you are watching professional sports everyone expects the judges to not take sides or have their own agenda. They are expected to make sure that both sides stick to the rules. I don't see why a President or any other person "SWORN" to uphold and defend it should have a "platform" The platform has been laid out since 1776 and if the rules are to change, there are appropriate ways to do it and that doesn't mean voting for the next Dictator because you like the platform of that Dictator.

For those of you that think America is a Democracy or that the Federal Reserve is Federal, please do your country and the rest of us a favor by staying home on election day. You are far too uninformed to be choosing our next leader. America is a Republic and the Federal Reserve is privately owned with 12 member banks.

For those of you who just can't figure out what it is going through the minds of the Paul supporters I would suggest for starters watching the online videos Overview of America and America Freedom to Fascism.

I think I can speak for most Paul supporters when I say that living in this country is like being on an ice burgh where the majority of the people want to ride it out while the Paul people are screaming from the roof tops to get off the burgh and into the boat but Americans think the boat is too nutty of an idea. We have been playing this game of arguing over Democrat versus Republican with each having their left or right platform and we then tend to vote based on that and forget all about the Constitution as do our leaders.

We are just trying to save the country from things that you are not yet aware of. Please understand this. Please just watch the videos and the light just might come on in your head.

My wife and I donated the max allowed for Ron Pauls campaign. I joined the local RP meetup group. My wife and I went door to door handing out RP campaign material. This from a couple who has never voted for a presidential candidate before. We're watching the GOP's action to determine if they deserve our support.

Jack, you express brilliantly (if accidentally) why so many of us are frustrated with the Ron Paul supporters.

First, there's the condescension. Do you honestly think that the rest of us don't want to follow the constitution? That we don't know the difference between a Republic and a Democracy? The problem here is that you want to follow an edited version of the Constitution and ignore the parts you don't like. As for the Federal Reserve, we all know what it is, but that doesn't mean that we agree that it's a bad thing. Most libertarians think that privatizing government institutions is a GOOD thing.

Then there's the videos you mention. Twaddle from Alex Jones and other JBS stooges. Most of us aren't interested in being part of the lunatic fringe.

It's not that we're unware of the problems in this country, it's that we want real solutions to real problems, not fantasy solutions to paranoid problems.

Dave

With Barr in the race, McCain can't win... So make your choice republicans, Barr Or Obama?

The Ron Paulers will never support McCain unless water boarding is implemented as the newest GOP recruiting tool.

Ron Paul has his own party, It's the Libertarian Party.

My wife and I donated the max allowed for Ron Pauls campaign. I joined the local RP meetup group. My wife and I went door to door handing out RP campaign material. This from a couple who has never voted for a presidential candidate before. We're watching the GOP's action to determine if they deserve our support.

So what would make them 'deserve' your support? Giving Ron Paul the nomination despite the fact that he didn't win even close to a majority of the primary vote or the delegates? If that's your standard then you're not being realistic.

Would you be satisfied if the party platform looked somewhat more reasonable than it has since 1964 and if Paul got a decent speaking slot at the national convention? At this point that's about all you can realistically hope for. More change might be possible in an off-year.

Dave

Up here in Washington the McCain supporters walked out of the convention, attempting to break the quorum so we couldn't debate resolutions. We spent 45 minutes counting people, then when we still had enough people to continue, they all came rushing back in from the hallway. They proceeded to stall another 45 minutes while they could all return, and by then we didn't have enough people vote to extend the convention.

Who's being disruptive here?

They would deserve our support by 1) recognizing the party has drifted far far away from it's platform of smaller government and more liberties, and 2) follow their own GOP rules.

You mentioned that the Fed can't be all bad because it's privatized, and that that is what libertarians' goal is. That's incorrect, libertarians goal is for a free market. for instance if the government passed a law requiring you to buy your chicken from Tyson's that would indeed be a product produced by a private company but it would be a far cry from being a free market. Its the same with the Federal Reserve and their product (The Federal Reserve Note).

Keep up the good work everyone! Obama is a shoe-in for the presidency and I thank you all for your efforts to make that even more likely.

To the Republicans: your lying, incompetence, greed, and nepotism have shown the country your true nature..

To the Paulestinians: your complete detachment from reality and incredible tenacity will disrupt the GOP machinery and siphon off votes.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Dave says:

"So what would make them 'deserve' your support? Giving Ron Paul the nomination despite the fact that he didn't win even close to a majority of the primary vote or the delegates? If that's your standard then you're not being realistic.

Would you be satisfied if the party platform looked somewhat more reasonable than it has since 1964 and if Paul got a decent speaking slot at the national convention? At this point that's about all you can realistically hope for. More change might be possible in an off-year.

Dave"

Treating us like Republicans would be a start. Not being an RP supporter, I am sure that you're not aware of the constant GOP and media treatment that we've been getting from the beginning of the race. The conventions are just more of the same. Turn away and mock the Ron Paul supporters, and forget the fact that all these people were elected to their positions. And now we have resistance to letting us run for local PCO and smaller seats. They're changing the rules or telling us we can't file to run, or any number of other things to try to stop us from being on the ballot.

Again, who's being disruptive here?

They would deserve our support by 1) recognizing the party has drifted far far away from it's platform of smaller government and more liberties, and 2) follow their own GOP rules.

How do you measure the first, and how do you enforce the second?

People from every wing of the party have been expressing concern for years that the party is not holding politicians accountable for their actions. We keep hammering that issue and yet the voters keep reelecting the same useless fools.

As for enforcing their own rules, it seems to me like the party has been operating conventions on an unwritten set of rules for years, and the problem is that they don't conform to the expectations and assumptions of newcomers who want things to be run differently and will settle for nothing less than absolute control.

You mentioned that the Fed can't be all bad because it's privatized,

I didn't say anything like that, actually.

Dave

The backlash of which you speak has certainly not been very politic. I mean, the GOP has merely solidified the poor perceptions that Ron Paul supporters had of it, and offending them to the point of voting for Bob Barr seems a bit like shooting themselves in the foot.

Indeed, the McCain worker who said that McCain didn't want the Ron Paul vote and they should all "get lost" is very likely to get exactly what he wished for.

But McCain has never been the sharpest tool in the shed....

Treating us like Republicans would be a start.

You miss my entire point here. The actions of Ron Paul supporters are having negative consequences for other GOP activists too.

Not being an RP supporter,

What makes you think I'm not? I've been a libertarian since before most of RP's supporters were born. I've campaigned for him and voted for him and donated money to his campaigns. What I do not support is pseudolibertarians from the John Birch society using extreme tactics which are driving the GOP back into the arms of the relgious right.

I am sure that you're not aware of the constant GOP and media treatment that we've been getting from the beginning of the race.

I'm fully aware of the complaints about it. The evidence to support those complaints is pretty sketchy, especially when it comes to persecution in the MSM. Paul got way more exposure than any of the other also-rans.

The conventions are just more of the same. Turn away and mock the Ron Paul supporters, and forget the fact that all these people were elected to their positions. And now we have resistance to letting us run for local PCO and smaller seats. They're changing the rules or telling us we can't file to run, or any number of other things to try to stop us from being on the ballot.

Now this is a new story. I'd love to hear more about it. Can you provide any sources or definite information that I can follow up on?

Dave

Again, who's being disruptive here?

You know Dave, all us supporters of Ron Paul that are supposedly so "disruptive" I really hope that everyone who is a supporter of the good doctor still vote for him in November and really disrupt the establishment!

That extra hand-motion to throw invalid ballots in the trash might create a rash of carpal tunnel syndrome, I guess.

As far as us harming moving the party in a more pro-liberty direction, what do you have to say about John McCain who wants to restrict free speech and even wants blogs to go through government approval before they can be posted. How exactly is that pro-liberty?

I'd say that's a self-serving, bullshit interpretation of things McCain has advocated. I'm no fan of his campaign finance reform ideas, but they certainly didn't include direct government censorship of any form of private individual speech.

Dave

Good constructive criticism. Helpful discussion in the comments. I think what we really need is for more people like those in comment #3 to post full videos of their conventions so that we can all judge for ourselves who is acting with integrity and who isn't.

I support Ron Paul all the way and I encourage all bona-fide objections Republican Convention resolutions and procedures. Just because something takes up time, that doesn't necessarily make it unethically "disruptive". Getting it right takes time.

On the other hand, I do not support strategically using a rule as a means to some other end for which it was not intended. If a cleanly run convention yields a result that one finds unfavorable, then I guess one has to either live with it or leave the party.

For people to best judge for themselves whether the Republican party is running clean conventions, we need to see more videos like the one posted in comment #3.

I don't think it matters that John McCain is the "presumptive" nominee. What matters is who is willing to show up for these conventions and who is willing to fight hardest for their preferred candidate within the letter and spirit of the rules of the party.

There is a point in Ron Paul's most recent book that I think is very important, that being that the extreme enmity that Americans have for each other at election time is premised upon the realization that both parties absolutley will operate outside the rulebook. Americans fear great harm coming to them as a result of what the other party will do to them if it should be elected.

Ron Paul reminds us that the constitution forbids the government from doing harm to any of us. If the president and congress were abiding by the constitution, no one would have anything to fear by the other party getting elected. The worse thing that could happen is for the electorate to be a bit annoyed with the government, not actually harmed by them.

The Democrats rightly fear what the Republicans will do outside the constitution and the Republicans fear what the Democrats will do outside the constitution. We get to choose bewteen having our property seized or having our civil liberties eliminated. Nice choice....

But since neither party wants to commit to playing by the rulebook, since their power comes from playing outside the rulebook, not playing within it -- and since they are both too cowardly to openly denounce the rulebook -- we have a nation that will continue to be divided against itself.

It is only the Libertarians (with both large and small l's) and Constitutionalists who demand that government play by its own rules. That concept has become so foreign to Americans as to now seem kooky. But would it really be so hard to do...?

Another Georgia Delegate said, "Look, McCain wasn't my first choice, but as the primaries progressed, it was clear that he was the choice of the majority of the Republican Party. At that point, I knew that I had to align myself with his candidacy and support him. That is what you need to do. Join the Republican party or create your own party. As of now, you really don't belong in the GOP."

Not too long after McCain was "crowned", I added the numbers up and found that McCain and 9iu11iani together managed eight million votes and Romney, Huckabee, Paul and Thompson together got about eleven and a half million votes up to that point. How do you figure you are in the minority by not preferring McCain? Are you happy your neocon bosses carefully split the conservative vote? Does this please you? Are you sure there's enough difference between him and Obama to be worth fighting for?

If we won't get behind McCain does it really mean more than that we think for ourselves? And if this is the reason you say we don't belong in the G.O.P., isn't that sad?

I think this is the last Nalle blog I will read. Im sure you can find something to write about other than desparaging Paul supporters while touting McSame. How many McCain Points are you earning with your blog Dave? Guys like you *rely* on us for your hits because you can't discuss real issues. Im done feeding into it.

JP. As far as I can tell this article isn't even vaguely about McCain. He's just mentioned in passing in the first paragraph.

BTW liberty is still liberty even if it doesn't come with Ron Paul and the fascist agenda of the birchers attached to it.

I think this is the last Nalle blog I will read.

Did you actually READ this one? I doubt it.

Im sure you can find something to write about other than desparaging Paul supporters while touting McSame.

Where do I tout McCain? I'm indifferent to him.

How many McCain Points are you earning with your blog Dave?

I didn't realize they were giving out points. Where do I collect them?

Guys like you *rely* on us for your hits because you can't discuss real issues. Im done feeding into it.

If I just wanted hits there are easier ways to get them, though the comments of B5 and Pretty Ricky fans are at about the same intellectual level of most Ron Paul supporters.

Dave

Hah - right, Dave. The whole party is out of line and you only expect Ron Paul's supporters to take the high road? This is politics baby. Don't be such a pussy.

Dave,
I notice you didn't respond to the Washington convention comment (#24). And what did you say about the Fed that was different than the Tyson example? Also, I could give you countless examples of the media's and the GOP establishment's poor treatment of Paul. I am shocked that you deny this persecution. It started with Saul Anuzis.

Cheers

You'd think I'd get sick of the "Nalle writes about Paul, then random Paul supporters bitch him out" routine by now. I'd have thought so too. We were both wrong.

Interesting. Aren't the tactics you describe what anyone would do? After all, politics in America is a contact sport.

I think many people consider the paulites "annoying" or "hostile" because of ideological differences within the party e.g. libertarian vs. more mainstream philosophy.

It's interesting to watch those that make rules and laws squirm when they are put into a situation where they have to abide by them themselves.

Strange how Ron Paul supporters following their own goals within the rules is considered disruptive while McCain folks breaking the rules in order to protect unwritten rules is considered acceptable.

I too will be there in TX as a delegate and I have had the bylaws in my bathroom as reading material for months. I hope the rules are followed.

Their contention is that the plan to run most of the convention under the authority of the temporary Chairman and executive committee appointed prior to the convention is a violation of Texas election law and that the first order of business ought to be to elect new leadership. I don't know Texas election law well enough to say whether they have a case, but it certainly seems much more reasonable to run the convention that way.

Texas Election Code Sec. 174.094 & .095

§ 174.094. ORGANIZING THE CONVENTION. (a) The state
chair is the temporary chair of the biennial state convention.
(b) The temporary chair shall call the convention to order.
(c) The temporary chair shall prepare a list of the names
and residence addresses of the delegates and any alternate
delegates to the convention and shall deliver the list to the
convention.
(d) The convention shall select a convention chair and a
convention secretary. The convention may select any other officers
considered necessary to conduct the convention's business.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986. Amended by
Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 864, § 186, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.


§ 174.095. CONVENTION BUSINESS. After the convention is
organized, the convention shall conduct its business.


The law is pretty doggone clear. The court agreed.

You touched on it, but it needs to be made abundantly clear that the Ron Paul people did not start even this fight in Texas, they have basically been reinforcements. This particular issue has been raised for something like 12 years, but this is the first time people have been fed up enough to go to court. The lawyer in the case, Gary Polland, is himself an outspoken McCain supporter. There are affidavits filed from at least one Huckabee voter and someone else I know supported Thompson and then Romney.

Despite this there's really no question the media and party establishment are going to try to paint it as a Ron Paul issue. It's just too hard for some to believe that we honestly just want respect for the law and fair debate and fair votes, and for the majority to win while respecting the rights of the minority. It is not some kind of parliamentary trick to ask the rules be followed when they aren't, people have just been abusing them so long they barely remember what they are.

They also have concerns about irregularities in various district convention, a knife which cuts both ways because there seem to be as many instances where Ron Paul supporters abused the process as there are of abuse by party insiders.

Can you please cite one example of abuse by Paul supporters?

The irregularities in question are not minor, by the way. Nueces County added unelected delegate and threw people out when they complained. They've been continuing that abuse ever since. Now the 13th Court of Appeals has ordered Nueces County Chairman Mike Bertuzzi to grant access to the copies of precinct convention minutes as required by both Party rule and TEC so we can hopefully get to the bottom of just how bad it was.

More details available here.

It appears to be an uphill battle, with many of their efforts devolving into little more than delaying tactics and spreading chaos, and in many cases generating a hostile backlash from the party establishment which is harming efforts to move the party in a more pro-liberty direction.

The only group preventing the Republican party from moving in a pro-liberty direction is the Republican party. They openly want to go the other direction.

This is one of the two worst articles I've ever read. The other one was on this site also. The entire article is based on lies and a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Ron Paul delegates are not disrupting GOP conventions. They are being shut out of the conventions with all manner of dirty tricks.

To stand up for ourselves is disruptive. To stand up for the rule of law is disruptive. To do anything that the Republican party doesn't approve of beforehand is going to be considered disruptive. To do ANYTHING in any manner, shape or form that the Republican party decides is soooo 5 minutes ago, is going to be declared disruptive.

So what's your point?

Why the hell would I care if the Republican party leadership was happy anyway? When was the last time they gave a rats ass about the rest of us? Considering that McCain is their darling child, it's obvious to any sane and cognitive amoeba that this whole presidential race is a sham. So if you want to live on your knees, then by all means, be very very careful not to ripple the water.

@Another Georgia Delegate
If you want to be a national delegate, you have to earn it.

National delegates are elected (in a fair convention) at the state convention, by their fellow state convention delegates. It's not something you earn.

Dave, keep working and honing that journalistic skill. Some day, who knows, you may just have a marketable skill.

Strange how Ron Paul supporters following their own goals within the rules is considered disruptive while McCain folks breaking the rules in order to protect unwritten rules is considered acceptable.

No, the behavior of the party insiders is considered oppressive and abusive, not acceptable. And don't label them all as McCain supporters. They are mostly supporters of their own interests and little power bases and have no real connection to McCain and certainly don't get their marching orders from him.

Dave

As a supporter of Ron Paul I will never vote for John McCain. I might even consider swallowing the blue pill in as protest vote.

SYou touched on it, but it needs to be made abundantly clear that the Ron Paul people did not start even this fight in Texas, they have basically been reinforcements. This particular issue has been raised for something like 12 years, but this is the first time people have been fed up enough to go to court.

I go into this in detail in my other recent article which frenzied readers have largely ignored.

Can you please cite one example of abuse by Paul supporters?

IMO the events in SD25 are as much an abuse of the process as anything which party insiders did to Ron Paul supporters. Totally taking over a convention and then throwing out all the non RP delegates and replacing them with Ron Paul delegates is exactly the same kind of abuse of the system as the evil overlords were practicing at other conventions. And there's also a legitimate concern about any convention where Paul got delegates assigned to him far out of proportion to his showing in the primary vote. That means that voters who did not support Paul are being disenfranchised.

The irregularities in question are not minor, by the way. Nueces County added unelected delegate and threw people out when they complained.

There are worse stories from other states. I probably ought to do a whole report on Colorado where they had cops dragging people out of the convention.

They've been continuing that abuse ever since.

IMO the wrost abuse - which I reference in my other article - is the violations of the open meetings act when the credentials committee refused to let Ron Paul supporters sit in and observe their proceedings. A clear and blatant violation of Texas law.

Now the 13th Court of Appeals has ordered Nueces County Chairman Mike Bertuzzi to grant access to the copies of precinct convention minutes as required by both Party rule and TEC so we can hopefully get to the bottom of just how bad it was.

I assume that's on the agenda for Monday's hearing. If anyone has contacts among the plaintiffs I'd love any info I can put into an article about the outcome of the suit.

Dave

Declare Your Independence!! Stop "Gang Mentality" Politics!! Say Eff U to the Democrats and Eff U to the Republicans! Register as an Independent!! What is the point of "party" allegiance?

I think Ron Paul would get more support if he could get proper air time to get his message across. The political race definitely isn't a fair race when exposure is directly related to money, which is a breeding ground for corruption. I would be curious to know who would win if they all had a limit on how much they could spend. I mean a real freakin' limit.

Check this out.

So this is Dave Nalle's "work"?

Well, I don't want to get too personal, but I have skimmed the article and browsed the comments, and:

"The problem here is that you want to follow an edited version of the Constitution and ignore the parts you don't like. As for the Federal Reserve, we all know what it is, but that doesn't mean that we agree that it's a bad thing. Most libertarians think that privatizing government institutions is a GOOD thing."

Then later, when someone said...

"You mentioned that the Fed can't be all bad because it's privatized,"

you responded

"I didn't say anything like that, actually."

Actually, it was very like that. I must point out that since you apparently don't agree that the Fed (central bank) is a bad thing, then you are at odds not only with Ron Paul, but also Thomas Jefferson.

Therefore, it is you who finds the Constitution wanting, since it contains no provisions for a central bank and specifies the use of gold and silver as money, and it is you who think that you know better than Paul and Jefferson.

Sorry Dave, but I'm going to have to go with those other guys over you on monetary economics. Nothing personal about it.

As for this comment on McCain...

"I'm no fan of his campaign finance reform ideas, but they certainly didn't include direct government censorship of any form of private individual speech."

What kind of doubletalk is this? "...they certainly didn't include direct government censorship of any form of private individual speech"? Well, gee, so what? They certainly didn't require anyone's balls to get cut off either - and for that we're supposed to be so grateful?

The point here, which Dave hopes that no one gets, is that EVERYTHING ELSE but that, including all public speech by all private individuals and all financial support by private individuals, IS in McCain's freedom-seeking missile sights.

Dave Nalle was never a libertarian. I don't buy that for a second. It's a typical tactic - pretending that he "used to be a libertarian, till he saw the error of his ways" blah blah blah. Oh, please - we've heard this tired old refrain a million times before and it's so obviously a load of bullcrap.

He's a statist, and obviously doesn't have a clue - not a freaking clue what is wrong with this country. Either that or the truth is far worse - he DOES know the truth deep down, but just doesn't have the guts to admit it to himself or to others.

What's amazing is that every prediction that Paul and the Austrians have made is coming true right now, and these statists just can't face it. They have resorted to stomping their feet with their fingers in their ears, shouting "I can't hear you!!" over and over. The juvenile behavior of the mainstream GOP when faced with strong Ron Paul support at straw polls and state conventions is a case in point. Many cases in fact.

It's no wonder Paul supporters are trying to take over. They should take over. Mainstreamers and their pipe-sucking statist visions have destroyed our economy with their elitist, inflationary, warlike policies, and all the real adjustments that have been delayed for so long are headed this way fast for a totally unprepared America to deal with.

Meanwhile, people like Nalle are still spinning their stupid propaganda webs to make sure that as few people as possible will be prepared.

That's not a legacy I'd want.

"skimmed" and "browsed" huh?

So much for your opinion; that's as far into your comment as I found it necessary to go.

Typical paulbot propagandist.

He lost; get over it.

My experiences were the exact opposite at the WA state convention. It was the GOP establishment that was subverting order. We tried to count when it was obvious they did not have 2/3 and they would not allow a count. But they demanded a count, they got it, to protest a quorum count that they did not think we could meet. They wasted 2+HOURS on these tactics meant to shut down debate on substantive issues like Real ID and NAIS. If anything, a lot of McCain delegates defected for us to win that quorum vote (the one they got the roll count on that we won 2 to one--talk about frivolous counting). I believe that many of the McCain delegates started to wake up that day. They also violated state law in not allowing us to chose 19 of the delegates.

I'm a lifelong Republican. Over the past 8-years, I'd grown so disappointed in the "big government, anti-freedom" Republican Party exemplified by George W. Bush that I considered leaving the party for the Libertarian Party.

Ron Paul gave me hope that the Republican Party could return to its roots: fiscal conservatism, pro-freedom, pro-Constitution.

I'm a Republican delegate in Texas. As such, I have the right to speak my mind at the convention.

If the convention becomes nothing more than a "shut up and do as the party leaders tell you" affair, why bother having a convention at all?

I won't be voting for McCain- he is just too much like Bush, and I won't be opening my checkbook anymore until the Republican Party gets back to what it says it stands for...

Fuck you to the establishment GOP and McCain supporters. You and your fascist's ilk are the disruptive ones! Go to hell! Yaw right, I'm going to vote for someone who believes in Global Warming and giving amnesty to millions of illegals! Ha! Barr/Root 2008! Kiss my ass former Republican ass!

Actually, it was very like that. I must point out that since you apparently don't agree that the Fed (central bank) is a bad thing, then you are at odds not only with Ron Paul, but also Thomas Jefferson.

Thomas Jefferson was not our only founding father. He was one of the most notable ones, but so were Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, both of whom supported a central bank.

Therefore, it is you who finds the Constitution wanting, since it contains no provisions for a central bank and specifies the use of gold and silver as money, and it is you who think that you know better than Paul and Jefferson.

You see, unlike you and so many Ron Paul supporters, I've actually READ the Constitution, not just some cribbed notes on it published by the JBS.

The Constitution does not in fact specify the use of gold and silver as money when issued by the federal government. What it does say in Article 1, Section 10, is that the states may not issue paper money or any kind of debt instrument or currency except for gold and silver, specifically because that power is reserved for the federal government, which is given the power to "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof." And that does not specify what the money should be coined of - it could be made of paper or eagle feathers so long as the value is regulated by the Congress.

What's more, the idea of a national bank has been upheld by the Supreme Court over and over again. Surely they still teach McCulloch vs. Maryland in High School government classes?

The point here, which Dave hopes that no one gets, is that EVERYTHING ELSE but that, including all public speech by all private individuals and all financial support by private individuals, IS in McCain's freedom-seeking missile sights.

Really? Perhaps you could enumerate for me exactly where those limitations are in the McCain -Feingold act? Here's a copy of the law for your reference. It might be a good read. BTW, the only restriction on contributions or speech by individuals under the act is the change in the amount they can donate. But look it up for yourself, don't take my word for it.

Dave Nalle was never a libertarian. I don't buy that for a second.

My libertarian credentials are a matter of public record. Go find an old copy of Liberty Magazine with my name on the masthead, or send me $20 and I'll ship you one of my old campaign yard signs.

It's a typical tactic - pretending that he "used to be a libertarian, till he saw the error of his ways" blah blah blah. Oh, please - we've heard this tired old refrain a million times before and it's so obviously a load of bullcrap.

When did I say I 'used' to be a libertarian? I still am a libertarian. I just don't think that libertarianism is limited to a single brand name approved by Ron Paul and the JBS.

He's a statist,

I'd love to see your reasoning here. Being critical of Ron Paul supporters automatically makes me a statist? Does being critical of the Iraq War automatically make one a terrorist?

and obviously doesn't have a clue - not a freaking clue what is wrong with this country.

There's a lot wrong with the country - so much that I find wasting effort going after imaginary 9/11 conspirators and ranting about the CFR to be shameful wastes of the resources we need to set things right.

Dave

Mr. Nalle is trying to make a good point. We, the Ron Paul Republicans, will make more progress if we work with the party regulars than if we work against them. The problem, that Mr. Nalle doesn't seem willing to acknowledge is that most of the old guard don't have any intention or desire to work with us. We don't "disrupt conventions" because that is our choice, if we do it, we do it because we have little choice. We are ignored, challenged and stonewalled when we try to work with many of them and to work within the normal process. We cooperate when we can, work for the party when we can, and fight when we have to. Mr. Nalle says that our efforts are counterproductive, but he doesn't give us a viable alternative other than to quit fighting and take whatever scraps of representation, which is often none, that the party establishment wishes to grant us. This isn't acceptable.

Let's face it, this is a fight for the soul of the party. We reject the neo-con agenda, for those who are neo-cons, and there are many in the leadership positions of the GOP, there will be no acceptance of us. We will also not accept their positions, so there will be conflict. Currently, they hold the reins, but the conservative Republicans, including the Ron Paul Rebublicans, but also many others, represent the silent majority of the party and the neo-con days are numbered.

RAndy, I think you have some good points. But many of the old guard would like to work with you, but have been scared out of doing so.

Their leaders tell them that Ron Paul people are coming to assault the party and stage a takeover. You then act like that's exactly what you have in mind. They take that as confirmation of your hostile intentions and react accordingly.

The party leaders and insiders may indeed be at fault, but Ron Paul supporters are playing into their hands by acting exactly like the agents of chaos they are accused of being.

We reject the neo-con agenda, for those who are neo-cons, and there are many in the leadership positions of the GOP, there will be no acceptance of us. We will also not accept their positions, so there will be conflict. Currently, they hold the reins, but the conservative Republicans, including the Ron Paul Rebublicans, but also many others, represent the silent majority of the party and the neo-con days are numbered.

Another Paulite with this same garbage about neocons. Do you know who the neocons are? No one in a position of power in the Texas GOP is likely to be a bonafide neocon. There are a lot of folks from the religious right and some people who are very conservative, and some who like a lot of traditional republicans believe in an assertive foreign policy, but none of them are former socialists who believe in a quasi-stalinist foreign policy and building an American Empire. Real neocons are a tiny minority of the party and are mostly a bunch of policy wonks in think tanks with little or no real power.

Damn I'm tired of seeing leftists and paulites misusing that term.

Dave

Ron Paul's supporters are not messing up the conventions, we are standing our ground and fighting to get our party back. We are working within the party rules and at every turn getting messed over by the entrenched neocons who currently hold power in the GOP.

The conservatives in the Republican party just won't stomach John McCain as the nominee because he doesn't represent us and he has no shot at winning in November. The GOP is setting us up to fail.

Ron Paul's supporters are not messing up the conventions, we are standing our ground and fighting to get our party back. We are working within the party rules and at every turn getting messed over by the entrenched neocons who currently hold power in the GOP.

The conservatives in the Republican party just won't stomach John McCain as the nominee because he doesn't represent us and he has no shot at winning in November. The GOP is setting us up to fail.

Are you a conservative or a libertarian? They're not the same thing, you know.

Dave

Mr Nalle,
I don't believe you were at the MN convention. I was. It was the party regulars who introduced temporary rules that were against state party constitution, regarding percentages (knowing we were about 40%, they raised debate to 66%). It would take 66% of the people to modify that rule that was there from the start.
It was the conservative people around me who didn't understand the parliamentary moves at the beginning of the question then later saw the desperation of the GOP calling the question after a motion was brought forth, NO DEBATE at all, the WHOLE convention.

I covered some of the underhanded tactics at my blog. They didn't even allow republicans to run for national delegate, only the ones they wanted to go through. No nominees from the floor, that took...you guessed it, 66% of the counted delegation body.

Additionally, you cannot "hide behind Robert's rules". If you don't like them, change them. We utilize the rules to operate the convention.

It's too bad that the state party chairman (Ron Carey) violated party bylaws by endorsing a candidate (Huckabee) as well as providing isolational treatment to one candidate and preferential treatment to another. Carey sent the entire delegate body name and address to the McCain camp warning them they better get people to the convention or the "Paulites" will take it over. Rumor has it the McCain camp paid delegates to come, and paid for their hotels as well.

Funny, all we wanted to do is change the rules to A) allow delegate nominations from the floor
or
B) allow our delegates to be on the ballot.

We wanted nothing else other than our delegates on the ballot (and we can win or lose on our own merits, not the state party picking the winners months in advance.

READ IT,SIGN IT and SPREAD IT mccains campaign is over

It's very refreshing to see a libertarian stand up to the Ron Paul cult. I'm no libertarian - I find the ideology to be naive and unrealistic, much like, say, Communism - but I have to say Dave Nalle has caused me to respect genuine libertarians (as opposed to Paultards) a bit more.

Clavos, you fool - my "skimming and browsing" is more intellectually productive than if you were to study the article for a year.

My question to you is, if we are all Paulbot propagandists - then how, specifically and factually, does that propaganda differ from the Constitution?

***
Steely Dan for Kyle:

Kyle, you wouldn't even know a cult if it was deep within your plan, and what you find refreshing I can't understand.

Are you in denial he - re?
pretending Dave's the ma - an?
You're logic's mighty que - eer
better get a brain sca - an

**

Dave - Hamilton and Adams didn't understand economics as well as Jefferson, and they were simply wrong. The proof is in the pudding here; we're staring down the barrel of the collapse of the international banking system right now. Volcker himself has confirmed as much. If central banking were so great, and such an advance over the international gold standard, then it shouldn't be happening.

History supports Jefferson, and delaying the collapse of fiat systems by decades does not somehow make them stable. Not to mention that they hand the nations currency supply over to banks, thereby allowing the common man (who actually produces something) to fall further and further behind the banking class.

As to your other comments on constitutional money...they are juvenile and ignorant.

First off, everyone knows the founders did not like paper money - that's why there was a coinage act of 1792 specifying the "Spanish Milled Dollar" as the official currency unit of the United States.

Second, one cannot coin money out of anything but metal. Your statement here is absurd.

Third, and most importantly, we can easily deduce from that very same part of the constitution that there is no federal constitutional power to create money out of thin air at will. It's very simple! There can be no such power, because if there were, then there would never be a need to "borrow money on the credit of the United States", now would there?

No, and there is NO WAY AROUND THIS REASONING.

As to McCain, does anyone think that McCain-Feingold is his last and only assault on political speech? I didn't specify McCain- Feingold anyway, you did. It's a matter of public record that McCain opposes talk radio and many other forms of expression, and will work with the other side to enact more and more stupid legislation to regulate them.

C'mon Dave HE'S ALREADY DONE A BUNCH OF THIS STUFF, SO WHY PRETEND OTHERWISE?

As to this:

"My libertarian credentials are a matter of public record"

Yes they are, Dave, and your record of actually defending people's freedom is weak to non-existent. Who cares who you used to work for anyway? What have they ever achieved?

Finally, as to this:

ME "He's a statist,

DAVE I'd love to see your reasoning here. Being critical of Ron Paul supporters automatically makes me a statist? Does being critical of the Iraq War automatically make one a terrorist?

ME My reasoning is that too much government - period - is clearly the problem in this country. Nothing else really comes close. So, if someone supports anti-libertarian candidates like McCain, and attacks pro-freedom, pro-constitutional candidates like Paul (and his supporters) who actually want to cut the state down some, then they are a statist.

Nalle is supporting the state here, make no mistake about it.

ME and obviously doesn't have a clue - not a freaking clue what is wrong with this country.

DAVE There's a lot wrong with the country - so much that I find wasting effort going after imaginary 9/11 conspirators and ranting about the CFR to be shameful wastes of the resources we need to set things right."

Well, suppose you give us some specifics about what is wrong with this country. Let's hear your solutions, since Paul's are wrong, and his supporters are a cult or whatever. Don't be coy man. Being a conservative, surely there is some part of government you would cut?

Ok then, what? Where? How much? When? How about "conservative" McCain? What's he going to cut? When? Where? How much? Either of you worried about the dollar? No? What are your plans to shore it up? Let us hear them, Dave.

This falling dollar is eating Americans alive Dave, what is your solution? I look forward to hearing about it, since Paul and his tards don't know what they're talking about. The drug war is destabilizing Mexico Dave - what are your plans? What are McCain's? Ron Paul's plans are public record - end the drug war. How about oil? It's a good thing that McCain is so much more advanced economically that Paul and his supporters, he'll fix everything for us and it'll be "morning in America" again, right?

Ha Ha Ha!!!

Please, Dave, argue with me some more!!

Ha Ha Ha!!!

The more they tighten their grip the more districts will slip though their fingers.

It is the fact that the party bosses are trying to keep the decisions out of the hands of the ELECTED delegates and force feed their hand picked agenda that is fueling the outrage. It doesn't take much because today there is a lot of outrage to go around from the actions of this presidency to the congress ignoring the constitution and ceding their authority to the executive branch. AND now the party telling the delegates what they stand for instead of the other way around.

As this continues I expect to hear one day that the president has decided to disband the congress as being irrelevant.

Kenny, that letter is so idiotic and so poorly reasoned that I plan to write an entire article devoted to it if I have the time today.

Dave

DAMN DAVE!!! Tom owns you!!!

But really, what are your solutions? Or McInsane's? And with a track record like theirs, you telling us you think that the Fed./Central Bank, is a good thing for America? How so? Use specifics, us PaulBots love details....

Dave - Hamilton and Adams didn't understand economics as well as Jefferson, and they were simply wrong.

For all his personal shortcomings, Hamilton was arguably one of the greatest economic minds of the 18th and 19th centuries. He had a better understanding of capitalism, credit and the market economy than any contemporary except for Smith and Mill. By comparison Jefferson could barely balance his own checkbook. Read some history. You might sound less ignorant.

The proof is in the pudding here; we're staring down the barrel of the collapse of the international banking system right now. Volcker himself has confirmed as much. If central banking were so great, and such an advance over the international gold standard, then it shouldn't be happening.

We will not and cannot return to the gold standard. The results would be economically devastating for anyone who isn't hoarding gold. There would literally be a revolution - and not the happy LOVE kind. If Paul were elected even HE would not return us to the gold standard, regardless of his claims. He might get rid of the Fed, but the treasury would have to step in to fill it's role or another institution would have to replace it.

History supports Jefferson, and delaying the collapse of fiat systems by decades does not somehow make them stable. Not to mention that they hand the nations currency supply over to banks, thereby allowing the common man (who actually produces something) to fall further and further behind the banking class.

Pure classist bullshit. Are you sure you're a libertarian and not a marxist? It constantly amazes me how these Paul supporters claim to be libertarians yet spout all this marxist rhetoric. Call yourself an anarcho-socialist and show your true colors.

As to your other comments on constitutional money...they are juvenile and ignorant.

As demonstrated by your inability to read even the quotes I provided from the Constitution correctly.

First off, everyone knows the founders did not like paper money - that's why there was a coinage act of 1792 specifying the "Spanish Milled Dollar" as the official currency unit of the United States.

That would explain why virtually every state issued paper money, not to mention private banks. Which is why a year before your coinage act the first bank of the US was established, with private ownership and the deliberate establishment of a national debt. But yes, we were more or less on a gold or silver standard for the first hundred years of our history. The problems which this created periodically are legendary. You should read up on them.

Second, one cannot coin money out of anything but metal. Your statement here is absurd.

Intentionally absurd. Did you not see the part about 'regulating the value' of money? That means that the coins need not be of full intrinsic value.

Third, and most importantly, we can easily deduce from that very same part of the constitution that there is no federal constitutional power to create money out of thin air at will. It's very simple! There can be no such power, because if there were, then there would never be a need to "borrow money on the credit of the United States", now would there?

Circular logic seems to be your speciality. Printing fiat currency IS borrowing money. It's just borrowing it from the people and the national economy.

No, and there is NO WAY AROUND THIS REASONING.

If you choose to call it reasoning.

As to McCain, does anyone think that McCain-Feingold is his last and only assault on political speech? I didn't specify McCain- Feingold anyway, you did. It's a matter of public record that McCain opposes talk radio and many other forms of expression, and will work with the other side to enact more and more stupid legislation to regulate them.

Really? Provide some sources for this assertion.

Yes they are, Dave, and your record of actually defending people's freedom is weak to non-existent. Who cares who you used to work for anyway? What have they ever achieved?

Admittedly the LP hasn't achieved a hell of a lot. But my past writings are also available. Read some of them sometime.

ME My reasoning is that too much government - period - is clearly the problem in this country. Nothing else really comes close. So, if someone supports anti-libertarian candidates like McCain, and attacks pro-freedom, pro-constitutional candidates like Paul (and his supporters) who actually want to cut the state down some, then they are a statist.

That makes no sense at all. It's the same logical fallacy I pointed out earlier. I can be a libertarian and still not support Paul or his supporters. Paul isn't the official brand name of libertarianism.

It's my opinion that more progress in reducing the size of government will be made under a McCain administration than under and Obama administration. There will never be a Ron Paul administration no matter what you or I do.

Well, suppose you give us some specifics about what is wrong with this country. Let's hear your solutions, since Paul's are wrong, and his supporters are a cult or whatever. Don't be coy man. Being a conservative, surely there is some part of government you would cut?

First off, I didn't say I was a conservative. Second, I didn't ever say Paul was wrong - well certainly not on everything.

Ok then, what? Where? How much? When? How about "conservative" McCain? What's he going to cut? When? Where? How much? Either of you worried about the dollar? No? What are your plans to shore it up? Let us hear them, Dave.

I've written extensively on where I'd begin to cut the budget. Go read those articles. McCain would likely start by eliminating farm subsidies. IMO that's as good a place as any.

This falling dollar is eating Americans alive Dave, what is your solution? I look forward to hearing about it, since Paul and his tards don't know what they're talking about. The drug war is destabilizing Mexico Dave - what are your plans? What are McCain's? Ron Paul's plans are public record - end the drug war. How about oil? It's a good thing that McCain is so much more advanced economically that Paul and his supporters, he'll fix everything for us and it'll be "morning in America" again, right?

Again, I don't necessarily disagree with much of what Paul proposes, but Paul is not electable and will not even be nominated. It's much more important to work on influencing McCain and the GOP to stop the Democrats. We need to keep the country from being destroyed before we can save it.

Dave

But really, what are your solutions? Or McInsane's? And with a track record like theirs, you telling us you think that the Fed./Central Bank, is a good thing for America? How so? Use specifics, us PaulBots love details....

What exactly is their negative track record? Keeping interest rates low? Reducing the inflated value of the dollar to improve our balance of trade? Hatred of the monied elite and their association with the fed is not in fact a meaningful indictment of fed policies, it's just classist ranting.

Dave

track the value of the US Dollar prior to the establishment of the FED and compare it to the current value... try that track record on for size.

or for that matter since your such a studied guy on gold backed currency... why not compare the history of golds purchasang power through the years vs. our current fiat money. or study up on the THREE previous central banks that exsisted in the US.

the market is what should regulate interest rates not a private banking institution. Allowing private banking to create "easy money" in the form of low interest...only creates false prosperity and hence bubbles that will ALWAYS BURST.

Are you claiming that the housing and credit problems are created naturally by the market?

next you will tell me that fractional reserve banking is the only true way for an economy to grow....

do the math and the research on fiat money...it has never, EVER in its history held it's value...gold/silver on the other hand.

But the best argument can be found in the Federalist/Anti-Fed Papers...and the Constituton....Jefferson as you say was not the only founder, just as Hamilton was not either...but it is Jefferson's and Madison's ideas that did win the day. And in the end the Constitution does not grant the authority to establish a Central Bank.

this link is fun reading it is Andrew Jacksons Bank veto message to congress, give it a read, his words and reasons are far better then ours against a central bank.

after you track the values...go ahead and read the Fed's charter....they are doing a bang up job!!

lol

do the math and the research on fiat money...it has never, EVER in its history held it's value...gold/silver on the other hand.

You bet. Gold has sure done a bang-up job of holding its value...

I posted more significant info in the other comment thread, but this bit isn't relevant there:

IMO the events in SD25 are as much an abuse of the process as anything which party insiders did to Ron Paul supporters. Totally taking over a convention and then throwing out all the non RP delegates and replacing them with Ron Paul delegates is exactly the same kind of abuse of the system as the evil overlords were practicing at other conventions.

I may not have done the same thing they did, and perhaps you and I will agree to disagree on what constitutes abuse of the process (more on that below), but I don't think it can really be said that having an honest majority and voting that majority's will is anywhere near the same thing as falsifying records and tossing people. I commend the "losers" in SD25 for playing by the rules.

And there's also a legitimate concern about any convention where Paul got delegates assigned to him far out of proportion to his showing in the primary vote. That means that voters who did not support Paul are being disenfranchised.

This is a fallacy, particularly when no one has seen yet how the national delegates actually vote. You are not disenfranchised as a voter if the person elected to represent you does not agree with you on everything. You ARE disenfranchised if the person elected to represent you is tossed and replaced with someone else. You MAY BE disenfranchised if the person elected to represent you doesn't vote the way you want them to, depending on where on that whole republic-democracy scale we sit, but again, no one has yet seen how these people will vote, and everyone I've spoken to is well aware of RPT Rule 38.

There is a lot more at stake here than the Presidential Nomination. If the grassroots voters want to elect people to represent them who don't completely line up with one single data point, how is that a foul?

If you want a contact for the lawsuit and the rest, email the contact link and I'll get with you.

Absolutely way off on your accounts of Ron Paul supporters and delegates.

Here in Minnesota, we too were shunned and were up against the old guard, bending and breaking rules. We followed the party's rules and the old guard did not.

The old guard lied, cheated and everything else, but we followed the rules. Despite all of that, we still made a huge impact.

It's very easy to find commentary like this all around the country. I'm curious how many conventions you've participated in, and whether you're actually able to comment without such bias.

Its a shame, McCain is clearly an absolute joke.

First, there's the condescension. Do you honestly think that the rest of us don't want to follow the constitution? That we don't know the difference between a Republic and a Democracy? The problem here is that you want to follow an edited version of the Constitution and ignore the parts you don't like. As for the Federal Reserve, we all know what it is, but that doesn't mean that we agree that it's a bad thing. Most libertarians think that privatizing government institutions is a GOOD thing.

Then there's the videos you mention. Twaddle from Alex Jones and other JBS stooges. Most of us aren't interested in being part of the lunatic fringe.

It's not that we're unware of the problems in this country, it's that we want real solutions to real problems, not fantasy solutions to paranoid problems.

Dave


Well said. Couldn't agree more.

I should add that the constant reminders of what the constitution says get to be excessive. The absolutely unwavering commitment to limit government to specific, absolutely literal interpretations of the constitution and nothing else, as if the founding fathers would know exactly how to run a government over 200 years in the future, is IMO completely delusional. What is important in our constitution are the principles and the process. Not every little bitty detail of how to run a government and doing nothing beyond that. That's what we have laws for. If it weren't, everything west of the Appalachians should be kicked out of the U.S. We can thank Jefferson (one of the signers of the constitution) and the (unconstitutional) LA purchase for that.

Sometimes I get the impression RP supporters wouldn't allow the President to hand a poor person a loaf of bread or fly on an airplane or use the service of the secret service because it's not specifically enumerated in the constitution. What it really comes down to for them though is selectively criticizing the actions of government and selectively proposing solutions, based on their own beliefs, and then using the constitution as a justification for these selected cases.

"Call yourself an anarcho-socialist and show your true colors"

Now, I'm a Marxist? Wait, I thought you said I was a Bircher? Aren't they supposed to be totally different?

You're so busy slurring me you can't even keep your slurs straight.

To be clear, the point I was making is that fiat inflationary systems DO hurt the poor and they DO increase the wealth gap between the rich and poor, and they do not promote savings or productivity. Check our manufacturing since 1971 if you don't believe me.

Marx loved fiat money, high taxes and central banking. I don't. Now that I've made that clear, let's address your problems...

Dave, you're in deep denial.

Congress cannot legally and constitutionally coin money out of feathers or make worthless things into money. "Regulating the value thereof" does not imply the authority to clip the coins till they're worthless. What it means is "make regular" as in make them all the same, so that the value is consistent - that's all.

***

Dave, you (incredibly) said this?!?

"Printing fiat currency IS borrowing money. It's just borrowing it from the people and the national economy"

What a joke.

If that is so, then pray tell us how is it paid back?

The answer is that it isn't paid back, so it isn't borrowing. Constitutional borrowing is done by bond, and that debt is paid back, or redeemed. For you to pretend that a fiat money system is constitutional "borrowing" shows that your understanding of the constitution is sorely lacking.

No, you're simply wrong again here. The point you are studiously avoiding is that there would be no need to borrow money on the credit of the United States if money could be created out of thin air. Why would Congress need that power to borrow if they could simply create out of thin air all the money they needed?

This is not circular logic at all. You still have not addressed the point, and I can tell that you won't address it.

You cannot state what part of government you would cut because you don't want to cut anything. You say that cutting "farm subsidies" would be as good a place as any to start? Yeah right. Why don't you quit faking? You and your psychotic hero McCain aren't cutting anything and you aren't fixing anything.

You also can stop pretending like you agree with Paul on some conveniently unnamed "things." If you really agreed with him, and this wasn't a hit piece, you'd say where you agreed with him. You can't say where you agree with Paul because you really don't agree, and I think you're being dishonest to say that you do.

Dude, I have bested the best, and you are not the best. Your arguments are transparent; and all you're really doing is scrambling to defend your total lack of inaction. Unfortunately, all you have to defend yourself are specious, unsupported kiddie-constitution arguments that any serious person can see right through.

It's over, son, and you lose. Somebody clean up this mess for me please.

It's over, son, and you lose. Somebody clean up this mess for me please.

I just thought I'd inform you that to 99.9% of educated people you sound like a raging lunatic who should be committed.

"It's over, son, and you Paul lost."

Beat you to it, but wish I thought of that one. Good one Clavos.

I should add that the constant reminders of what the constitution says get to be excessive. The absolutely unwavering commitment to limit government to specific, absolutely literal interpretations of the constitution and nothing else, as if the founding fathers would know exactly how to run a government over 200 years in the future, is IMO completely delusional.

I don't know of anyone, really, who will claim that times don't change, or that the Constitution is perfect as it currently stands.

All most are saying is that if times require different laws, that people should have the courtesy to amend the ones that are there instead of choosing to interpret them to fit the situation. We aren't a nation of laws these days, we are a nation of relativistic opportunists who condemn or praise identical actions depending on who does them.

Another fool comes into MY house?

***

"constant reminders of what the constitution says get to be excessive. The absolutely unwavering commitment to limit government to specific, absolutely literal interpretations of the constitution and nothing else, as if the founding fathers would know exactly how to run a government over 200 years in the future, is IMO completely delusional. What is important in our constitution are the principles and the process. Not every little bitty detail of how to run a government and doing nothing beyond that. That's what we have laws for."

****

BWAA HA HA HA!!

Yeah, being subjected to "constant reminders" on right and wrong often does "get to be excessive" doesn't it? Yeah, I'm sure it seems "rather excessive" to my 4 year old that I constantly tell her to quit dropping food on the floor.

Maybe I should ease up a little, and let her regress eh? After all, it's only an itty bitty detail, right?

Speaking of regression, isn't that what we've really done? We've regressed away from the constitution and individual freedom. The restrictions in the constitution are not "itty bitty details" to be discarded, instead they are hard-and-fast limitations on government power with the sacred freedom of the people at stake.

People always make good excuses when they slack off and regress, but this is ridiculous. Saying that the Constitution's exact restrictions shouldn't apply anymore to actual day-to-day governance is to render it meaningless. Laws are not part of the solution in this country at all; they are part of the problem.

We do not need more allegiance to laws and less allegiance to the constitution; we need the opposite - more adherence to the constitution and less slavish devotion to foolish laws passed by foolish politicians. Let it not be said that I do not provide examples, so consider speed limits. The are the law - are they not? So, let's all obey them and see what happens.

Gridlock happens.

Reliance on laws over individual freedom is what is "delusional" - not honoring the constitution. I think the evidence is clear; everywhere we have left the constitution, we have sowed disaster.

We didn't respect the ban on standing armies; we got imperialism and troops in 140 countries - unsustainable for the long term.

We didn't stay with gold and silver; we got Central banking, worldwide inflation, and a totally corrupted economics profession - again unsustainable for the long term.

We didn't respect the the need to keep powers to what was specifically enumerated, we got the feds regulating people's personal gardens under a sick and tortured interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.

We got the drug war, with no power to conduct it, and now the 4th amendment is gutted. A police state is unsustainable too.

We got a bureaucracy with no constitutional mention, and now we have a whole new set of laws (regulations) to keep track of.

We got executive orders - not in the literal words of the constitution. One of the first, if not the first, was the one by FDR where he stole the people's gold from them, so you see how these things work together. Read some of these sometime, they will chill you.

Nah, I think you're demonstrably wrong here. The literal, exact, limiting words of the Constitution are way better. They were way better 200 years ago, and they're way better now. Human nature hasn't changed one iota in the last 200 years, so I don't see why the constitution would become any less relevant.

In fact, pretending we can just "freelance" now, just because 200 years have passed, especially in light of history and current events, is not realistic to me at all. It's intellectual laziness.

But, I can see there's a lot of that going around here.

"It's over, son, and you lose. Somebody clean up this mess for me please.

I just thought I'd inform you that to 99.9% of educated people you sound like a raging lunatic who should be committed."

**

Like I care what "educated people" think. Ben Bernanke is educated. So is Robert Mugabe, and he has destroyed his country.

No, pal, it's called debate. There are usually winners and losers. I declared myself the winner. I have ample reason to do so. Are you having some kind of problem with that? If so, please provide some reasons of your own - some evidence or something, and we can debate.

D * E * B * A * T * E

Try it sometime.

Tom deSabla is right. A rigid, unwavering, letter for letter interpretation of the original Constitution is the only proper way to govern a country in the 21st century. In particular, we need to rescind the right of women to vote and reinstate the 3/5 compromise.

Now, I'm a Marxist? Wait, I thought you said I was a Bircher? Aren't they supposed to be totally different?

Interestingly they're remarkably similar in some ways. The Birchers did start out in opposition to communism, but they decided to deliberately mimic much of the methodology of international Stalinism to 'fight fire with fire'. The problem is that they became a little too like the Stalinists and started thinking like them. At heart, Stalinism was a very conservative, even reactionary form of communism and its influence on the JBS was profound, even if they'd never admit it.

To be clear, the point I was making is that fiat inflationary systems DO hurt the poor and they DO increase the wealth gap between the rich and poor, and they do not promote savings or productivity.

That's the inflation, not the fiat currency. There's no reason why a so-called fiat currency can't be stable and inflation resistent. Our recent inflation is anomalous. Since the end of WW2 we've had fiat currency with a mild, natural inflation which reflects the growth in the economy. Extreme inflation is certainly not inherent in a greenback dollar.

Check our manufacturing since 1971 if you don't believe me.

I'm very familiar with the evolution of our economy away from a post-industrial model to a high-techl, globally integrated system. It has zero to do with inflation or our currency system.

Marx loved fiat money, high taxes and central banking. I don't.

You clearly need to go back and read some Marx. In a true marxist system there would be no need for banks at all, nor would there be a need for currency or taxes.

Congress cannot legally and constitutionally coin money out of feathers or make worthless things into money. "Regulating the value thereof" does not imply the authority to clip the coins till they're worthless. What it means is "make regular" as in make them all the same, so that the value is consistent - that's all.

LOL. Ok, if you want to reinvent the English language and redefine words I guess you can read any silly thing you want into the Constitution. Trust me as a guy with a MA in English, 'regulate' and 'regularize' are NOT synonyms. Buy a dictionary.

***

Dave, you (incredibly) said this?!?

"Printing fiat currency IS borrowing money. It's just borrowing it from the people and the national economy"

What a joke.

If that is so, then pray tell us how is it paid back?

It's given back in the form of goods and services purchased with the greenback dollars.

The answer is that it isn't paid back, so it isn't borrowing. Constitutional borrowing is done by bond, and that debt is paid back, or redeemed. For you to pretend that a fiat money system is constitutional "borrowing" shows that your understanding of the constitution is sorely lacking.

I'd suggest that all of this silliness shows that you have little or no understanding of how paper money works. Perhaps your fear is based in ignorance. That would explain a lot.

No, you're simply wrong again here. The point you are studiously avoiding is that there would be no need to borrow money on the credit of the United States if money could be created out of thin air. Why would Congress need that power to borrow if they could simply create out of thin air all the money they needed?

Because you can only draw your money from the active economy up to a sustainable limit before you end up with inflationary problems. Doh.

You cannot state what part of government you would cut because you don't want to cut anything.

Um, but I already said I'd cut farm subsidies. Then I'd cut all education funding. Then I'd eliminate the War on Drugs. Then I'd privatize welfare and the various other entitlement systems like social security. Finally I'd privatize the military.

You say that cutting "farm subsidies" would be as good a place as any to start? Yeah right. Why don't you quit faking? You and your psychotic hero McCain aren't cutting anything and you aren't fixing anything.

McCain is pretty well known for his efforts to cut or eliminate farm subsidies.

"Subsidies are a mistake, and I don't believe that anybody can say that they're a fiscal conservative and yet support subsidies which distort markets & destroy our ability to compete in the world, as well as our ability to get cheaper products into the US" - John McCain

You also can stop pretending like you agree with Paul on some conveniently unnamed "things." If you really agreed with him, and this wasn't a hit piece, you'd say where you agreed with him. You can't say where you agree with Paul because you really don't agree, and I think you're being dishonest to say that you do.

The places where I agree with Paul should be obvious to anyone with a lick of sense. Obviously we agree on issues like eliminating the state run s