I'm in a high school gym with 600+ Republican delegates. It's a fascinating look at the inner workings of party politics.
Hey, political junkies. I'm at the Texas Senate District 14 (more or less Travis County) Republican convention and it's dragging on so I might as well take advantage of the free wireless provided by the Austin ISD to put some notes out about the experience of attending a district convention. Special thanks to the folks from Americans for Prosperity who got bored and abandoned their booth in the convention hall, unwittingly providing me with a comfy place to sit down and share my thoughts.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - welkinator
Good job!
I, too, was a delegate from one of the larger precincts and you have well captured the tension of this convention. I gave up and left around 3:30pm - after checking with our precinct "boss" - because I saw that alternate views could not be expressed or validated.
A procedural side note your readers may find interesting is how the role call votes are tabulated. Each precinct has a certain number of delegates and each delegate slot is authorized one vote. However, if the number of delegates present during a roll call vote is less than the full slate, each voting delegate gets a proportionate share of the total. Precinct 256, for instance, was eligible for 25 delegates but only one showed up. That ONE person had the proxy of all twenty five!
The drawback here occurs during voice voting in which the LOUDEST group often wins the vote.
The other procedural rule that I found most telling, with regards to Legacy control, is the way State delegates were apportioned NOT by how many Republicans voted in last November's election BUT how many had voted for PERRY in that election. Loyal Republicans with alternate philosophies were disenfranchised.
...welkinator
27 - Dave Nalle
I agree that the roll call issue at the end was quite confusing all the way around. I'm still not quite sure how Pojman got the petition declared ineligible or whatever.
My impression is that Pojman basically encouraged the confusion so he could use parliamentary rules to shut down debate. He could have reached out and given a little slack to the clearly confused Renegades so that they could have entered a sensible proposal, but he chose not to.
But I had heard from many sources both prior to yesterday, and indeed during the day yesterday, that this was exactly what they would try to do. Sure enough, the petition began circulating right before the caucuses. The intent from the beginning was to wear us out so they'd have a majority at the end to reopen up anything they wanted. That they screwed up the resolution isn't the point - they were shooting for a roll call vote on each and every alternate in hopes of chasing us away for the night. Heck, even a roll call vote on the slate might have done it.
That seems like a remarkably dim-witted strategy, but I suppose it's possible they'd planned it that way. Of course, we have actual documentary evidence in the form of emails, postcards and phone calls that Pojman was planning to disenfranchise the Renegades well before the convention, so it's understandable that they were angry and disruptive.
We just didn't have enough state delegates this year. btw, that's because of the Rylander vote and I wonder how many Paul guys voted for Rylander, thus creating the very problem they were so upset about? I mean, ideological purity is fine and all, but there are consequences and this is one of them.
A lot of regular Republicans voted for Rylander. Perry is NOT a popular governor with people who have toll roads in their back yards.
My point is that they intentionally picked a long, drawn-out stupid fight over something that wasn't Legacy's or anybody else's fault. How do you expect Pojman to act after that? How would YOU react to someone who did that?
My impression was that there were at least two major factions among the Renegades, those who sort of gathered around Don Zimmerman who were more reasonable and sensible and those who gathered around Robert Morrow and were more radical and less competent. They seemed to also break down geographically, with the Morrow faction mostly coming from Austin and the Zimmerman faction being more rural and suburban. The Morrow faction seemed to represent those elements of the Ron Paul campaign which came from outside the GOP - the conspiracy nuts and the crossover leftists.
In an ideal world we could separate those two groups, send the crazies back where they came from and embrace the more moderate faction. Pojman's behavior worked against that and pushed the factions closer together and farther from the party mainstream.
Dave
28 - GOP
*******You make it sound as though those Pojmans and Overbeys did people like Ron Paul supporters a favor, as though I should be so thankful to them for allowing me to even be there********
I am saying that the rules that allow precincts at least some say in who their state delegates are irrespective of anything the Nominating Committee does or does not do is a direct result of the work and changes that people like Pojman and Overbey got through back in the 90's. There was a time - under the old boy rule - when virtually all state delegates were selected by the Nominations Committee. Pojman/Overbey et.al. changed that to encourage the very grass roots participation that the Paul guys now have the opportunity of taking advantage of. Despite what Dave thinks about the old establishment guys being sympathetic to the Paul guys, do you think they would have put Ronnie Reeferseed on the slate of state delegates? Or even Robert Morrow, after the way he behaved yesterday? At least now, because of changes Pojman/Overbey made, Morrow is going and there's nothing anybody can do about it. Under a normal year, Ronnie Reeferseed would have a chance of being sent by his precinct to state regardless of who is on the Nominations Committee. It just didn't work out that way this year because we were not given as many delegates in years past by the State party. That's not anybody's fault, and it was a monumentally stupid fight to pick, especially when you're a newcomer trying to establish credibility.
29 - GOP
****In an ideal world we could separate those two groups, send the crazies back where they came from and embrace the more moderate faction. Pojman's behavior worked against that and pushed the factions closer together and farther from the party mainstream.*****
I tend to agree, at least there toward the end when I think Pojman felt he was in danger of losing control if he didn't wrap things up. But it was clear from the couple of division votes he did that the Paul guys didn't have the numbers so it was really pointless to prolong things much longer. And don't forget, the reason we were just starting Resolutions at 9:00 p.m. or whatever it was is that we had spent so much time on the pointless delegate argument earlier in the day.
Still, I generally favor as much open participation as possible and it did seem like he was a bit heavyhanded there at the end. I always look forward to the resolution fights but I felt it was about to turn ugly bordering on violent. So I can understand why he did what he did.
fwiw, I'm not a member of Legacy although I do generally support their positions. I went to one of their training sessions (because Legacy invited me and the Paul guys did not) and I can tell you that they were very adamant that while they were expecting a fight, they were going to give them their say as much as reasonably possible. There was a tremendous respect for and concern about allowing a fair and reasonable amount of participation from all the delegates there. But at the same time, they weren't going allow the Paul guys to reopen everything and have the whole platform picked apart and replaced by nonsense about the gold standard or the inside job fruitcakes. It's a tough call but surely you can at least understand where Legacy is coming from, even if you didn't particularly like how it played out.
There's a lot more sympathy than you realize for the Paul guys among us "neocons" or whatever you want to call me, but they're gonna have to find a way to filter their crazies before we can come together and move forward.
30 - GOP
*****Of course, we have actual documentary evidence in the form of emails, postcards and phone calls that Pojman was planning to disenfranchise the Renegades well before the convention, so it's understandable that they were angry and disruptive.*****
What exactly did Pojman do to disenfranchise anybody? As far as I could tell, he acknowledged each and every request from the floor. In conventions past, that didn't even always happen. There were a couple of times I even thought he let some things slide in the interest of participation that he could have squelched. Yeah, he ruled some motions out of order, but so what? That's his perogative as chairman. It happens all the time and it's just part of the process.
Surely even you have to admit that he put up with a lot of foolishness from the Paul guys all day long, even if he might have been a little too quick to shut things down at times. He nearly always called a division vote when the voice vote was close. He himself called the roll call vote on the delegate deal early on, even though he could have simply declared that the ayes had it and even though he knew that if the Paul guys won that one - and they nearly did - it would have been even more chaotic the rest of the day.
I mean, the bottom line is that these Paul guys are still just a tiny fraction of a struggling minority party in Travis County, Texas. By and large, they come from precincts that will never even be close to voting Republican in our lifetimes. So in a sense, they are minnows while Legacy is perch in a small pond that the state party has more or less already written off. So truth be told, and you won't like this, but the Paul guys probably got more yesterday than they deserved if you're just looking at where GOP strength resides, which is essentially all the party should be looking at. And again, they got as much as they got because of things Joe Pojman personally fought for in the past. So maybe he needs to be cut a bit of slack.
31 - Casual Observer
As a point of information, the woman you referred to as "pink coat lady" is State Representative Charlie Howard's daughter Julie Drenner. She was on the Resolutions Committee, which collectively put hundreds of hours of work into the compilation of the resolutions report. So I can understand her desire to get the report approved before adjourning the convention, but I definitely would've liked to see a little more debate given to the amendments.
Drenner is a lobbyist for Texans for Family Values PAC and other groups. She is also a graduate of the Oak Brook College of Law and Government Policy, which is a distance learning school that offers law degrees. Coincidently or not, there was a paragraph in the resolutions report that "calls upon the Texas Legislature and the Supreme Court of Texas to repeal the prohibition on out-of-state attorneys who obtain their law degree through distance learning (curriculum and coursework through electronic means or the mail) from taking the Texas Bar Exam."
Further inquiry into Oak Brook College and Texans for Family Values could prove quite interesting...
32 - GOP
****The other procedural rule that I found most telling, with regards to Legacy control, is the way State delegates were apportioned NOT by how many Republicans voted in last November's election BUT how many had voted for PERRY in that election. *****
Legacy had nothing to do with that; nobody in that room did. It was a decision that the State party imposed on us. That's why the fight over it was so frustrating. Morrow's alternative did the exact same thing, he just broke up the percentages slightly differently and wanted at-large selections restricted to non-caucusing precincts.
33 - spacebetween
GOP,
You are right that the state party determined the amount of delegates per district based on the Rick Perry vote. But, I think what the poster above is saying is that the same formula was applied to actually APPORTION those delegates within our convention.
True, Morrow's minority report called for the same formula, but I think he did that to make it more agreeable.
I think, though, that a different formula could have been used which would fall under the jurisdiction of the rules committee, which was under the influence of Legacy.
34 - welkinator
I said: ****The other procedural rule that I found most telling, with regards to Legacy control, is the way State delegates were apportioned NOT by how many Republicans voted in last November's election BUT how many had voted for PERRY in that election. *****
GOP said:Legacy had nothing to do with that; nobody in that room did. It was a decision that the State party imposed on us.
My mistake. Perhaps I should have said lower-case-l "legacy" meaning, the good ol' boys who have the power to manipulate these things to their own ends. I really don't have a dog in this fight; my being a delegate was a fluke that I likely won't allow to happen again. But it seemed stacked that the criteria to be represented is that your precinct had to vote for Perry. It wasn't enough that you were Republican.
Personally, I will continue to vote for Republicans on the State and District level and if Hillery is the Dem's candidate I will hold my nose and vote for McCain. If Obama is the candidate I will vote against McCain - better the out front liberal than the one in disguise.
...welkinator(at)gmailcom
35 - Dave Nalle
Guys, our delegation had a nice selection of math geeks. We ran formula after formula. There was no solution to the problem. Even the best one we could come up with left someone underrepresented, either the large precincts, the small ones or it took delegates away from those who had only 1 assigned to them.
As for the bit with basing it on the Perry vote in 2006, as I understand it this isn't even a party policy, it was set by the state legislature for both parties, so the dems were probably similarly screwed based on the Chris Bell vote.
Dave
36 - Dave Nalle
Welkin, that you call Obama a 'liberal' and would be willing to vote for him against McCain shows how little familiarity you have with his politics. He is not a liberal, he's a undisguised, unrepentant socialist. That you would even consider voting for him when the alternative is McCain is flabergasting.
Dave
37 - loyalfriend
At the district convention the issue is always numbers. Who has the majority? I was there when the Pro-Life contingent took over the leadership at the convention, and they did it by motivating their people, by convincing others to get involved, and by arriving at the convention with a majority. The Ron Paul contingent didn't manage to do that. They didn't have a majority. They came with the strategy of using delaying tactics anticipating that their opponents would leave before they did, and then they would impose their contrived majority by reversing all the decisions that had been made by the actual majority. That is NOT a fair and just way of dealing, and had they been successful, the district resolutions and the delegates chosen would have been representative not of the Republican Party of Texas as a whole, but rather would be far more libertarian in flavor than characterized Texas Republicans. If they want the presence and the power they are fighting for, they need to become a majority, and they haven't gotten there yet.
38 - constitutionalist
Great reporting Dave. My impressions overall were very similar.
As a long-time Republican who is fed up with the failure to follow through with the Contract with America and the out of control spending of the Bush years (Medicare part D and other socialist efforts), I would probably consider myself part of the "Zimmerman" faction of the "Renegades"... at a minimum I'm sympathetic.
It was clear to me early on as well that the Renegades still had a lot to learn. Many of the "questions" they asked about both the majority and minority reports were often overzealous and sometimes downright embarrassing. Also, the attempt to amend the minority report to something more reasonable (50% of the at-large delegates being set-aside for small precincts) was defeated primarily due to bad organization... the person introducing the amendment did not know it needed to be submitted in writing. The next person at the mic (who was clearly a Renegade too) submitted a poorly worded amendment that wasn't substantially different from the already failed minority report changes. Then, in a brilliant tactical move, the next two people (Legacy members?) managed to call the previous question on not only the poorly worded amendment, but the majority report itself. Better organization and thoughtful wording could have likely won a compromise measure.
As Dave has pointed out though, yesterday's tactical win by Legacy may turn out to be a long-term blunder for the party. There is far more common ground between even the Legacy and Renegade factions of the local party, than there is between either faction and the Democrats. Unfortunately, a lack of patience on the part of some may mean the democrats continue to rule the county well into the future.
As for me though, I fully intend to continue the effort to bring the party back towards its fiscally responsible and constitutionalist roots by doing my part of the hard work necessary to get like minded Republicans (Renegades?) elected right here in Ausitn. I have a feeling the Renegades will be around for some time (hopefully having tempered the more conspiratorial elements) and will return wiser, and more powerful, due to the experience.
39 - welkinator
Dave Nalle said: Welkin, that you call Obama a 'liberal' and would be willing to vote for him against McCain shows how little familiarity you have with his politics. He is not a liberal, he's a undisguised, unrepentant socialist. That you would even consider voting for him when the alternative is McCain is flabergasting.
Hey, I don't disagree with you; I just don't think that electing him is the end of civilization as we know it. On the other hand, I am of the opinion that having McCain as president, especially with a Democratic congress, is going to keep conservatives of the Republican party out of power for a long, long time. If Obama is elected, I believe it will be for one term only and that Republican conservatives - especilaly if led by a strong leader such as Newt - will have a chance to regain many of the congressional seats that have been ceded to the Dems over the past six years.
Like the man says, "It's just my opinion; I could be wrong".
...welkinator
40 - REMF
"That you would even consider voting for him when the alternative is McCain is flabergasting."
- Dave Nalle
Barack Obama will make 10 times the president your Deserter in Chief made, Nalle.
41 - Patrick
"You are right that the state party determined the amount of delegates per district based on the Rick Perry vote. But, I think what the poster above is saying is that the same formula was applied to actually APPORTION those delegates within our convention."
Yes, and that is a fair thing. What few know is that this 80-20% system was first proposed by ... Don Zimmerman in 2004. And while Morrow was saying how unfair the lack of caucusing was for small precincts, in fact he had no real cure for it, just a Rule that would tie the hands of the Nominations committee. He even took *out* 6 precinct-level allocated slots from SD-25 and gave them to the pool.
"True, Morrow's minority report called for the same formula, but I think he did that to make it more agreeable."
No, Morrow did it that way because he did the math and found there was no other way. Brewer explained that was the case and he was right, but it was tought to convince the faction all set to get upset about it. A precinct that had only 50 or 60 Perry votes would simply not be able to get its own slot for state, period, without running out of slots.
No other formula would be fairer. it's unfortunate that misinformation was used to get people whipped up into thinking there was something unfair when in fact it was not.
So Morrow simply did soem jiggering and then reserved/restricted the slots for the small precincts, not considering that it was too much all or nothing.
"I think, though, that a different formula could have been used which would fall under the jurisdiction of the rules committee, which was under the influence of Legacy."
First, 'Legacy' controlled things? No, the various grassroots factions - INCLUDING RON PAUL folks - were ALL on the committees - Rules: Morrow, Davis and Brewer not part of Legacy, all part of grassroots, and thats 3 of the 5. Second, there were two Ron Paul supporting members on the Nominations Committee, so the bashing about the Nominations committee was a bit misplaced too.
That was the most grating thing about the behavior of the Ron Paul crowd and some who got up to the microphone. And even Rob Morrow. He's acting like an outsider when in fact he was on the Rules Committee.
The Ron Paul folks want 'their guys' to go to state. Fine, but the complaints that they were treated unfairly were inaccurate. They had a seat at the table; they had reps on committees; they had a chance to make their case. The convention allowed them 4 hours to discuss/debate the proposed rule change and we went through a full roll-call vote on it.
To their credit, Morrow, Zimmerman et al are great organizers, and this was an act of organization to get all these folks out there. One of the other leaders had a thick binder of all the eligible voters, and clearly there was an effort to get a turnout to the convention. But the view that those running the convention were doing something nefarious by doing the same and trying to keep regular order is also misplaced. Politics is a contact sport, and if you want to get something done, you get your friends together and work towards the common purpose. You use parliametary procedure to get your way or stop the other guy, and Kirk Overbey is a parliamentary professional in the truest sense of the word. I'd say the the tactics to close off debate and go home at 10pm was an act of mercy for the convention-goers and organizers. 13 hours? Phew!
42 - Patrick
"
What exactly did Pojman do to disenfranchise anybody? As far as I could tell, he acknowledged each and every request from the floor. In conventions past, that didn't even always happen. There were a couple of times I even thought he let some things slide in the interest of participation that he could have squelched. Yeah, he ruled some motions out of order, but so what? That's his perogative as chairman. It happens all the time and it's just part of the process."
Pojman did as fair a job as could be done under the circumstances. There were a number of times when people were out-of-order, but the convention was orderly. if want to see a mis-run unparlaimentary meeting, you'd have to turn the clock back to some Sager-run TC exec committee meetings. Sager btw tried to run a competitor to Pojman, but Pojman won a vote of precinct chairs. This despite the fact that Sager ran 'his' folks in several precincts.
"Welkin, that you call Obama a 'liberal' and would be willing to vote for him against McCain shows how little familiarity you have with his politics. He is not a liberal, he's a undisguised, unrepentant socialist. That you would even consider voting for him when the alternative is McCain is flabergasting."
This is why some of us who have been in the party for decades and helped many races are a bit cautious about the 'new blood'. I understand the frustration over McCain; I share it. But it takes just a bit of mild information - eg like knowing that Obama was rated the most Liberal Senator in 2007 - to know that Obama is a dreadful left-liberal choice.
It's great to see the energy when people are motivated, and great to see the higher turnout. But if you want to be a GOP insider, grab an oar and help row. As Morton Blackwell says, there is plenty of room at the bottom. dont expect to become a captain of the ship without paying dues and actually *supporting* the party and candidates. And another thing, using the name "Reeferseed" probably wont help in front of Nominations; try "Reaganbush" instead. :-)
43 - Patrick
"There is far more common ground between even the Legacy and Renegade factions of the local party, than there is between either faction and the Democrats."
This is undoubtably true. the convention was mostly a bunch of 'grassroots regulars', and you could tell where their hearts are when the 'lower taxes' and 'limited government' talking points got the loudest cheers.
It's a slam to say legacy doesnt represent the GOP. The GOP base is 80% prolife/profamily and fiscal conservative/limited govt/lower taxes, and that what most of the folks at the convention were. its not either/or, its both, with some more passionate about one side or the other, but a general consensus about these issues.
" Unfortunately, a lack of patience on the part of some may mean the democrats continue to rule the county well into the future."
You know the #1 problem with the Travis County Republican Party. Don Zimmerman once complained to me - nobody does anything. The TCRP grassroots has withered. Getting energy and ideas back in the TCRP is the main thing. I hope the Ron Paul folks stick around and help out. If we grow and unite, we can take on more races and battles and defeat the socialists.
44 - Patrick
"As for his assumed name, I don't have a problem with it. Like many sensible Republicans - familiar with the late Bill Buckley? - I think the war on drugs is an idiotic misdirection of the nation's resources."
I think your views on certain issues have taken away from your 'neutral observer' claimed status. Which is fine, its still a great report, but as I note above, the actions and motives of those running the convention were far from nefarious.
You have sympathy for the crowd that slowed a 6-8 hour convention into a 13 hour one, did it with some antics that showed some naivety, had a lack of majority to actually win anything on the floor, and did it by claiming they didnt have a voice, when in fact they did, both on the floor and in the committees.
But consider all those who (a) want a convention to go in regular order (b) dont want to waste hours and hours on futile fights (c) think we shouldnt tie hands of committees unnecessarily nor overturn their work on the floor (d) want to be fair to *all* factions and not just have one faction 'take over' and upturn everything. That's what the majority of the convention was thinking and thats why the Ron Paul crowd failed I think.
45 - Dave Nalle
I was not impressed with Morrow or his group of followers. They seemed bent on causing disruption without having anything really positive to offer.
But you guys are missing the point of my complaint about the Legacy group, and in specific Pojman. Regardless of the composition of the committees and any efforts to be fair at the convention, his behavior has to be viewed in the context of his actions prior to the convention. He sent out an email, a phone message and a postcard to people identifying the 'renegades' as traitors to the party, outside agitators and rebels and ultimately declaring war on them. He organized his followers with clear instructions to try to render the renegades ineffective. While the renegades may have dragged things out, they did it because they were frustrated at being unable to get any of their issues heard except for Morrow's report and the 5 hours it wasted.
There's plenty of blame to go around, some of it reserved spcifically for Morrow for pushing what was ultimately a trivial issue and wasting time that should have been used for a meaningful attempt to apply some reasonable consideration to the resolutions.
Well, hopefully the renegades will stick around for a few more elections and develop the savvy to deal with this sort of situation better.
Dave
46 - spacebetween
I also view Pojman in the context of the phone calls/mailings that took place PRIOR to the convention.
Although, if that wasn't Pojman, then who?
Despite that, I am eager to get a better, more organized Republican Party activated in Travis County, Texas, and the entire US.
47 - Kaleb
I just want to say Thank You to Dave for putting together this report. I went to the convention as a "Renegade" delegate who was inspired by Ron Paul's candidacy. This article and the comments that follow have given me a lot of food for thought as to the context of the convention...TCRP history, background maneuvering I wasn't aware of, impressions of delegates from "the other side," etc. My wife and I (we were the ones with the baby) learned a lot and plan to stick with the party and try to help move it in a direction we can be more proud of. Thanks again!
48 - Dave Nalle
Kaleb, that's a great response to see. I really do think there's a place for the Renegades in the GOP on both the local and national level. We just need to move away from the kind of bully tactics some have resorted to. I think that a minimal effort to play along at a very basic level would get those labeled renegades a lot more respect and attention.
I should point out that I'm saying this in the context in reading reports on a number of the other conventions, where the Renegades were more successfui than they were in SD14. The troubling part is that it sounds like Dr. Pojman's incendiary accusations against them had at least some element of truth to them. In some of the conventions tactics similar to those attempted in SD14 were used with more success to essentially overthrow the convention and behave as intolerantly towards the 'establishment' republicans as Pojman and his cohorts behaved towards the renegades in SD14.
But the good news is that in a number of conventions cooler heads prevailed on both sides and everyone worked together and got fair representation for all sides.
Dave
49 - Legacy Partisan
Ha! This is very interesting to read from the opposite viewpoint. Thanks for taking the time to write out your thoughts and perceptions at the convention.
This article seems to somewhat demonize the Legacy PAC, but it's always tempting to fear what we don't understand.
There was a huge disagreement at the beginning about what method the remaining 32-36 delegates would be allocated. For some reason the Minority Report was supported by all the Ron Paul advocates. What was in there that made it such a Ron Paul advocated position? Why should all the Ron Paul people be for the Minority Report. I had no idea. After we accepted the majority report I headed to nominations to try to get a spot at State.
It was a long line. A very long line. In the meantime I had time to call my friend from SD25, where I had heard something astonishing had happened. In SD25 the Ron Paul people had won that beginning debate (which the Ron Paul people lost in SD14 - our convention).
My friend told me how the Ron Paul faction seized control, replaced the Chairman, liquidated the nominating committee, installed a new nominating committee, flushed all the approved delegates and installed a political litmus test for any delegate or alternate. The only delegates and alternates that were approved were ones that were allegiant to Ron Paul. Talk about fascist!
The behavior is in start contrast to the Legacy way of doing things, that gave 20% of all the delegate seats to Ron Paul fans. I admit that this should have been handled and run a little smoother, which caused some Ron Paul fans to perceive some sort of vicious animus. The evidence shows, from the mirror universes of SD14 and SD25, which side is more politically vindictive. I am not saying this because I am a part of Legacy PAC, I am saying this from the evidence of who is going to the convention... 0% of non-Ron-Paulers from SD25 and 20% of Ron Paulers from SD14. The evidence shows who is more equitable (the way the Chairman handled some disorderly conduct is completely different topic - that has some room for improvement).
Anyway, after hearing the report from my friend about the vicious coup that happened in SD25, I was legitimately concerned for what other tricks awaited us when the reports of the nominating and resolutions committee came out. After a long wait, the reports came out and the battles began.
I had no idea what the Ron Paul's camps plans were, but I could see them huddling in corners and making some covert plans. Maybe they had some other tricks to take over the convention and liquidate the nominations committee and say that men marrying men is a core value of the Republican Party (as SD25 did after their coup). It seemed to be in our best interest to end the convention before the plans made in dark corners came to fruition.
I was not for ending the convention before the resolutions committee made their amendments. I agree with you whole heartedly that the Amendments the Resolution committee made were a vast improvement on the original platform. And yes the new wording made us seem less crazy :-)
Agreed :-)
I applaud the nominating committee on their tough task. Also in interest in preserving their work I thought it was best to close things down, especially as some of the proposed amendments were to support fringe groups and it seems that their suggestions had not been vetted by the Resolutions committee.
Overall I hope that the misunderstandings on both sides does not deter political involvement. I was worried before the nominations and resolutions report that some plotted scheme to seize control was afoot, because that's what the Ron Paul people ACTUALLY DID in SD25 and they installed a political litmus test or witch hunt to remove all those who did not conform to their political candidate. Although this is what not happened in SD14 (20% of the Ron Paul people were elected - and Ron Paul supporters were heavily involved in the Rules and nomination committees), I am sad that many of the Ron Paul supporters felt disenfranchised. I think some of it was a clear misunderstanding of the rules (which were not articulated well throughout the convention), some general disorderliness of the newbies, some frustration on the Chairman’s part from the newbies, some rabble rousers (on both sides) and a general sense of distrust.
Did I distrust the Ron Paul faction... you bet! When they took control of SD25 they liquidated the nominating committee and installed ONLY their people. I didn't wan that blatant disregard for democracy in SD14. Did the Ron Paulers distrust Roberts rules of order as a tool to subjugate them? It sure seems like it. Honestly I don't know what their agenda was. I don't know what the plans were that were whispered in dark corners.
Were the Ron Paul people trying to liquidate SD14's nominating committee and install a fascist system of Ron Paul reps only at State or were they really just trying to get a fair shake? ...I honestly have no idea. Were they coming up with devious plans to shut people like me out of the process or were they wanting to join me as a new voice in the party... I don't know.
The Ron Paul people got 20% of the delegate seats this time... not bad for their first concerted attempt. Was I part of the opposition... sure, but only because of the fascist way the Ron Paul people dictated the terms of SD25. I didn't want that for SD14. I am glad that we are both represented in SD14 and I hope that we can heal our wounds and work for a future together.
50 - Dave Nalle
Most of us didn't hear about what happened in SD25 until after our convention was over. As you can see in my last comment I share your concern about what happened there, which was as undesirable in its way as anything which happened in SD14. I do have to note - as you do not - that the reason the Renegades were able to completely take over was that the Legacy faction did in fact walk out of the convention alltogether, leaving them the opportunity to rule without opposition or inclusion. From what I've heard the more moderate people who were not part of the Renegade faction did get some inclusion in the process because they stayed.
What you also conveniently overlook is the point I have stressed again and again, that the Legacy hostility to the Paul faction predated the actual start of the SD14 convention. It is the conscious plotting against the other faction before any offense had been committed that I find particularly troubling and ultimately very hard to forgive.
Dave
51 - Dave Nalle
Like many others who have participated here I want a more libertarian Republican Party, but I do not want it at the expense of silencing other voices. That's not the republican way.
Dave
52 - Patrick
"Like many others who have participated here I want a more libertarian Republican Party, but I do not want it at the expense of silencing other voices. That's not the republican way."
I completely agree with that sentiment. Add Liberty to the mix, but its a part of the party. As noted, I think some of us have the perspective that the Ron Paul crowd both should have a seat at the table and DID have a seat at the table; they were on all the committees after all.
"I also view Pojman in the context of the phone calls/mailings that took place PRIOR to the convention."
Apparently, it was judged nefarious that Legacy made a call to have people show up at the convention. However, if you check the Ron Paul meetup site, they had phone-call banks that week to do the exact same thing. There is nothing wrong with that, that's classic political GOTV.
"The behavior is in start contrast to the Legacy way of doing things, that gave 20% of all the delegate seats to Ron Paul fans. I admit that this should have been handled and run a little smoother, which caused some Ron Paul fans to perceive some sort of vicious animus. The evidence shows, from the mirror universes of SD14 and SD25, which side is more politically vindictive."
I have to agree with that. The people running SD-14 have been party stalwarts for years. They know the ropes and they know that all the factions get a seat at the table, but cant get the danged table. On the state slate, they were trying to be fair.
David: "But you guys are missing the point of my complaint about the Legacy group, and in specific Pojman. Regardless of the composition of the committees and any efforts to be fair at the convention, his behavior has to be viewed in the context of his actions prior to the convention. He sent out an email, a phone message and a postcard to people identifying the 'renegades' as traitors to the party, outside agitators and rebels and ultimately declaring war on them. He organized his followers with clear instructions to try to render the renegades ineffective."
During the convention, I similarly had a 'what's the big deal' ... it was when Overbey said "This is a test vote" that I perked up.
Knowing what happened in SD-25, it turns out those fears were fully justified. As I said, people GOTV to conventions to win votes; that's politics. BFD. The namecalling - probably overkill/inadvised, but the claim that Ron Paul group was trying to 'take over'? Completely 100% true. That was the plan. So on that score, the email and phone call was justified. And the 'Regulars' won it fairly - on the votes.
The guy who ran the SD-25 Travis convention was a Libertarian Party candidate 2 years ago. I dont think he has the best interests of the GOP or mainstream GOP base voters at heart. SD-14 dodged a bullet.
53 - Patrick
Dave: "What you also conveniently overlook is the point I have stressed again and again, that the Legacy hostility to the Paul faction predated the actual start of the SD14 convention. It is the conscious plotting against the other faction before any offense had been committed that I find particularly troubling and ultimately very hard to forgive."
I think what you are missing is that the Ron Paul activities related to SD-14 also was happening well before that day. It wasnt just a coincidence, it was a plan, to use the Rules change as a test vote and then to reseat all committees.
They knew on Tuesday when the Temp committees met that something was afoot. I waited 2 hours to speak to the nominations committee. Our friend Mr Reeferseed was there in the Resolutions Cmmttee room, informing us of the vital amino acids to be found in MJ seeds.
The Ron Paul folks didnt have good OpSec or they might have surprised everyone.
54 - Bo Zimmerman
Hey Dave -- Williamson County convention attendee here -- a fascinating article, and even more fascinating comments. Thanks for the great work reporting on the efforts of my friends down in Austin.
Our WilCo convention had a few fireworks, but went with far less contentiousness than the one you reported on south of us. The "Renegades" comprised about 40% of the floor, were handed a generous portion of delegates from a committee on which we had no representation, and we were thrown a few bones in the resolution committee report, partially due to having one of our own at work there.
We did try to get a look at the hastily recited delegate list (not realizing how well we'd been treated on it), and used parliamentary rules to attempt a 10 minute recess to that end. When that failed, we attempted to vote down the slate for the same reason. This was probably a mistake in hindsight, but the non-renegades were happy spending 30 minutes debating our motion for a 10 minute recess so we could confirm that fact. We happily obliged, though we didn't get to count our chickens until well after the convention ended.
Regarding resolutions, the non-renegades were far less interested in debating and considering them individually than we were on the floor. Some renegades believe, in hindsight, that the fact that our endless motions forced them to approve the entire resolution packet en mass (to end debate) probably went to our favor, as some of Our resolutions might not have otherwise had a chance if considered in isolation. However, since I happen to know that the debate on resolutions was part of our strategy to use our strength, perseverance, to fight a war of attrition on the convention floor (so the delegates list could be revisited, and perhaps even examined), I was very sad to see debate finally come to an end at the time.
As I said in the beginning, however, I believe we were treated very fairly. All the more because we were given so much despite relative weakness on the floor of the convention. Kudos to Audry McDonald, Bill Fairbrother, and the rest of the WilCo Rep. party leadership, in that regard, for their charity and magnanimity.
Lastly, I know for a fact that a great number of us are in this for the long haul, and are excited about state.
God bless Texas and Ron Paul. Vive la liberte'!
- Bo
55 - Legacy Partisan
Evidence. Evidence is what I am looking at.
It sounds like you are arguing the Chicken or the Egg argument. As a Legacy Partisan... I am forced to argue... the Chicken :-)
You try to say it was the call/email that caused the tension...
“What you also conveniently overlook is the point I have stressed again and again, that the Legacy hostility to the Paul faction predated the actual start of the SD14 convention”
Yes, I can see that you stressed that point. I don’t overlook that point. It’s like saying the Ron Paul people tried to take over the convention, because there was a call saying they were going to take over the convention.
Using evidence as a guide, you can see that in SD25 there was a planned coup. The plan was successful over there. There was a complete change in the nominating committee over there. There was a political litmus test installed by the SD25 Ron Paul fans. Anyone with alternative views were completely shut out. Evidence.
It is reasonable to assume that those plans were similarly designed for SD14. It is reasonable to assume that Legacy did the right thing to protect every non-Ron-Paul voter in SD14. But now we are certainly in speculation. Can I verify that Legacy actually protected the Giuliani voter, the Romney supporter, the McCain advocate, the Huckabee devotee and the Hunter fan? No. I can’t verify that, but all evidence points to the fact that we protected their voter rights (as evidenced by what happened in SD25).
All evidence points to the fact that the call was right. Was the tone helpful? No. Was it poorly worded and divisive. Certainly so. What this is coming down to now is a method argument versus fact. All evidence points to the facts being correct. The tone (“renegades”, etc.) was excessive. On the behalf of Legacy I apologize for the tone. I do not apologize for protecting the rights of all delegates to vote, regardless of who they prefer for President.
56 - hocndoc
Comal County SD 25 here.
What I've found over the last year or so is that the "new' and "young" Paulers will go out of their way to make noise and take up space but won't give a few minutes to read the existing platform of the Republican Party of Texas.
They seem uniform in their hostility when we offer them copies of the 2006 RPT Platform and Rules and argue when we point out the RPT platform page and paragraph identical to (or with better wording) some unhappy delegate's pet resolution. Every word must be verbatim -- and even when that is true and their pet is a direct quote from the Platform, seem suspicious. They consider Robert's Rules or any other procedure a direct attack on them, personally, and don't offer to do any of the work of setting up or cleaning up the convention hall, feeding the attendees, or even volunteering for one of the temporary committees.
Dave, there is no equivalence between running an orderly meeting where the minority is heard, but the majority rules and one where only one side is ever heard at all.Travis Co SD 25 evidently only allowed their own narrow agenda, with no semblance of "big tent" or inclusion.
57 - Legacy Partisan
Your report, admittedly trying to be fair (although blatantly demonizing us), made it sound like no one knew what was going on in SD25.
“Most of us didn't hear about what happened in SD25”
I assure you, all the key Legacy people heard what went down in SD25. We knew it before the Nominating Committee & Resolution Committee Reports.
Was the Chairman’s tone more terse during the nomination committee report and resolutions report? Yup. Was that helpful? No. But for background information, he knew... we knew... what happened in SD25.
To divorce these two events, is to distort what happened Saturday. The Chairman’s tone was less accepting and open after we heard about the SD25 successful coup. That’s accurate. The Chairman’s tension was fed by the destruction of the SD25 convention. He did not want to see everyone’s hard work flushed down the toilet for Ron Paul supporters to ramrod all their people into the convention and leave everyone else out in the cold.
He didn’t handle the situation ideally, I grant you that. From the evidence presented at the SD25 convention, the Ron Paul supporters were treated much more kindly at SD14, than any Giuliani, Huckabee, Hunter, McCain, Romney, Thompson or McKinney supporter would have, if the Ron Paul people executed their coup in SD14.
58 - Lumpy
Geeat report and interesting responses. I wonder if similar things happened in other states. All we're hearing about here is Texas.
As a voter it does trouble me a bit to hear that the Paul supporters are getting about 20 percent of the delegates in texas when he only got about 4.5 percent of the vote. That doesn't seem right or fair.
59 - spacebetween
Legacy Partisan,
I think you will find that those of us Ron Paul Republicans who are willing to continue the fight to restore the values of the GOP have a LOT in common with your group.
As an inexperienced first-time delegate, I had absolutely no idea what to expect. For the past year, I have been campaigning for Ron Paul, and many times I have been met with ridicule and hostility from other Republicans! Entering a GOP convention that I knew had never seen a significant amount of RPRs (emphasis on significant amount), I felt like I would be treated in the same way those other Republicans have treated me. In my mind, the ones running the convention have been there for at LEAST two years, so they would represent the "status quo." And my sentiments were shared with probably most every other inexperienced Ron Paul supporter as well -- not just in Travis County, but all across the nation. Our rallying call has been "Ron Paul Revolution," setting fire the desire to change the leadership of the Republican Party in whatever manner feasible and possible. Of course, the only way to do that would be to become delegates and begin the process there.
So hopefully you can see why our intentions were to "take over" the convention. They were never meant to be malevolent in any way, although our goals might appear exclusionary. I don't know if I can convey the amount of frustration so many people have felt in regards to the Republican Party and politics in general. Surely you have felt the same way before. After all, I have come to learn that Legacy was once in a similar position to the one we are in now.
Basically, I think what we can learn here is how to really work together. Our little confrontation is, in my opinion, a microcosm of the splintered national Republican Party. The GOP is a party without the same fusion of factions that coalesced as a result of Goldwater and Reagan. The Party seems to have forgotten its goal of smaller, limited government.
I'm completely willing to forge a new Republican coalition, along with many other Ron Paul Republicans.
60 - Patrick
"I think you will find that those of us Ron Paul Republicans who are willing to continue the fight to restore the values of the GOP have a LOT in common with your group."
Those that have the attitude of looking for common ground rather than looking for a fight will find that others will be more than accepting of them joining the 'team' and uniting to win against the socialist/liberal Democrats. Whoever you are, I look forward to meeting you at future Travis GOP events.
61 - Legacy Partisan
Dear spacebetween,
Welcome! I look forward to working with you. You seem quite reasonable. I did feel bad for some of the people that were shut down, who just wanted a voice.
I hope you can see that many of us in Legacy voted to accept the platform as is and end the nomination process as soon as possible. We were concerned about the impending doom that faced anyone who dared to vote for any candidate besides Ron Paul.
I am sad that shutting down debate and locking down the State Delegates as soon as possible did shut some reasonable people out of the process. At that point we could not tell the crazies from the rational people like yourself. It seemed safer to shut things down. I’m sorry that hurt you. My apologies.
We did not want the fascist installation of Presidential litmus tests in SD14, as they were imposed in SD25 by the Ron Paul people.
I am happy to work with you to forge a new alliance. I am certainly not happy about the way things have gone in the Republican Party. A lot of us Legacy folks are sad at the out-of-control government spending and I think we can work together to curb that. I think the thing we’ve been pleased with is Roberts and Alito... anything else is well... questionable. Maybe we disagree on that, but I think there are a lot more that we do agree on. And lets come together in our strengths not our divisions.
When you come to the convention with torches and pitchforks you shouldn’t be surprised if we are defensive to your fire and sharp metal... especially when it’s pointed at us.
I really appreciated all of your enthusiasm. I was glad to see so many people be a part of the process.
I was not happy about some of the vitriol poured on us or at the platform or committees.
But let us put our first contact aside as a rough start and move forward on a positive note. I hope we can work together for a better tomorrow.
62 - James M
As a delegate to the SD 14 Republican convention, I wish to think Dave for posting this article. This has provided a forum for some reasonable discussion between the different groups represented at our meeting.
I belong to neither the Legacy nor the Ron Paul groups, attending SD 14 simply to represent my neighborhood as a conservative Republican. This was my second SD 14 convention and I had some idea what to expect, but I arrived with no special agenda.
As member of the "Reagan Revolution" many years ago, I had joined the Young Republicans in a hope of waking up the Republican establishment. Although not as active in politics today, I can still appreciate enthusism. At our Precinct meeting, a number of new republicans participated, people I had not met in previous years. We welcomed them, even encouraging them to be delegates and alternates to the district meeting. No plans were made other then to show up at SD 14, and no communication other then a few calls or emails to remind people to save the date.
I was therefore a little surprised by the level of organized activity at SD 14. I didn't know anything about the Legacy group (they sent a post card), but I could clearly see all the Ron Paul buttons, stickers, and banners. Our young precinct members, who were openly Ron Paul supporters, were busy trying to convert us to thier political beliefs. They were also busy talking to other Ron Paul people, calling on the telephone to people elsewhere, text messaging, and in other ways obviously organizing something.
There is nothing new under the sun...I have worked to organize people and I know it when I see it...so I made a mental note to keep track of the Ron Paul Replubican activities during the day...
I know that the Ron Paul group set up a little HQ in the back southeast corner -four corners: northeast VIP, northwest Resolutions committee, southeast Ron Paul, southwest main entry. We were there almost 14 hours, so plenty of time to get a hot dog for dinner or see what they were up to now. They were tracking Precinct strength, with people reporting in status -counting the people who grew tired and went home. They were also maintaining telephone numbers of Ron Paul people that may leave, so they could be called back. They were preparing documents (resolutions and a name lists?). I was not the only one to notice activity. Over the course of hours I had many conversations with other people, who were observing the same behavior.
Something was up, so I organized with people I had never met in neighboring precincts, to maintain our voting strength -people called to cancel evening plans, I called to ask my neighbor to let the dog out, and some people even ordered food delivered. We knew it would be a long night, as a delaying game was in play, and we intended to stay to the end.
Late in the afternoon we began receiving reports from people at SD25. When we heard that the Ron Paul Republicans had closed everyone out except their own, we decided that they did not want to play nice. So when the time came, we worked to close things down quickly, helping anyone of similar views...
I have spent time over the last two days doing internet searches on Ron Paul Replublicans ...that is how I found you...
There is a great deal of information out there, written by the Ron Paul Replublicans themselves, if anyone cares to read. The Ron Paul Republicans intended to take over SD 14 and SD 25. They organized for months: creating precinct captains to work the area, using voter rolls to target registered voters, creating promotional papers (slim jims) to work those voters by expected agenda as liberal/conservative/etc, setting internet meet-ups, and training members in the delegate process (they even created a nice Roberts Rules of Order cheat sheet to help those unfamilar with Parlimentary rules -which I have saved for my own use). Anyone who doubts my word can look for yourself, the Ron Paul Republicans are not shy in stating who they are or what they intend to do.
I know that it is sometimes hard to accept a loss in a campaign -John McCain was not my first pick. So I do not hold it against anyone that they are supporting their person. But there is only one nominee for the Republican Party, John McCain. He won all the delegates in this state, and it is our responsibility to nominate him at National.
Even in thier own words, the Ron Paul people who attended SD 14 say they did pretty well. They had representation on all major committees, they had an oppurtunity to be heard on the floor to state some of their issues, they amended existing or added a number of their own resolutions, and in the end they walked out with a fairly high % of the overall delegate count to state (they estimate 20-25% in some blogs). In contrast, the Non Ron Paul people at SD 25 got NOTHING...so who is fair and who is unfair...who is reasonable and who is unreasonable...
I am not crying about it...it just makes me mad that so many people, spent so much time in the trenches working, to then be disenfranchised as if they don't matter to our party...I worked my primary and I didn't have any help from my new precinct member delegates...I know there were people at SD 25 who spent all day working the voting booth, to make sure some Ron Paul Replublicans had the privilege to vote...people who received only ridicule and no thank you at thier own District convention...
What I don't appreciate, is the feeling that someone is attempting to push me out of my own party. I invite someone new into my home, seat them at my table, offer them a share of what I have worked to obtain, and look to them as a possible heir that can push all to greater things. In return for my generosity, I receive the ransack of my home and a quick boot out my own door.
Come sit at my table and let us find some common ground to help each other...but don't expect me to let you burn my house down...
63 - sam
i agree--dr. pojman did not disenfranchise the RP supporters. he and one of the RP supporters did, however, tag team disenfranchise me, as the RP supporter who attempted to caucus out the last two alternate slots jumped me in microphone precedence by shouting me down. after his motion failed, pojman skipped me to recognize the lady on the other mic, who ended up nominating herself to the last alternate spot--which i was going to try to get my friend nominated for.
uncivil behavior (aka acting like a jerk) doesn't win the RP supporters any points with me. they're just as bad as the legacy folks who, incidentally, happened to be better-mannered and more cognizant of us ordinary folk, whose time seems to have been wasted listening to vitriolic rhetoric being thrown around. (i did vote for the minority report, thank you very much.)
64 - withheld
I gave money to Ron Paul and agree with much of what he campaigns for. I was a precinct leader for my precinct, although I admit I was not a very active one. I signed up on the Ron Paul web site when I noticed no one else had. I attended the SD delegate meeting held at the Paul campaign headquarters. That was really my first face-to-face interaction with the campaign leadership. Here are my impressions from this experience ...
- Intent to "take over": This is simply an exaggeration. The Paul leadership had a good estimate of their voting strength a week before the convention. They knew they would be in the minority. They had no illusions of or intention of strongarming out the Legacy leadership.
- OTOH, Legacy also knew the Paul voting strength beforehand. They knew that if they didn't throw some bones and play nice that those unaffiliated would take sides with the Paulers and would make things difficult at the convention.
- Thus, Legacy put token Paul members on each committee and made an attempt to let people have a chance to speak at first.
- The Paul campaign did in fact make an effort to keep some running numbers on voting strength a few times throughout the evening. They did have a table in the back -- which they paid for -- to help out Paul delegates, keep track of the numbers and coordinate.
- Legacy also did this. The whole convention was dotted with people wearing earpieces reporting back to some central administration and receiving instructions from them. Funny though... I didn't see a table for Legacy. Where was this administration operating? My best guess is the VIP area. At least the Paulers operated out in the open.
- Like the Paulers, Legacy also had delegate training meetings to prepare their delegates for the convention.
- One legacy delegate near me openly jeered and laughed at the Paulers on several occasions. She was on a committee. Her attitude and behavior were ugly, vindictive and spiteful. It was apparent that she did not appreciate people trying to move in on her little club, and she took pleasure when they failed. Big Tent didn't seem to be on her agenda.
- Back to the Paul leadership... In my conversations with them, they all were genuine, up-front, honest, sincere and passionate. All they wanted was a fair shake. They were willing to go to the mat if they were given a hard time, but as long as the proceedings went civilly they were more than willing to be cooperative and inclusive.
All that being said, I think there were a few bad apples on both sides that perhaps are tainting perspectives a bit, and, depending on which way one sways, one tends to view the bad apples on the other side while ignoring the ones on their side.
The Paulers had a dude who hijacked a mic at one point and said we were headed towards nazism (post-SD 25 news, when Legacy grew significantly shorter with the Paulers). Then there's Ronnie Reeferseed, who, while passionate about his cause, is not someone the establishment could ever understand (or at least admit to understand). On the Legacy side there was the vindictive lady near me. There was the Nominations Committee grilling, which was rather like a litmus test at times (e.g. Do you support the right to life? Do you vote straight ticket Republican? Who did you vote for? etc) And there were others.
So we can conclude that both sides felt threatened at times and took a defensive posture. --And you can't blame them for that. One side wants to hold onto their authority while the other side wants to introduce new policies and share the in the leadership of the party. This certainly is a threat to the existing establishment, whether they'll admit it openly or not.
Did the Ron Paul campaign really set out to sabotage the conventions in an organized way with the intent of overriding the primary vote? That's preposterous, and it's against the rules, and the campaign is fully aware of it. In Texas, delegates to the National Convention must vote according to the Primary popular vote. The campaign leadership has been attending these conventions, as well as state conventions, for decades. They know how it works.
Mapping what happened in SD 25 to what was going on in SD 14 is not fair. One can't assume the agendas were the same. Clearly they weren't; there was no move to usurp Pojman.
I did not make known my affiliation with Ron Paul to anyone, as I believed it would diminish any hope of going to the State Convention. I kept a low profile. I didn't interact much with the Paulers if I could help it. I was worried that if my sympathies were known I would automatically be discarded and not permitted to gain any sort of foothold either in the party or as a delegate. The very fact that I had to conceal my affiliation should indicate to what degree there was a bias and which way it leaned and who it affected.
It's frustrating enough to have to restrain my expression of my political views on a day-to-day basis in this county, for fear I'll offend or isolate myself from all my liberal friends, colleagues, etc. It's really tragic that I must employ the same strategy at a political event for my own party.
I come from a Republican household, I believe in small government, limited taxation, I'd like to be able to opt out of Social Security and am willing to abandon all of my contributions made to it up to now for the freedom to leave the program. I firmly oppose legislating morality, and I do not support the war in Iraq. I believe we're antagonizing Iran. I like my guns, I don't like public education, I do like immigrant labor, but I don't like federal subsidies for -anyone- or -any- entity. I'm anti-Keynesian. Based on the above, on the continuum, I'm probably more conservative than Legacy. Why should I have to conceal what I'm about from them?
If we do decide to lay blame, let's look at which parties breached ethical boundaries.
Collaborating and coordinating at a convention? Perfectly acceptable.
Collaborating and coordinating before a convention? SOP.
One contingent collaborating and coordinating in the area of the convention designated for VIP reception and administrative activities? Not quite so kosher.
Sending out mailers and leaving messages informing everyone that a "renegade group" intended to take over the convention? Not Cool.
Having the same person who recorded the phone message be the authority on Robert's Rules at the convention? Gives the appearance of impropriety, although I hear this same person helped a lot of the first time Paulers formulate their resolutions, so while it may have seemed a bit off, it appears he did make some efforts to be inclusive at other times. Then again, he called the Minority Report a "Test Vote", which it was totally not intended to be. Sort of a mixed bag.
That's what I've got. At the end of the day, both sides did okay. I would say that all the contentiousness was at the cost of the resolutions though. They still could have used a great deal of ironing out.
Final observation: Legacy is old. Their ideas are old. Their convention methods are old. They are becoming less relevant. They desperately need new ideas, the introduction and effective implementation of current technology, and they need to stop talking about bongs, boy scouts and baby killers and talk about issues that matter, like money and war. Let's drop the dogma and look at things objectively and empirically.
65 - spacebetween
James,
I'm a complete beginner when it comes to this political game, and I'm speaking in generalizations here. BUT, from everything I've gathered over this past year, the way you hate feeling being "pushed out" of your party is the same way many Ron Paul Republicans, including Ron Paul himself, have felt for many years now.
And as someone stated about SD-25, the reason the RP supporters got all their people through was because Legacy folks became very angry and left at the beginning. Some people that didn't belong to Legacy OR RPR did remain, and they were rewarded as well.
I can't stress this enough... we all have to compromise now in order to achieve the GOP's intent of small, limited, constitutional government. These competing factions are the factions that once worked together to build the Republican Party, it seems. I'm speaking of the (small "l") libertarian conservatives, social conservatives, economic conservatives, etc.
As an RP supporter myself, I never engaged in any activity to disenfranchise the honest members of the party. I want to work together and achieve positive change with you.
66 - Dave Nalle
Many interesting comments since I was last on, so I'm going to respond to the most relevant bits, all smashed together.
Apparently, it was judged nefarious that Legacy made a call to have people show up at the convention. However, if you check the Ron Paul meetup site, they had phone-call banks that week to do the exact same thing. There is nothing wrong with that, that's classic political GOTV.
It's hardly fair to characterize those phonecalls as just an encouragement to show up at the convention. The call claimed that traitors were going to try to take over the convention. They also held advanced meetings at one of which Pojman said he was 'declaring war' on the RP supporters.
As for RP meetings, I'm sure there were some. I've seen video of one, in fact. However, I've been active in the Travis County LP and ran for office as a Libertarian a few years ago and I didn't get a phonecall an email or a postcard about attending a Ron Paul organizing event. There weren't even any such notices on the various local LP email lists.
The point being that as demonstrated at the convention, the RP supporters weren't really all that organized, and they certainly weren't organized to follow a hostile and aggressive agenda as the Legacy people were.
the claim that Ron Paul group was trying to 'take over'? Completely 100% true. That was the plan. So on that score, the email and phone call was justified. And the 'Regulars' won it fairly - on the votes.
Perhaps the Legacy people were overly sensitive to the potential for a takeover because that's how they got power away from mainstream republicans a few years ago themselves.
We did try to get a look at the hastily recited delegate list (not realizing how well we'd been treated on it), and used parliamentary rules to attempt a 10 minute recess to that end.
This seems to have been part of the Renegade game plan for all the districts, presumably on the assumption that they thought they were going to get aced out of delegate spots by the insiders. Going into the process with the assumption of hostility probably didn't help matters much, and apparently it wasn't as accurate a prediction in some districts as it was in SD14.
Yes, I can see that you stressed that point. I don't overlook that point. It's like saying the Ron Paul people tried to take over the convention, because there was a call saying they were going to take over the convention.
No, it's like saying they were going to be more defensive and more hostile because they were aware that they were going to be shut out of the convention.
Using evidence as a guide, you can see that in SD25 there was a planned coup. The plan was successful over there. There was a complete change in the nominating committee over there. There was a political litmus test installed by the SD25 Ron Paul fans. Anyone with alternative views were completely shut out. Evidence.
Yes, but SD25 isn't the same as SD14. And from what I've heard from SD25 the people who didn't walk out of the convention got delegate seats in reasonable numbers even if they weren't part of the Renegade faction.
Your report, admittedly trying to be fair (although blatantly demonizing us), made it sound like no one knew what was going on in SD25.
"Most of us didn't hear about what happened in SD25"
By 'most of us' I mean the average person on the convention floor - the 60% or so who were just regular Republicans not part of one of the organized factions. I know the first mention I heard of SD25 was on the way out while talking to some RPers by the door.
I assure you, all the key Legacy people heard what went down in SD25. We knew it before the Nominating Committee & Resolution Committee Reports.
I'm not surprised. They were better organized and had fancy earpieces.
Was the Chairman's tone more terse during the nomination committee report and resolutions report? Yup. Was that helpful? No. But for background information, he knew... we knew... what happened in SD25.
Which means nothing to those of us hearing about both SD25 and why people behaved as they did because of it, long after the fact. Our impression remains pretty negative based on what we personally observed.
As a voter it does trouble me a bit to hear that the Paul supporters are getting about 20 percent of the delegates in texas when he only got about 4.5 percent of the vote. That doesn't seem right or fair.
Now that's an interesting question. Clearly there's going to be much more Ron Paul representation at the state and even the national convention than there was in the popular vote. If it stays around 20% I don't see that as a real problem, but if it's much more than that it could start to invalidate the whole idea of voting for candidates in the primary.
Dave
67 - hocndoc
The Paulers had their own memos - Morrow had warned that "they probably don't like you." Paulers were texting and emailing each other during the day and had held what 'ronpaulbillboards' calls a mock session the week before to practice what they hoped would be disruptive tactics. One report out there claims that the SD 25 nominating committee forced allegiance to Paul for anyone they allowed on the State slate.
68 - spacebetween
Hocndoc,
The Legacy PAC website. Check out the revisions to their wiki. They were doing the exact same thing.
69 - Dave Nalle
Guys, you have to understand that I come at this not from the perspective of the Legacy folks or from the perspective of the Renegades, but from the perspective of one of the delegates - probably the majority - who is just a normal, traditional Republican.
I believe in a lot of the same things the Ron Paul republicans believe in, though I'm not terribly font of Paul as a leader and don't think much of conspiracy theories. I share some views with the Legacy folks, but I'm not part of the religious right or a big anti-abortion fanatic.
From that perspective, my experience at the convention made me more sympathetic to the Renegades because they seemed to be manipulating the process less and getting pushed around more. The situation was apparently different in other districts.
What I don't like is the idea of either group or any other group, taking over a convention and dominating it and taking most or all of the delegates, way out of proportion to how their viewpoint was represented in the primary or in the Republican party in general.
Both factions look like they each make up less than 20% of the party, and while that ought to be enough to get them some respect and some input, it should not be enough for them to dominate a convention or set policy for the party as a whole.
Dave
70 - dleebrooks
This has been a very interesting read, from Dave's report on down through all of the comments.
By way of introduction, I am a Ron Paul Republican. I have always been a libertarian leaning Republican in the sense that Ronald Reagan meant it that conservatism is grounded in libertarianism.
In my precinct, Travis 460, there was nearly zero Republican presence and, inspired by Dr. Paul's message, there is now. We canvassed our neighborhood and found many, many people who were open to small government, conservative principles and this canvassing and subsequent GOTV efforts resulted in Dr. Paul winning in my precinct and individuals in the Dr. Paul camp taking all of the slots in our delegation to the SD 14 meeting. In fact, to speak to the lack of prior Republican organization in our precinct, we were the only one's to show up to the precinct convention at all. This was my first involvement in a campaign at this level.
Many in the RP movement have felt hostility, as has been mentioned previously, well before they received anything from Legacy decrying us as "angry populists" and "renegades". Whether it was talk radio hosts insulting Dr. Paul or other candidates immaturely and openly laughing at his positions during the debates (were the running for POTUS or President of the Sophomore class, I couldn't tell) or the constant insinuations that we are all kooks, truthers, conspiracists and the like, there was a feeling that we were fighting an uphill battle from the outset.
Yes, we organized and had practice sessions and information distribution amongst ourselves. That is how campaigns work so I don't think that is indicative of any nefarious motives to usurp power.
That being said, I had no real worries that there would be as much contention at the convention until I received the aforementioned postcards and robo-call calling me a renegade. As a result I ended up walking in very much expecting what happened.
To those who questioned whether it was fair that we got roughly 20% of the delegates to State when Dr. Paul only got 4.5% of the statewide vote, all I have to say is that he did much better in Travis county and SD14 precincts than that and the delegate allocation is not out of line with what he received in this area.
Did some of the RP people act a little bit uncivilized, re: "Answer the question" and booing the gov. (although those weren't all RP people as has been stated, tolls and land grabs make a lot more than just RP people mad) - yes. Were the majority of us civil, polite and friendly, I think so.
All in all, I think that there is plenty of room in the Travis GOP for us and our ideas and priorities. I look forward to working with all of you Rp'ers or otherwise, moving forward and I'll see you in Houston in June.
71 - GOP
Can I assume that the Ron Paul supporters here agree with his pro-life position and support the overthrow of Roe v. Wade?
72 - Lumpy
I voted for Paul and I disagree with his stand on abortion? But I see it as one issue among many? Not a make or break issue.
How about u GOP? Could u support a candidate who was the way u want on every other issue but hppened to be pro choice?
73 - withheld
GOP-
I think the views on abortion of Ron Paulers mirror those of Republicans in general: They're varied.
Paul's position is that the more complex the issue the more it can be best addressed at the local level. In this case he advocates leaving abortion policy up to individual states. This entails overturning Roe v. Wade.
Paul's personal position is pro-life, but since he does not support federal legislation on abortion, it is moot for all intents and purposes, beyond the revocation of Roe v. Wade.
You'll find Ron Paulers who are pro-life and some that are pro-choice with views on the issue spanning the spectrum. I think a significant proportion do support Paul's position that the issue is best handled at the state level.
When it comes down to it, abortion is, for most Paul supporters, not as pivotal a component of Paul's platform as, say, the economy, taxation, non-interventionism, limited government, etc.
If you listen to Paul's interviews, you will find that he has a priority list:
- First, he intends to expedite the end of the Iraq war and get troops home.
- Second, he intends to bring troops home from Afghanistan.
- Third, he wants to work with congress to reform policies on the following:
+ The Patriot Act/Homeland Security
+ The Economy, including reducing spending, minimizing taxation, curbing the Fed
+ Social Security
+ The War On Drugs
+ Border Security
- Next, he would work to bring troops home from other areas of the world where their presence is no longer needed, such as Korea, Cuba, and the other 150+ countries where we have a military presence.
- Finally, he would work on his grander aspirations:
+ Getting rid of the IRS
+ Getting rid of Social Security while still enabling those dependent on the program to continue to receive benefits
+ Getting rid of other extraneous federal programs, like the Dept of Education, which didn't exist until the 80's
+ Handing abortion policy off to the states (and overturning Roe v Wade)
+ Getting out of the UN and NATO
+ Getting back to a reserve-backed currency
I'm sure I'm leaving a few things off and probably have a few out of order, but this will give you a general idea of his platform and what he has set out to accomplish.
As you can see, abortion reform is in there, but there are other issues that take precedence.
My personal view on abortion? I think the best answer is to revitalize our culture and return to a society where individuals are responsible enough that it would be rare to be in a situation where one might consider the option of abortion. I don't support government subsidies for abortions, I do support a requirement of parental consent for minors (if it's required to obtain parental consent for a girl getting her ears pierced then a doctor should get consent for her to undergo any medical procedure, including abortion). I would support making the process to get an abortion much more bureaucratic after the 5th month and only under special circumstances after then.
Ideologically I struggle with the issue. It comes down to what autonomy do we give parents over their minor children, who do not yet assume full rights. This is a fine line, even after a baby is born.
I know many Paul supporters who are much more pro-life than I am and many who are much more pro-choice. This same holds true for my Republican friends. We are a big tent, after all. We aren't going to see eye-to-eye on every issue. The important thing is that we respect everyone's perspectives and work to find the common ground and build upon it.
74 - GOP
---How about u GOP? Could u support a candidate who was the way u want on every other issue but happened to be pro choice?---
Depends on what you mean by "support". I've had to hold my nose many times in the past and vote for pro-choice Republicans because the only alternative was a Democrat. But as far as giving money and actively campaigning, I've done it on occasion but not enthusiastically.
What I find disingenuous about the Paul guys is that they promote Paul's pro-life position as some kind of proof that he is a real Republican, when my guess is that a very large portion of them - like, probably 75% or more - will be rioting in the streets if and when Roe is overturned. If they truly are pro-life, then fine - the Republican party is their natural home. But if they aren't pro-life or if abortion is not a big priority, then basically they are left with three issues - Iraq, legalizing drugs, and spending, and Republicans of all stripes are upset and we don't need Ronnie Reeferseed to tell us that. Which leaves only Iraq and drugs that they want to change, which are already bedrock positions of the Democratic party. So if those are truly the issues - and it seems to me that that's really what all this is about - why not go over THERE and work on THEM to cut spending? It would seem much easier than tearing up the Republicans on Iraq and drug legalization.
Unless, of course, that's the real goal.
And then there's the ideological purity that the Paul guys seem to insist on. They're supposedly not happy with McCain for whatever reason, but unless they agree with Paul on abortion, they are doing essentially the same thing that McCain supporters (all 3 of them) are doing - giving him a pass on that with which they don't agree because they support him on some other things that they do agree with him on.
I just don't understand why Paul gets a pass on abortion. That's a big red flag to me when it comes to trusting most of those I saw last weekend.
75 - withheld
GOP-
You misunderstand Paul's position on abortion.
Paul supports giving states the authority to determine their own policies on abortion. For Mississippi, this means that abortion could likely be banned. For California, abortion will probably be subsidized.
Paul is personally against abortion, but he does not want federal government to determine this issue.
More is available here.
Paul elaborates on his federal policy in the video in the top-right corner.
I support Paul primarily because of his fiscal conservatism. I also support Paul because of his position on free enterprise, privacy rights, firearm ownership, taxation, property rights and eminent domain, health care, the environment and energy. All of these issues are in line with the Republican platform. In fact, they are all incredibly similar to Reagan's platform: one of our Republican icons who managed to re-invigorate the Republican party.
Paul's positions on foreign policy, drugs, social policy and perhaps monetary policy are where he deviates some from today's Republican platform, however, if you look back on the platform, his positions are actually more in line with the traditional Republicanism than the current administration.
With respect to social issues, the religious right must come to terms with the fact that legislating morality is a futile exercise. In fact, whether or not someone else complies with my own set of moral standards really doesn't determine whether they're a threat to my life, liberty or property.
Let's focus on legislation that preserves and protects these rights, the rights to life, liberty and property, and leave the morality issues to the church and, if desired by the community, the local governments.