Today on Blogcritics
Home » The GOP in Crisis: Conflict or Common Ground

The GOP in Crisis: Conflict or Common Ground

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

This past week Nevada held its state Republican convention. As is likely to be the case in many other states, Ron Paul supporters were disproportionately represented among the delegates, making up close to half the convention membership rather than the 14% which he received in the state caucuses. With a strong grassroots organization, Paul supporters have dominated or taken over many district conventions nationwide, excluded delegates for other candidates, and sent large contingents to state conventions. Nevada is only the first in what may be a series of attempts to take over state conventions leading up to a similar takeover of the national Republican convention in August.

At the Nevada convention the response of the convention chairman, with the support of the state party organization, was to shut down the convention altogether as soon as it became clear that there would be an attempt at a coup by renegade delegates. They apparently plan to reconvene the convention and have the credentials committee disqualify Paul delegates to achieve the result they want.

Clearly it's not a good thing for party nominating conventions to end up with disproportionately large numbers of delegates who support a candidate who did not do all that well at the polls. Even worse when those delegates manage to take over the convention. The result is the effective disenfranchisement of the majority of primary voters who chose not to vote for that candidate and might end up with no representation at their state convention. That essentially amounts to a coup.

It's equally bad for this to lead to situations like the one we saw in Nevada where party officials have to step in with a heavy hand and institute repressive measures to counter a potential takeover by a vocal minority. That totally negates the primary and caucus process and likely disenfranchises not just the troublesome minority but many others as well. It leaves party insiders to basically pick the candidate and write the platform with no input from the people.

Nevada was one of the states most vulnerable to this sort of takeover, because the popular vote was heavily dominated by Mitt Romney and despite his subsequent endorsement of McCain, that left a vacuum which enthusiastic Paul supporters at various district conventions could leap in and fill. A similar situation may exist in many other states where McCain came in second or won a narrow victory, including Arkansas, Colorado, Montana, Michigan, Alaska, Utah, Maine, Massachusetts, and Wyoming. Other states may also be vulnerable where Paul supporters are particularly well organized. I know that here in Texas where Paul didn't do particularly well in the primary vote they will be represented quite well at the state convention. As many as a third of the total states might run into serious challenges at the state conventions, despite a popular vote which should dictate a clear McCain victory nationwide.

Image and video hosting by TinyPicNevada may show us the shape of things to come. Attempts to take over district conventions either succeed or result in a harsh negative reaction; this has already happened in almost every state. They are followed by attempts to take over state conventions, again with mixed results. Ultimately that all leads to an attempt to take over or at least disrupt the national convention, leading to a massive floor fight, chaos, and disunity going into the vital contest with the Democrats. The result will not be a presidential nomination for Ron Paul. More likely it will be a violent negative reaction against Paul's supporters, a crackdown at the national convention, and a great deal of chaos and weakening of the party and the nominee, possibly serious enough to throw the election to the Democrats.

The renegades who were brought into the nominating process behind Ron Paul do have some very positive objectives. They want to return the Republican party to a set of core values which are pretty laudable. They want to make the party more libertarian, reduce the size of government, and insure adherence to the Constitution. Almost no one in the Republican party would disagree with those basic values. Yet because many of them come from outside the party and have a negative attitude towards the party leadership based on the actions of the current administration, they have assumed from the beginning that they would receive a hostile reception, and that became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

On the mistaken belief that they would be greeted only with opposition, the Paul supporters have been working to overthrow the party by force rather than trying to work within the system to achieve their goals. The result is that they have created the opposition which they assumed would be there, often among people who would have welcomed them with open arms had they taken a less confrontational course. There are lots of mainstream Republicans who would like to see the party return to a more positive set of libertarian values. They would be natural allies of the Paul supporters had anyone in the renegade movement chosen to approach them.

By treating the entire party as hostile and by alienating potential allies and turning them into enemies, the chances of any success for the Ron Paul movement is greatly reduced. While they could have had a great deal of influence and had a real role in setting the party's agenda, they have instead made an all or nothing bet to either take over the party completely or be totally rejected. As demonstrated in Nevada a lot of power still lies with the party leadership and the likely result is that the party will reject these newcomers and their ideas with them and as a result move even farther away from their positive values and towards the authoritarian model of the neocons and religious right.

This process is only just starting and it may not be too late. Paul supporters and mainstream Republicans share a lot of common values, and if they could recognize this and work together instead of being at each others throats a disaster could be avoided and a lot of good could be accomplished. There are several things they need to realize.

• First, they share a common enemy. No matter how bad the current GOP leadership and administration are, the radical left as represented by Clinton and Obama is far more hostile to principles of individual liberty and small government than any Republican would ever be. Winning the White House and keeping the radical left out of power should always be the first objective.

• Second, they share common values. Virtually all Republicans value principles similar to those held by Ron Paul supporters. They're just more used to having to accept compromises. That doesn't mean they want to compromise those values, and given an opportunity to make those values a reality they would seize it.

• Third, Ron Paul's ideas have a future, but his candidacy does not. Paul is not going to win the Republican nomination, and even if he did he would be a disastrous presidential candidate. He's not personally appealing and has unsavory associations which make him unelectable. Despite that, his ideas could still go on and become the basis for a great new Republican platform which would influence the party and all of its candidates for years to come. That's what efforts ought to be focused on.

• Fourth, the party is never going to permit a coup. The leadership would rather split the party and lose this election than give up power. They would accept a great deal of change in the direction and policies of the party, but they aren't going to put up with totally throwing out the results of the primary or running an unelectable fringe candidate who got less than 5% of the primary vote nationwide.

• Fifth, John McCain is more useful than people realize. McCain may not be anyone's ideal libertarian, but like lots of mainstream Republicans, at heart he believes in some very libertarian values. He's also much more responsive to criticism and attempts to influence his positions than most other political leaders of his stature. This has been one of his weaknesses, but it could be turned into a strength. If faced with a strongly libertarian platform and party, McCain will adapt to represent those values and he'll be a much more effective spokesman for them than Ron Paul has ever been.

If Ron Paul supporters can accept these realities they have a chance to really change the Republican party and lay the groundwork for a very positive future. If they can switch their focus from taking over conventions and creating hostility to infiltrating and dominating resolutions committees and shaping the platform they will find allies waiting for them and lots of opportunities to bring about real change. If they don't change their tactics all they are going to produce is a weakened GOP and getting themselves excluded.

State conventions are coming up in the next week in Delaware, Maine and Mississippi and they could be the starting point for finding common ground and unifying the party towards achieving common goals. Mainstream Republican groups like the GOP Unity Forum are trying to open a dialog and offer the hand of welcome to Ron Paul supporters willing to work to promote shared values and set the party on a more positive course without having to resort to tactics which will leave the party weaker and mean a victory for the socialist left in the general election. It's time to choose between chaos and defeat or unity and victory. If chaos continues and hands victory to the Democrats in November then everybody loses.

Changing the direction of a political party isn't the work of one election, but there is a lot which can be accomplished, quickly laying the groundwork for future success. The party as a whole can be moved in a more libertarian direction. A clear and unequivocal liberty-oriented platform would give the presidential nominee a decisive message of the kinds of policies he should focus on and the kind of campaign of principle which he ought to run. It would be a message which he cannot ignore and it would be a great first victory in the process of restoring the Republican party to the party which it ought to be.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • spinnikerca

    Please remember that of the remaining candidates, Ron Paul WON Nevada. He beat McCain. Why on earth should McCain get more delegates in a state where he lost?

  • NH Republican

    I don’t see why Republican’s should have to accept having an elitist neo-con warmongering puppet shoved down their throats as their nominee, and judging by the results in PA last week it’s not just the Ron Paul supporters that find McCain un-palletable. As far as a general election goes, if Ron Paul got fair coverage from the media (and fair treatment within his own party) he would mop the floor with anyone the dems could put up against him. McCain is a sure formula for failure, almost every state has had overwhelming democratic turnout at the polls and it’s because of the disastrous policies of the current president (who has one of the lowest public approval ratings on record), all of which McCain endorses and will continue (seriously, how many people are going to vote for 100 more years of Iraqi occupation?). if the mainstream republicans are tired of having to apologize for their party and want a chance at keeping a Republican in the white house then they need to unite on their own platform and stand behind the man who follows it (that isn’t John McCain)…

  • Paul

    More likely if the current party leadership gets to hang onto power, they will continue to implement policies that increase the size of government as quickly or even more quickly than the dems, and continue to promote an agressive, interventionist foreign policy. This is the same hook that’s gotten conservatives for years, and I’m not falling for it again — “vote for us, at least we’re better than those big bad dems, and we really will think about maybe moving the party sort-of back to the principles it is supposed to stand for eventually”

    Bull****. I’m tired of invasive and oversized government, and the Rs are not doing jack squat to stop it. McCain a conservative? Don’t make me laugh.

    No, the new way it’s going to work is the following: You start implementing actual conservative policies, and nominating candidates who believe in economic and social freedom, and we’ll vote for them. Till then, good luck, I’ll be voting libertarian, writing someone in, or just not voting at all in novemmber. I will no longer vote for people who mainly stand for the opposite of what I believe in, just because they have an R next to their name.

    You’ve had since 1994. Time’s up.

  • http://www.nextrightthing.com Davinator

    Dave Nalle wrote, “Clearly it’s not a good thing for party nominating conventions to end up with disproportionately large numbers of delegates who support a candidate who did not do all that well at the polls.”

    Romney took 1st and he quit. Paul took 2nd, so Paul should take the most Nevada delegates to National. Dave Nalle and I agree that Ron Paul should dominate the Nevada delegates, and McCain should have fewer Nevada delegates than Ron Paul.

    Dave Nalle, it is FANTASTIC to read your voice of reason in supporting the person still in the race who polled highest in Nevada. Thank you!

  • Huckans

    Dave,

    You should know better than to try to tell Libertarian-leaning Republicans (like myself) to “make nice” after what the GOP and MSM just did to Paul–it ain’t gonna happen. (I admire your attempt, however.) The reality is that Paul’s 100 or so delegates in St. Paul (plus the thousands of sign-waving hangers-on outside the convention) will put on a display that won’t soon be forgotten. It will be the ultimate payback in embarrassment for the RNC.

    McCain is worse than Hillary and Obama. He is not well. He is more liberal than conservative and an unapologetic warmonger. Paul supporters will not rally around McCain in the fall. Paul has sufficient GOP support to sink McCain in the GE because of the swing states.

    I hope McCain is sweating it. He should be.

    Cheers

  • Jasonh

    Dave,

    Takeover? Takeover! We were the only ones that even showed up!

    I was a delegate to the State Convention. We followed the rules to the letter from Jan 19th until April 26th. We played the game the entire time. And when we were about to sweep Nevada’s share of delegates the Chair of the convention broke the rules by calling for an indefinite recess without discussion or a vote. The Nevada State GOP leadership followed a “cut-and-run” policy and literally ran out of the convention room floor. I would also like to remind you that the key vote to open up the nomination process for delegates to the national convention won by an overwhelming margin, a supermajority of the assembled delegates. We barely had half the delegates. We were able to win that key procedural vote because the Republican rank and file does not like being dictated to by an out-of-touch, and out-of-sight leadership.

  • JP

    Couple of points to share. What part of “Paul supporters will NOT vote for liberal McCain” does the media not understand? There will NEVER be a unity between supporters of a true conservative and a war-mongering RINO like McCain. Next point, Paul beat McCain in Nevada. Why should McCain be coronated in a state he LOST to Paul? Third, McCain has way more unsavory connections than Paul does. Keating 5 anyone? How about we include his close ties to unsavory DEMOCRATS like Ted Kennedy and Lieberman? Next, politics is run by those who show up. Its a shame that most GOP voters dont care enough to actually become delegates. I guess its their loss when their vote doesnt mean anything because they didn’t fight to become delegates and Paul supporters did. Our whole Republic is based on this principle. And finally, its a sad commentary when the GOP breaks its own rules because it doesnt get the outcome it wants, like in NV. Paul supporters are playing by the rules. The GOP is not. If McCain is so assured of the nomination, then what is the GOP so scared of?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Paul came second with a pitifully small percentage of the vote, so he should get all the Nevada delegates? I don’t think so.

    I wonder what would have happened if the GOP had used preference voting in the primaries: your first choice guy gets eliminated or drops out; so who is your second choice? Might’ve saved a whole bunch of trouble.

    Somehow I can’t see many of those who voted for Romney in Nevada giving their second preference to Paul.

  • Terrance

    We cannot forget the media purposely did not include Dr. Paul in the graphics leading up to the debate shows. We did however see that Goohliani was a part of the graphics in every news update on the election. Goohliani did not fair very well, he faired worse than paul…even after Paul kicked his butt in the debate they still refused to pay heed to anything Paul had to say. The media went ahead and painted him as a kook, because for some reason they were instructed to.

    Yes the people have reason to beleive they were slighted. The proof is in the pudding so to speak. Paul did better than McCain in Nevada, and the winner quit the race, so why shouldnt Paul people get a chance to elect delegates?

    Anyone else notice how Paul doesnt sound like a professional politician with the same old canned responses and buzz words? You hear the word change, but Paul has real substance.

    I also noticed how this writer mentioned Paul had associations with people of bad character, does he have any proof?

    These caucus meetings should prove to be interesting. The Ron Paul folks know their stuff, and they merely displaying the fact that most americans are ignorant of the election process…nothing more.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Let’s get some facts straight here. Paul beat McCain by less than 1% in Nevada and Romney has endorsed McCain, suggesting that his delegates ought to go to McCain or use their best judgement on who to back, and given how different Romney and Paul are I doubt they’d go for Paul.

    And let’s be fair here, I did say that what the Nevada convention chair did was unacceptable. My concern is as much the backlash against the Paul supporters as it is their actions.

    To be absolutely clear here, my fear is that the behavior of Paul supporters will drive the party farther away from libertarianism in reaction, and I think that would be a disaster.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    You should know better than to try to tell Libertarian-leaning Republicans (like myself)

    I’m one too. Keep that in mind. I ran for office as a Libertarian, in fact.

    to “make nice” after what the GOP and MSM just did to Paul–it ain’t gonna happen.

    What did the MSM do to Paul? He got coverage out of proportion to how he was polling nationally and the GOP did little or nothing to him, except a few isolated state parties who acted on their own.

    Yoi (I admire your attempt, however.) The reality is that Paul’s 100 or so delegates in St. Paul (plus the thousands of sign-waving hangers-on outside the convention) will put on a display that won’t soon be forgotten. It will be the ultimate payback in embarrassment for the RNC.

    So you’d rather put on a display and cause embarassment then actually work to guide the party in a positive direction and actually achieve some change?

    McCain is worse than Hillary and Obama. He is not well. He is more liberal than conservative and an unapologetic warmonger. Paul supporters will not rally around McCain in the fall. Paul has sufficient GOP support to sink McCain in the GE because of the swing states.

    McCain is almsot a libertarian himself, and libertarians are closer on a lot of issue to liberal than to conservative. Look at his issue positions and interest group ratings sometime.

    But if you’d rather see statist socialists elected, I have no sympathy for you.

    Dave

  • Jonas

    i am Voting for Ron Paul, no matter how “the party” decides to vote. I just want the Dr. to get speak to the convention, to get him on that stage, maybe, just maybe, he’ll convince all the Delegates that he is the right choice for the party.

  • Lumpy

    Great article but you’re wasting your time. As u can see from the comments the Paulbots are fanatic and irrational and would rather see the nation destroyed than pursue any sensible course. You’re giving them more credit than they deserve. They don’t care about making America more free. They’re like spoiled children bent on vengeful destruction.

  • bliffle

    The seeds of the current conflict were sown when the warrior/neocon class violently took over the party for their aberrant purposes.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Actually, I’d lay more of the blame on the religious right’s takeover than the Neocons. The neocons don’t really hold any power in the party organization. They are involved at the whim of the leaders.

    Dave

  • Baronius

    Wow, Dave, I was going to criticize this article, but seeing how badly you’re getting beaten up, I feel obligated to defend you.

    You touch on a very important point. Party reform has to be targeted on the next election, not the current one. You don’t take over a party and change its course immediately. Believe me, I wish we could take back the primaries and have someone other than McCain as our nominee, but we can’t. What you can do is prepare the party for the next go-around.

  • Lumpy

    IMO McCain is a force for reform. The GOP has wandered into the dark night of reactionary policies and religious extremism and McCain might be able to bring it back to its more moderate roots.

    The Paul people are revisionists. 3he republican party was never libertarian or anarchist. It was a pro-business liberal party.

  • Jesse M

    You mention on page one that Nevada is the first convention where Paul has cleaned up on the national delegate count. Where have you been? Nevada definitely isn’t the first one, and it won’t be the last one either.

  • Lumpy

    Jesse. There have only been two GOP state conventions to date, Nevada and North Dakota. As the article said there are 3 this weekend.

  • Baronius

    Lumpy, I’m going to miss the dark night of reactionary policies and religious extremism…

  • Bennett

    This is WAY more fun than watching the battle between Senators Clinton and Obama. GO REPUBS!

    Love the unity in Nevada, classy act that.

    P.S. Dave, still pushing you favorite conspiracy theory?

    shhhhhhh…. Them Dems’re ALL socialists!

  • aksmith

    Dave – I was there. We’ve had civil discourse during the campaign, you and I. But this time I think it’s become obvious that you simply wish to do away with libertarianism and stick with the status quo standard Republican nonsense.

    McCain close to a libertarian? By what insane definition could that possibly be. He’s anti-free speech. He’s pro-patriot act. He’s anti-gun. He’s pro-drug war. He’s pro-inflation and fiat currency. He’s now FOR torture, which he used to be against. And he’s unapologetically pro-unconstitutional, unnecessary, and misdirected war.

    Just fess up. You hate Ron Paul and all of us who bothered to show up and take part in the Nevada process. Are we to be blamed because near-libertarian McCain hired incompetents to run every phase of his campaign and never showed up once to campaign in Nevada? Are we to be blamed because of room with majority non-Ron Paul supporters found the party’s rules to be absurd and unfair?

    I sure hope nobody pays you to blog. If so, they should demand their money back, and apply it to your next payment for the medication you so obviously haven’t been taking.

    And to the person who believes that the Romney supporters wouldn’t pick Ron as their second choice. You are misinformed. In fact, I got elected as delegate in a room overwhelmingly filled with Romney supporters. And many of them came up to me afterwards and told me that Ron was their second choice. Had Mitt not been LDS, I think you’d have seen a very different result in NV. Mormons accept the Constitution as part of their religion and divinely inspired. Does that sound like a McCain supporter to you?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Dave – I was there. We’ve had civil discourse during the campaign, you and I. But this time I think it’s become obvious that you simply wish to do away with libertarianism and stick with the status quo standard Republican nonsense.

    You clearly didn’t read very closely. What I want is to keep the libertarianism and do away with as much of the conflict and chaos as possible, because right now the confrontational approach the RPers are taking is going to get the libertarian reforms thrown out.

    McCain close to a libertarian? By what insane definition could that possibly be.

    His very high ratings on the Liberty Index are certainly a clue. Higher than Ron Paul in a couple of years, in fact.

    He’s anti-free speech.

    Well, that’s certainly a conservative republican, non-libertarian position.

    He’s pro-patriot act.

    Not on the record or on his public statements. He’s one of the few major Senators to speak out against the act and many of its provisions.

    He’s anti-gun.

    Utter bullshit spread by the JBS and GOA for ulterior purposes.

    He’s pro-drug war.

    Certainly no more so than 90% of our other political figures and he does at least support alternative sentencing.

    He’s pro-inflation and fiat currency.

    Not libertarian issues by any means. These are Bircher issues.

    He’s now FOR torture,

    Not exactly. You should check his record on the issue.

    which he used to be against. And he’s unapologetically pro-unconstitutional, unnecessary, and misdirected war.

    Yes, he’s for the war and for fighting it competently so it can be brought to a conclusion. The rest of your statement is a matter of opinion and one not shared by a lot of people.

    Just fess up. You hate Ron Paul and all of us who bothered to show up and take part in the Nevada process.

    What I hate is the move to the right which you’re going to force on the GOP and the opportunity you’re throwing away to reform the party.

    Dave

  • tony

    Dave,
    If asked, prior to reading this article, I would’ve supported the idea of a confrontational, chaotic, crisis of a national convention. The issues seem that important and the room for compromising on those issues seems non-existant. Being a RP supporter in the past year, not being able to comprehend how the media and public can *not* see what we see, leads pretty easily to a paranoid view of the media and a distrust of the public mindset. A politically catastrophic national convention would force the msm to acknowledge that something is going on. Anyway, I think your article is very reasonable and it may have cooled my head a little bit. Good job.

  • Lisa

    I’ve been a Republican my entire life. And I will NOT vote for McCain… EVER. And to me he’s just as bad as Clinton and Obama. Which do I want: commie socialists or neocon fascists? hmmm How about none of the above.
    The Republicans under the current administration have virtually destroyed this one great nation by doing all the things liberals usually do, and I will not be responsible for electing someone who’s going to continue a war that we can NEVER win. We CAN’T win it!!! Doesn’t anybody ever read their history books?
    And I tell you what.. I don’t understand this religious right crap. I live in a very religious Christian community, and they’re mostly democrats here because they’re for social security and welfare. So this religious extremism argument annoys the hell out of me. It’s not a nationwide phenomenon.
    Come September I’m writing in Ron Paul because it’ll be the first time I will actually be voting for someone I believe in.

  • http://www.crimesceneinterrogatory.com Ken Fawcett

    There is nothing “Democratic” about these conventions. Nor was that ever the intent. Like our Republic, safeguards have been built into the system to prevent “mob rule.” It seems that history has shown us, the “mob” is often misguided, and prone to irreperable errors. If the Paul factions somehow prevail, history will record that at minimum they saved the GOP from certain death. As the convention nears, it will become even more apparent than it is today that a candidate who has “bet the farm” on four more years of the most unpopular presidency in modern history, has as much chance in the general election as an ice cube in the Sahara. If McCain is foisted as the choice du jour for Republicans, they will suffer defeat like no other party in history. And that will resonate down to the lowest levels of all contested races across the nation. In fact, the only election I’d feel safe in calling for the GOP is the 14th Congressional District, in Texas- the one Dr Paul has already secured.

    St Paul 9-1-1PM

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Hey, if you guys are finished venting your outrage, I’ve put a trivia test on my home site to test your knowledge of the history of the Constitution. The first three to get the answers right will win a stylish “Unite or Die” T-shirt.

    You can find the contest at The Republic of Dave.

    Dave

  • Daniel

    Maybe if the Republicans get absolutely crushed in 2008 they won’t be such an utter disappointment in the future?

    I’m not going to ‘have my vote count’ by voting for McCain, who doesn’t deserve my vote.

    By some fluke, if the Democrats don’t have a landslide victory and McCain wins, we get 4 more years of Bush. That’s a waste of time.

    It’s true: the net effect of having McCain is very similar to having a Democrat. As long as the direction of this country stays steady, the speed is irrelevant. And McCain is status quo. More spending. It’s all about economics and our falling dollar. And McCain doesn’t have a clue.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Maybe if the Republicans get absolutely crushed in 2008 they won’t be such an utter disappointment in the future?

    Your mistake here is assuming that there will BE a future for America as a free nation if the GOP loses the presidency this fall.

    Dave

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    On the Amazon book link at the top of the article, Barry Goldwater looks as if he’s playing one of those dance pad games you see at amusement arcades. I didn’t realize he enjoyed shaking his booty!

  • http://thentruthwillout.blogspot.com Dixon Cannon

    Too late! We’ve watched the Republican party dissolve into a Neo-Con (National Socialist) movement over the decades. Don’t forget – it’s why the Libertarian Party even came into existance in the first place! They ain’t gonna change now! This is a REVOLUTION in the truest sense of the word and we aim to continue revolting. It is the current Republican regime that will hand the Democrats the White House unless they get with the program and dump the Neo-Con agenda. The change is for the current Republican leadership – Live Free or DIE! As of 2008, the Republican Party of the last 40 years is no more. It HAS changed; the Ron Paul candidacy has accomplished that. It is the old Neo-Con factions and leadership that haven’t gotten the message into their heads yet. Over the next four to eight years, we aim to implement those changes, solidify those changes and, in the long run, change this nation back to a Constitutional Republic. Get with it – or get out of the way! (Get it?)

  • Gmartine

    “Your mistake here is assuming that there will BE a future for America as a free nation if the GOP loses the presidency this fall.”

    Don’t worry, us Ron Paul supporters will continue our fight for freedom.

  • shane scheid

    If the rest of the party has no problem linig up behind McCain, despite his unabashed loyalty to the new religion of Statism, Why can’t they do the same for Paul? If the majority of the party is so brain dead that they are going to vote for the guy with the big “R” by his name regardless, why not have them vote for Paul AND get the support he commands as well? None of Paul’s support is drawn from other candidates, it is all new voters. What better way to enlarge the tent?

    The problem I have with this “unity” crowd is that unity for it’s own sake (power) is the reason we are in this mess to begin with. We “united” eight years ago under a “compassionate conservative” that turned out to be not compassionate and even less conservative. Thus I ask, nay DEMAND, from those who would ask me to throw my vote away, WHAT SPECIFICALLY IS THE POLICY DIFFERENCE ONE CAN REALISTICALLY EXPECT BETWEEN McCAIN, CLINTON, OR OBAMA? As yet I have recieved responses to this ranging from uninformed drivel to outright huberous, but nothing substancial. Given the choice between uniting behind a naive socialist and death, I choose the latter. Literally. At least then my vote in some way dictates my future.

  • shane scheid

    The “unity” crowd can keep their crumbs. They have done this to themselves (I fortunately am simply too young to have played a part in their demise) and now they need a scapegoat. How hypocritical to denounce people “flooding” political conventions in a society based on representative gov’t? For decades this coutries domestic AND foreign policy has been run by the loudest and most vociferous minority groups. Now that the citizenry has learned how this works and attempts to make the system function for them, they are accused of attempting some coup or takeover. This is simply ludicrous.

  • belle

    So, Ron Paul is right yet he is wrong. So, he should go along to get along. So, the GOP controls the process. So, Paulites should vote for a candidate they don’t like just to prevent the election of another candidate they like even less. Even though, of course they have a candidate they do like.

    Do you have any clue about what the r3VOLution is about? I don’t think so, based on the tortured logic in this piece. Face facts: whether Ron Paul becomes president or not, he has been an unstoppable force that has greatly influenced this election process. We’re loud, we’re proud, and we’re here to stay.

  • Baronius

    “As of 2008, the Republican Party of the last 40 years is no more. It HAS changed; the Ron Paul candidacy has accomplished that.”

    Ron Paul is a blip. He’s the only candidate other than McCain, so he’s getting the “anyone but McCain” vote in the primaries. He’s fourth in delegates, with 8% the delegates of Romney, 8% as many as Huckabee, and 1.6% of McCain. That’s not even Pat Buchanan 1996 territory; it’s more like Alan Keyes 2000.

  • Pablo

    Dave said comment 23

    “He’s pro-inflation and fiat currency.

    Not libertarian issues by any means. These are Bircher issues.”

    Your showing your true colors once again Dave. The manufacture of money out of thin air and then charging interest on it, is the scam of the centuries. The fact that you denigrate it with your bircher comment shows me once again that you are nothing but a shill.

    Your so called libertarian ideals I find repugnant, as they make you appear as you really are for the sovereignty of the individual from where all else flows, when nothing could be further from the truth. You are the first to defend the FED, and the monolithic multi-national money interests that rule the planet. The Dr. Paul people are aware of this. Thus the rift, and I have no doubt that you prefer a McCain to a Paul.

    I call you a shill for a reason Dave. It is not rhetorical, but in (my opinion) fact.

    Newt Gingrich, Nancy Pelosi, James Woolsey, Robert Pastor, and John McCain are all on the same team. Your left/right paradigm has been discredited. So you point people in the wrong direction. It is interesting to watch you though, I get some sort of entertainment out of it.

    Oh and one more thing Dave, regarding the article on your blog by John Gaver. I read the piece, the thrust of his argument, and the reason given for why these billionaires gather was for entertainment purposes. You can dice it up all you want, but thats the thrust of his argument. Sure Dave, the CFR, the Bilderberg, is a cute social club for lonely billionaires. That is why you are a shill. And only a fool would believe Mr. Gaver.

    Cheers
    Pablo

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Your showing your true colors once again Dave. The manufacture of money out of thin air and then charging interest on it, is the scam of the centuries. The fact that you denigrate it with your bircher comment shows me once again that you are nothing but a shill.

    A scam run on behalf of the American people and to their benefit. BTW, notorious CFR member Milton Friedman supported the existence of the Fed, but I’m sure he’s not your idea of a libertarian.

    Your so called libertarian ideals I find repugnant,

    That would be because you wouldn’t know a real libertarian idea if it bit you on the ass.

    as they make you appear as you really are for the sovereignty of the individual from where all else flows, when nothing could be further from the truth.

    Sometimes appearances ARE reality. My long history of libertarianism isn’t part of a secret conspiracy.

    You are the first to defend the FED, and the monolithic multi-national money interests that rule the planet. The Dr. Paul people are aware of this. Thus the rift,

    I don’t know that I’ve spent any significant amount of time defending the Fed. I think they aren’t doing their job terribly well. And I don’t subscribe to your ridiculous theory about who ‘rules’ the planet.

    and I have no doubt that you prefer a McCain to a Paul.

    Well sure, as a presidential candidate. I like the idea of someone who can actually get elected. It doesn’t matter how good your principles are if you can’t get into office.

    I call you a shill for a reason Dave. It is not rhetorical, but in (my opinion) fact.

    Fortunately your opinion is not actually fact.

    Oh and one more thing Dave, regarding the article on your blog by John Gaver. I read the piece, the thrust of his argument, and the reason given for why these billionaires gather was for entertainment purposes. You can dice it up all you want, but thats the thrust of his argument. Sure Dave, the CFR, the Bilderberg, is a cute social club for lonely billionaires. That is why you are a shill. And only a fool would believe Mr. Gaver.

    Call me a fool then. Better a my kind of fool than your kind of paranoid loon.

    Dave

  • Pablo

    Pablo yawns at Dave’s lame response.

  • spinnikerca

    Reading all of these other comments, and your responses, I just want to point out something different in our world views here: you see McCain as a Republican, maybe a poor one, but better than Obama or Hillary. I don’t see him as a Republican at all, and don’t see him as better than the other two statists. Certainly not better than Hillary. The GOP won’t even be running the least worst Democrat as nominee, if Hillary gets the Dem nod, in my opinion.

    So it isn’t a matter of ‘win with unity’ since a McCain win is no win at all, or ‘lose with chaos’ since McCain’s candidacy simply has nothing to do with representing anything I consider to be Republican.

    What value unity behind something you don’t want, to begin with?