At my precinct caucus – a month ago, now – we were pretty well mobbed with Ron Paul supporters. Many of them were utterly clueless about how caucuses worked (no biggie – we’re all about the education), although a few of them were pretty rude about it; they wanted to come in and vote for Ron Paul and leave.
So while Romney won by a landslide across Minnesota, in my district, which is pretty well glutted with college kids, the Paulbots were out in force – they tipped Romney by a single vote in my district, and won by significant margins in other precincts.
Of course, there’s a method to the madness. The Paulbots packed the convention for a reason.
From the Paul/Minnesota website:
We’re on to Step Two: election of delegates from the local conventions to the Congressional District and State conventions.
If you were elected delegate or alternate from your caucus, you need to attend your County or Senate District convention, for which you have already received a convention call, or soon will. These will be held as early as February 23 and into March.
We will be going through much the same process as with the caucuses. You will receive a list of fellow supporters also elected delegate or alternate, and you need to coordinate amongst yourselves (with our help) to elect a full slate to the next conventions.
I got this email from an east-Metro GOP activist:
I just want you to know, and to publicize it without naming me, please, that there are a LOT of Ron Paul moles out there getting Delegate spots. I have at least two of them of my six slots that got elected; I only know me and [redacted] of the six, so two more are suspect as well. There is a 4th District coordinator for the Ron Paul campaign, going to conventions as a “guest” to “learn about the process’, but actually coordinating all the Ron Paul flying monkeys to vote a slate, and its very effective.
I’ve noticed that a few of my own precinct’s delegates (I’m a precinct chair) didn’t leave valid addresses or phone numbers.
This rankles, for people who’ve been working in the party for a while:
I will never see these morons again after this November, and they’re taking up delegate slots for true party activists.
Of course, this was the same complaint you heard from people two years ago in the Sixth District – disgruntled by Michele Bachmann’s ability to turn out votes at the caucuses and conventions. Of course, Bachmann was a Republican, which is something most of the Paulbots can hardly say with a straight face.
You may want to remind the BPOU chairs that while guests are allowed, they are NOT allowed on the floor at any time, and are not to interfere in the business of the BPOU.
BPOU chairs? Consider yourself on notice.
This guy, Jeff Hagen, was walking all over and [name redacted] and I could see him talk to people and then they’d look our way and just GLARE at us.
I am so angry that good delegates are now second alternates because of these frauds. This guy, for example, is a self-proclaimed member of the Libertarian Party, but basically running a coup of the Republican Party. I can guarantee you the reason we had such a huge turnout at caucus was in part because of the Ron Paul group.
Okay, I feel better.
Thanks!
As we head into District Convention season (my own, 66B, is tonight, although I’m not a delegate), remember – we’re a big tent, but there are some basic principles this party is supposed to follow. And while there are some libertarian ideals that the Party could stand to (and, in many cases, does) embrace, the Paulbots are pushing some lines that Republicans should find noxious.
Coming off a Post titled ‘Classless’ you could have used the same Headline here:
— Ron Paul flying monkeys
— these morons
— these frauds.
— running a coup
Pure class, *shaking head*
Really, that kind of derision should be reserved just for Nader supporters.
I wouldn’t be too worried. My precinct caucus had big Ron Paul signage and activist presence. But when it came down to the endorsement, Paul didn’t get a single vote. Our full slate of delegates will obviously be without any Paul-bots, and I would bet only a few urban and college precincts show otherwise.
Obama – that’s a movement. Ron Paul – that’s a fetish.
Not being a member of the republican Party I can be calmer about this.
Didn’t the Religious right use the same tactics to gain strength in the GOP back in the 70’s?
We had a lot of college age folks running for delegate in 50B, but since they were almost all Bethel kids, it was just as likely that they were Huckabee people. In any event, I’m not too worried about it, because the regular Party people were there in sufficient numbers to ensure that most of the delegates will be mainstream Republicans.
Perhaps now is a good time to print out the platform of the Minnesota Republican Party… it might help determin who is actually a Republican.
What’s more, it will really help identify folks who have been in the Big Tent for a long time who have no appreciation for several key areas of the platform.
In fact, I wouldn’t mind seeing that platform made just a little smaller.
Condensing or editing (?) the platform was one of the resolutions at our county convention last Friday. It didn’t pass.
Not one Ron Paul supporter made it as a delegate to the county-I think there were probably six out of 100+ at the precinct caucus anyway.
Re: Ron Paul supporters. We had five at my caucus and only one of whom was elected as one of our six delegates (he was also the only one who stayed after the straw poll).
Re: the Platform. I agree that it needs to be trimmed down but also think it needs to be expanded. There are a host of important issues that barely get a mention such as health care reform whereas we have something like 10 items that are abortion-specific and a few things that are already the law in Minnesota but remain in our platform. My understanding was that the platform committee was supposed to remove items like that but they continue to remain.
I love the item that said something about funding stadiums. How useful was that?
Not only that, but the school funding item that says we want teachers to get more of the money and that less of the money should (in effect) not go to as many administrators, middle management, and less useful folks (who probably eat, sleep, breathe, and shit when the Teachers’ Union tells them). Of course, no one ever seems to tell that story.
Pingback: Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » A Bright, Shining, Cheery Spot of Springtime Red In a Sea of Dismal, Depressive Blue
Our BPOU was March 1st. Everything seemed Paul-bot free until someone mentioned the Federal Reserve. During the election process, only one guy mentioned the Fed & the gold standard in his speech, but during the floor calls to amend the state party platform, a movement was made to add to the platform so as to destroy the Fed & put the US on the gold standard… then they came out!
The movement lost handily, but the debate was passionate. We were lectured that The Constitution demanded such action… it doesn’t. We were told our founding father’s would never approve of the private banks having so much power… despite the fact that the same people who were at the Constitutional Convention & wrote the document also chartered the First Bank of the United States, which was similar to the Fed… except it was a completely private entity. We were told the price of gold could not be manipulated… it can & has.
I used to consider myself a libertarian leaning Republican, but I’m starting to think Free-market Conservative has a less negative connotation in my mind.
The Ron Paul kids are harmless. They’re too lazy to even show up. Let’s not worry about it.
The Ron Paul kids are harmless. They’re too lazy to even show up! Let’s not get too worked up over this.
Mr. Shirt,
I’m going to my BPOU this Saturday and I’m planning to bring my laptop and possibly (depending on whether I can get a wireless connection) blog the event. When the Paul supporters spoke about the Federal Reserve, did they mention any documents or books or anything? Besides the Constitution and Federalist Papers of course.
The reason being is that if they did, I can probably get an electronic version of the texts to have them handy if they need to be quoted and thrown back at them.
One person read Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which he swore mandated his stance…
“The congress shall have power… To coin money, regulate the value there
of, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights & measures”
I was actually sitting near him, so after the vote was over, I asked him where the Constitution required either. He said that he just read it out loud to the assembly. I said if he could show me where it was in the Constitution, I’d change my mind… for all I know he is still looking.
As we discussed in the comments of another post, Alexander Hamilton was the leading author of the Federalist Papers, which supported ratification of the Constitution, & he was the biggest proponent of the Bank of the US.
You can investigate the First Bank of the United States, The Federal Reserve, Black Friday (1869), The panics of 1873, 1893, 1896, 1907, & the Smithsonian Agreement (among others). Also know that the Chinese Government is currently investing heavily in international gold & silver mining operations… hmmm, the Chinese in direct control of the value of our currency… comforting.
Listen closely & analytically. they tend to string together observations that are correlated but hardly casual. If you engage the debate remember to keep them on subject. If you mention the Chinese interest in mining, they’ll likely point out that the Chinese already own a good chunk of our debt; point made, but it’s hardly on topic of the Fed or the gold standard. That said, know that the Fed & the gold standard are not the same topic. The Fed was formed in 1913, the gold standard was used until 1973.
Oh yeah, also know that according to the US Treasury, the cost of printing a paper note of any denomination is about $0.062. Many of these anti-Fed people say the Fed charges $2500 per sheet of notes.
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
— Ronald Regan, 1975
Lookinthemirror,
I largely agree with you in terms of philosophy, but as a movement there is a difference.
Liberal is a derivative of the word liberty, which infers freedom. This is not the motive of modern day liberalism. FDR is responsible for hijacking the term in the 1930’s New Deal era of double-speak. Prior to that, we had our definitions straight.
About 12 years ago,I read David Boaz’s Libertarianism: A Primer, and found little disagreement with it, & I love the collection of essays put together by the Cato Institute titled The Libertarian Reader. I find “libertarian” philosophy, or more appropriately classical liberal philosophy to be the root of just about all that is good & just in this political world.
The Libertarian Party is a different issue. In general, it is a fringe movement, and as such attracts a fringe element. It sadly fills up with black helicopter types like Art Bell. Plus, if I had a nickel for every “Libertarian” I knew that really only wanted to legalize pot, I’d have about $67.75… Just my opinion of course.
I agree that it was a “Packed House”! Shouldn’t we be grateful for a new generation of passionate Republicans? Apparently, Ron Paul has struck a nerve that Ron Carrey has not!
Mr. Shirt can’t wait until these Ron Paul people leave the party so we can go back to having just four people show up at our conventions! Something’s wrong here, Mr. Shirt (and many more of you, as well). Bush’s approval rating is less than 30%, thousands of people have left the GOP party, and we wonder why?! The Ron Paul kids are being told that if they don’t agree with us on every single platform issue, then they’re not a true Republican, yet we go and nominate John McCain!…??? Just because the Ron Paul people and the establishment disagree on a few issues (most of us would probably disagree with McCain on even MORE issues – i.e. amnesty for illegals, global warming, the Bush tax cuts he voted against, campaign finance reform, etc.) we treat them like outcasts. It seems to me that the party would benefit to welcome these people in rather than kicking them to the curb. Because most of them are young and enthusiastic, they’re going to be the ones taking over when we soon die off. Our main goals as a party should be to stop socialism, scale back government, lower taxes, protect life, and protect the 2nd amendment. These are all issues that the young RP-ers have in common with us! Sure there are some crazies, but I talked to many of these people at my convention, and they were genuine Republicans who just happen to love the constitution. Personally, I’m okay with that. YOU SHOULD BE TOO, MR. SHIRT!
IF the RP’ers were here to stay in the party and actually help our endorsed candidates, march in our parades, stuff envelopes, do Voter ID, make calls for candidates, donate time and money…..then I welcome them with open arms. I truly hope that the vast majority of the people that came to my caucus and convention for the first time are sincere about helping out the party….
UNFORTUNATELY that is NOT the goal of the Ron Paul Minnesota group. Please please please read their websites! They very openly want to sweep as many delegate spots yet still consider themselves Libertarian Party members. They then intend to get upwards of 20% of our National delegates spots specifically to reverse the primary and caucus effort and sway the endorsement to Ron Paul. They plan to take over the Republican Party, which they didn’t care about all that much years ago, and change it into the Libertarian Party Two. It’s much like a Lutheran switching to a Catholic church and saying “I want to readdress that whole meat on Fridays thing you people do.”
They have very clear ‘hints’ on changing the voting rules to favor the Ron Paul delegates (ie, voting down the concept of spoiled ballots if fewer votes are cast than delegate spots are available, unless they have a full slate of Ron Paul delegates; suspending the rules to cross-seat delegates across precinct, etc.) So yes, it does concern me that these people have a very narrow agenda. Get to the National Convention to raise some hell.
Again, if they will help us elect a Republican House here in MN, I welcome them, but if they are one election-cycle, one-candidate delegates, I’d rather see the seats go to people that believe in the platform (another thing they want to scrap and rewrite) and our principles. They need to prove themselves to me before I give them too much credit for attending two meetings.
lwindels,
You’re playing the part of the victim here, and I think you have to step back and realize what these kids are really trying to accomplish. The Republican party is not a religion, because there’s no one telling us what we should believe in (like God or even your priest). Also the platform is not the Bible – there are a whole spectrum of issues in it, and no one agrees with every single issue that the Platform states. Look at Giuliani who’s for legal benefits to same-sex couples and pro-choice. Look at McCain who’s for amnesty for illegals and campaign finance reform. None of these things are anywhere in my copy of the Republican platform, in fact, they are the exact opposite! But we don’t shun all of these candidates from the party for a few issues…why not? What’s the real issue here? Much of it, I think, comes down to the war. Many Republicans think that if you’re against the war, then you’re “anti-American” or a Democrat. The truth is that 25% of Republicans think the war in Iraq was a bad idea or not worth the effort. I think it’s great that these people have a candidate on OUR SIDE who speaks to them. I mean, come on, should we be telling these people to go over to the Democrats because of this one issue? Heck no! We’re losing enough House and Senate seats as it is, we don’t need to lose SUPPORTERS too! But guess what? If we tell the Ron Paul people that they’re not welcome here, that gets them even more riled up, and they start to want to take over (like many of us are seeing at our conventions). So, really, who started this fight? Are the Ron Paul supporters really so divisive, or are they just on the defense and wanting to be heard?
As for them trying to show up at the RNC with 20% of the delegates – you’re out of your mind. I’ve read their websites and blogs, and they want to show up with as many delegates as possible so that they can be heard. But they are hoping for 50 delegates, when the media is only giving them 21. What’s wrong with that? That’s only 2% of the entire delegate count! Why shouldn’t they be able to have 2% of the delegates, when Ron Paul got about 5-10% of the popular vote nationwide? If you really believe that they won’t be around for the next election cycle, then you should just let them have their 2% at the RNC. Personally, for the good of the party, I hope they stay. It would make for a bigger, stronger, more diverse GOP!
Goat,
I’m afraid you missed the point. I’m not sure why, my posts are written much more clearly & honestly that any Paul prop I’ve seen.
Participation is grand & welcome. So is analytical thinking & reasoning. Group think is a dangerous thing regardless of what the group says it stands for. I want people there standing for original intent, strict constructionism, a free & open market, rugged individualism & liberty… But I want them there because each individual knows & understands what this means for themselves. Rather than pushing the distorted agenda of one person who has them eating out of his hand.
I wrote the story of a student who fell for it hook line & sinker. He even read a portion of the Constitution that he swore backed himself & Mr. Paul’s position, but it did not. He had been conditioned to think this. Like I said, he was sitting near to me, so I got to hear how amazing it is that people have so much disdain for what is in the Constitution; how so-called conservatives hate the Constitution… He didn’t even know what he had just read! This kind of thinking leads to very dire situations.
FWIW, I too am new to the party process, & I personally think Ron Paul is a fraud.
Your point about the kid reading from the constitution is valid. His argument was weak, and the quote from the constitution was off-base. However, the argument for sound money is not a horrible one. Even Alan Greenspan (who is a Republican and was Fed Chief) once wrote “In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation.” He explained that the “shabby secret” of the proponents of big govenment and paper money is that deficit spending is simply nothing more than a “scheme for the hidden confiscation of wealth.” We are seeing that today as the Fed keeps lowering interest rates to stimulate growth, while inflation rates continue to rise. The growth just doesn’t seem to be coming, though, spurring some talk of impending stagflation. I’m not saying the Fed is making the wrong decisions (I have no idea, in fact), but they don’t have many choices with a fiat currency. However, maybe this wouldn’t even be an issue if we had sound money. Maybe. And even if it isn’t required by the constitution (you say it’s not, so let’s assume that), it’s nothing I would dismiss as being a crazy idea.
So, the kid at your convention is just one example. There are many others like him, as well. However, my convention actually had a majority of Ron Paul people in attendance. They got rowdy at times, but for the most part, they were polite, intelligent, and made very good arguments. Furthermore, they knew parliamentary procedure better than anyone on the stage! (This was exciting to see from the Ron Paul kids, but a very sad sight for the old-timers…very sad). These kids just wanted to be part of the process. They were engaged in honest, well thought out debates, and many of the old timers were agreeing with them on some issues. I also saw many Ron Paul kids diverge on several resolutions, showing that they are not as much involved in group-think as you believe. They are not all eating out of Ron Paul’s hand. In fact, I think it’s more about the issues than about Ron Paul. Many of these kids didn’t even know they were Republicans (can you imagine?) prior to Ron Paul running, because they’d been ridiculed and laughed at by the GOP for being anti-war or against wire tapping or the PATRIOT Act. There are so many issues, and RPers are all over the place on them, just like the rest of the GOP. But, they ARE Republicans because they believe in the core Republican values.
I’d like to make one last point, although I’ve made it clear already. We’re all Republicans, but if Ron Paul is a fraud, then so is McCain, and so is Giuliani (their liberal agendas, only stated in-part, are in my previous comments). I haven’t even yet mentioned how Romney and Huckabee increased taxes and spending in their respective states. Why doesn’t this argument about the other candidates’ liberal ways seem to be getting through to people??
Goat, I think the first thing I wrote was:
“IF the RP’ers were here to stay in the party and actually help our endorsed candidates, march in our parades, stuff envelopes, do Voter ID, make calls for candidates, donate time and money…..then I welcome them with open arms. I truly hope that the vast majority of the people that came to my caucus and convention for the first time are sincere about helping out the party….”
I DO want new people in the party, I DO want enthusiastic new people who didn’t even know they were Republicans, I DO want to shake up the status quo in the Republican Party. I DO NOT agree with the entire platform, I DO NOT think it’s akin to a religion, I AM NOT telling them to go to the Democrats, I DO NOT think they can get 20% of the delegates, I read that on one of the many Ron Paul websites, I AM NOT saying they shouldn’t be elected as delegates. I AM saying I want them there not as a one-election cycle, one-candidate delegate, but as a person willing to work within the party to change it if they want, but to do it HONESTLY. Tell us your views and who you support, but don’t mask it by using talking points and dancing around your true intentions. A great number of them are very deceptive and if they don’t outright lie, they deceive thru omission. Telling the same lie over and over doesn’t make it true, it just makes it all the worse when the truth comes out and everyone they have lied to finds out.
People should know who they are voting for, who that delegate supports, and that the delegate will actually be around post-November. That is my main issue. Oh, and that the person running isn’t really a Democrat or Libertarian that are really only here for Ron Paul and don’t support most of our platform or our principles, something I HAVE overheard at a convention.
So, I would appreciate Honesty and Integrity from my delegate, then they will earn my vote.
And I’m not playing the victim. I am telling you what I have seen at the conventions to date, what I have heard and what I have read from the RP websites, blogs, etc.
Plus, they’re not all kids. As a matter of fact, nowhere in my first post did I say anything about their ages, so you must be interjecting your own experience in this. They are all ages. I had young Republicans who used to support Fred Thompson, now McCain, so don’t assume what I mean and who I’m referring to, please. I have seen middle-aged people new to the political process who support McCain.
Oh, and Goat, please don’t throw around that word DIVERSE. I want a variety of ideas, thoughts, passions and convictions in the party, but the word diverse simply conjures up images of squishy Republicans who will go along to get along, and THAT IS WHY WE LOST IN 2006!!! (and see what we get….out of control tax increases and ‘progressive’ legislation.) People join parties because they agree with the basic principles of them, and joining one with the express purpose of changing it defeats the purpose. If their ideas are so far superior to ours, why are their parties so small? Reading the blogs on the RP website and seeing people BEGGING for the National website to tell them what to do next made me realize that without him, they’re not viable.
When I heard Ron Paul refusing to denounce his ‘followers’ who think 9/11 was an inside job, continually skirting the issue, I wrote him off as a viable leader.