Ron Paul supporters continue to push their candidate and their issues, but hostility and frustration within the GOP is growing.
Beneath the still surface of the apparently secure nomination of John McCain as the Republican candidate, supporters of Ron Paul are still fighting the system and doing what they can to influence the process. 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.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Greg
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!
27 - Mike
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?
28 - Dave Nalle
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
29 - Carol
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....
30 - Dave Nalle
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?
31 - Dave Nalle
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
32 - Tim
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.
33 - Helen
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...?
34 - acptulsa
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?
35 - JP
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.
36 - Lumpy
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.
37 - Dave Nalle
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
38 - Drumz
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.
39 - Huckans
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
40 - Matthew T. Sussman
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.
41 - James
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.
42 - Bill Moore
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.
43 - Jeremy Blosser
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.
44 - John
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.
45 - Maggie
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.
46 - RM
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.
47 - Dave Nalle
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
48 - Scott
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.
49 - Dave Nalle
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
50 - Soapbox Empress
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.
51 - Tom deSabla
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.
52 - Clavos
"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.
53 - Chris
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.
54 - JBlund
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...
55 - joe
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!
56 - Dave Nalle
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
57 - Randy Dixon
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.
58 - Dave Nalle
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
59 - Aaron
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.
60 - Aaron
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.
61 - Dave Nalle
Are you a conservative or a libertarian? They're not the same thing, you know.
Dave
62 - Jim Wilson
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.
63 - Kenny
READ IT,SIGN IT and SPREAD IT mccains campaign is over
64 - Kyle
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.
65 - Tom deSabla
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!!!
66 - dddienst
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.
67 - Dave Nalle
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
68 - Jeff
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....
69 - Dave Nalle
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
70 - Dave Nalle
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
71 - Jeff
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.
72 - Jeff
after you track the values...go ahead and read the Fed's charter....they are doing a bang up job!!
lol
73 - Kyle
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...
74 - Jeremy Blosser
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.
75 - JimmyD
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.