Teachable Moment
By Mitch Berg
Last week, I went to a district party leadership meeting.
Most of the leadership in my district is guys who’ve been in the GOP for a while – I remember some of them from the 2000 election. There was one young woman who is a pretty enthusiastic Ronulan. And that kicked off an interesting discussion.
She was a little put off by some of the rhetoric aimed at the Paul crowd by the mainstream GOP. We, in turn, are a little put off not so much by Paul’s rhetoric itself – several of us in the party’s leadership have fundamentally small-l libertarian sympathies; I, indeed, was a big-L Libertarian for a few years, ten years ago. So, outside of foreign policy – an areas where Libertarians and Ron Paul are dogmatically naive – it’s not like Ron Paul and his followers are preaching to a completely hostile choir – at least at a policy level.
But all questions have two levels; Policy (“What we want!”) and Implementation (“How we’re gonna get it”).
Around the time of the precinct caucuses and the first round of district meetings last February some of us activists started getting emails from other activists; the Paul crowd was going to try to game the rules to try to bum-rush the conventions; to try to snag a disproportionate number of district, state and national delegates, to make Paul, if not a contender for nomination this fall, at least a broker of some legitimate delegate power when the horse-trading before and during the convention takes place.
And they were pissed!
It reminded me of some of the irate long-time GOP activists in the Sixth District two years ago, who argled and bargled over Michele Bachmann’s “tactics” for getting the nomination to run against Patty Wetterling. She got her people to go to the caucuses and conventions, and to vote for her.
Which, really, was what Paul’s MN campaign did. And did with amazing success.
Chief, over at the Dogs and True North, has the big takeaway.
The buzz about the Ron Paul delegates from the Republican CD conventions is still coming. Today, the Star Tribune had this report:
…[snip]…
Delighted about what was something of a coup over the Republican establishment, she added, “We’re just a bunch of disorganized people who happened to get lucky. At least that’s the impression we want to leave.”
Um, not really. The Paul supporters are anything but “just a bunch of disorganized people who happened to get lucky”. The Paul campaign deserves high praise for systematically working the web, having dedicated and organized people at every possible opportunity for promotion and finding ways in to the process. I would question why Marianne Stebbins wants to leave the impression of just getting lucky by having just stumbled into this? The Paul Campaign utilized many ingenious, innovative techniques with new media, viral marketing, true grassroots campaigning, web meet-ups, systematic focusing on BPOUs.
Call it false modesty on Stebbins’ part. She should pat herself on the back.
It’s time for the GOP to call a spade a spade; the Paul campaign hit the MNGOP status quo in the way…
…that we all need to hit the bad guys DFL. They played the convention game.
In my district, “we” – the people who’d been in District 66B since before Ron Paul – held the Paulites’ gains off, more or less; “we” got together and talked some of them out of some of the more tinfoil-hatted Paulite resolutions (we got the “pullout from Iraq” and “oppose the Trans-America highway” bits voted down pretty convincingly).
But let’s give credit where it’s due; they conventions the way you’re supposed to if you’re an insurgency; by organizing, by motivating, and by having their people show up.
This should be a wake-up call to the leadership of the 4th, 5th and 6th District GOPs. Let’s hope someone at the wheel is capable of responding to the challenge.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Hear him; hear him!
RP’s troops have gone a bit over the bend, but no more so than McCain has ventured into the fever swamp.
Personally, I think the Paulites are a much needed kick in the pants for the GOP and I welcome them unreservedly.
Maybe, just maybe we might get a candidate for office next time around that is somewhere between RP and McCain…you know, a conservative.
I haven’t gone off the reservation, but I’m getting damn sick and tired of having to feign enthusiasim.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
On my worst day, I don’t consider Republicans ‘bad guys’, it’s too bad that in your “normally civil” tone, you do. Republicans are people who have different views on policy, on ideas, than I do, I’ve never considered someone who has a different opinion a ‘bad guy’, I judge them on actions.
Rarely will you hear anyone on the left use that kind of language (ok, anyone who is rational) about all Republicans.
Swift, as absurd as I find this, I agree with you. There are some true conservative bones in Paul’s stance – not neo-conservative, but conservative. Nation building to stop genocide is something I’d back (did back), Nation building to secure oil rights, while claiming it’s about terrorism – and doing so in an environment rife with the opportunity to devolve into ethnic/sectarian violence, makes sense only to those that judge from a ledger sheet measured in profits, rather than ethics or human lives, is quite another.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Rarely will you hear anyone on the left use that kind of language (ok, anyone who is rational) about all Republicans.
Ipse Dave Thune.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
sorry, meant to say, that you consider the DFL ‘bad guys’.. clearly you don’t think the Republicans are.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Or Tics, for that matter.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Dave Thune isn’t rational.. I think I was clear on my opinion of him. But I assume you’re not comparing yourself to him, or suggesting you should only meet his bar of conduct?
April 9th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Regardless, rather than divert too far offline.. both parties have some good blood coming in, even if it’s just a self-check – because of enormous frustration at the way things are currently going. You darn Lickens are soo bad ;), and some of you aren’t guys, but each of the parties are facing pressures to change – I think a third party is in the offing.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Dave Thune isn’t rational..
Perhaps – but he’s hardly fringe. He’s the president of the City Council.
I think a third party is in the offing
There’s a post in that.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Peev, don’t agree with me, ya moonbat twerp.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Swift.. go rant someplace dark and creepy, you’ll fit in. and damn me for even responding to someone as unhinged as you are..:).
BTW Swift, I’m not in any way on the left, so, your comment about me being a moonbat, is, as per normal for you, way offbase.
BTW Swift – take it as ribbing. When you actually need chastising – you’ll get it.
Mitch, I didn’t say he was fringe, but are you fringe? And more, you didn’t answer the question – is calling the DFL ‘bad guys’ fringe conduct, is it irrational? Are you contrasting Thune’s comments to your own?
April 9th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I meant to say I didn’t say he wasn’t fringe, I didn’t say someone who wasn’t fringe wouldnt’ say it, I said someone rational.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
12 comments, six of which are Peev’s.
Holy Christmas, Mitch, I’m glad he haunts your blog only and doesn’t pollute any of the other sites I enjoy.
If Peev became a Farker, he’d bore that site right out of existence.
Then again, I don’t think Peev could handle Fark commentary, seeing as how he thinks “vitriol” is being spewed here.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I hate to give you wingnuts ideas, but you don’t seem to be able to generate any of your own. Why don’t you all get together for one or two or fifteen drinks (you like beer halls, right?) and have a puke-in over at that guy’s house? Cause that would be pretty funny.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
No no, AC, you hate to HAVE ideas.
April 9th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
You had me at “damn you” Peev. I’ve been waiting for someone to properly chastise me for years. Sadly, the moonbat keyboard commando’s that usually make the offer have not come through.
Say AssClown, maybe you do have an idea there. How do the daily puke-in’s go over at your trailer? Funny, or not so much?
April 9th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
On second thought AC, forget it. I should probably ask your saddle pal since your view is no doubt obscured by your normal face-down position while he “rides the range”.
April 9th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Shame that the very ‘pubs who make fun of the Paulites “limited understanding of foreign policy”, also ignore the economic realities that the RPs are concerned with. As do the Dems.
We are economically f**ked. You ‘pubs and Dems have combined to ignore sanity for so long (Bush makes Reagan look like a piker.) that our “National Security” is threatened by our own economy.
And you NeoCons (Mitch) have signed on to a program that chooses war in lieu of Nat.Healthcare.
Iraq is Bush’s version of Public Education: if you throw enough money at it, eventually….
It’s like you guys are having a dialog over which way to go bankrupt.
How much do we owe? How much of that is owed to other nations?
What happens if the debt gets called in?
April 9th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Personally, I haven’t been able to understand why RP gave party stalwarts such a case of the heebie-jeebies. He’s not my cup of tea, but I tend to agree more with his policies than I do with many of the so-called mainstream party offerings. I appreciate grassroots effort and viral marketing (though I didn’t understand his advertising “strategy” any more than I understand why car dealers use large inflatable gorillas in front of their dealerships), but he brought energy, passion, money and – oh yeah – voters to the process. That the Party nevertheless mocked and ridiculed him suggests that it saw him and his “Paulbots” (one of the nicer terms) as a real threat to it’s insular, DFL-lite instincts and security. Even the more conservative insiders really seemed discomfited, and now they’re making Minnesota Nice with McCain on the old 80% agree rule while not even bothering to do the math on how big a percentage they might share with Paul.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
As a “party insider” I must say that not everyone feels threatened by the influx of Ron Paul supporters. I think it is great to get the enthusiasm, the new faces, the commitment. Their influx is really no different than when the Reagan people pushed their way into the party structure back in the late 70’s. Some people win, some people lose, but the party gets new invigoration.
Where they can and need to change is to simply be upfront and honest about who they support. At my precinct caucus, one guy got up and said he supported Ron Paul. No big deal. We elected him a delegate, along with Romney, McCain, Huckabee people.
However, at the House level and the CD level, almost to a person, they professed to be wonderful supportive Republicans, yet would never say who they supported. One woman even did some word parsing that would have made Bill Clinton proud. At our CD convention, one group tried to unseat a known Ron Paul supporter. That effort failed because many long-time activists simply supported her ability to support who she wanted to support.
So, if I can say anything to them. Welcome! We want you. And it is okay to be upfront and honest.
The whole convention stuff would have been quite different if everyone hadn’t dropped out except John McCain and Ron Paul. The party is quite used to slates, maneuvering, coalitions, etc. It’s called politics.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
The “Paulbots” are already out there running for state house, volunteering for other GOP candidates, settling into the party (the other half of us are oldtimers in the party), trying not to let the GOP slam the door on them too quickly or painfully. We just want to bring back a hint of Goldwater, a taste of Reagan, a reminder that there was a day when we talked about abolishing some federal departments instead of creating new ones and growing the existing ones.
You’re not giving enough credit to the individual Paulians, some of whom saw a reason to return to the GOP in Dr Paul, some who had been waiting silently within the party for a glimmer of the old principles. You couldn’t keep them away from the caucuses this year!
April 10th, 2008 at 12:28 am
The problem with Paulbots is that they do NOT accept the 80% rule. They think only their guy should be King. The more reasonable ones, I am sure, reel at some of his wacky ideas, just as some of us question whether or not it’s 80%, or something a bit less, with McCain.
I guess the point is that screeching lunacy doesn’t play well with the mainstream of the party. Absent that, we’re glad to have ’em.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Ms. Stebbins,
Glad you stopped by. I’ve been hoping to engage someone from the Paul camp.
The “Paulbots” are already out there running for state house, volunteering for other GOP candidates, settling into the party (the other half of us are oldtimers in the party), trying not to let the GOP slam the door on them too quickly or painfully.
Well, I for one want to roll out the welcome wagon for them. The influx brings a jolt of vitality that the party, especially in the Fourth and Fifth, needs.
Which is not to say that I’m not going to have questions for them (as I, myself a former Big-L libertarian and a bit of a party outsider, have for the party’s establishment, too)
We just want to bring back a hint of Goldwater, a taste of Reagan, a reminder that there was a day when we talked about abolishing some federal departments instead of creating new ones and growing the existing ones.
Well, let’s be accurate here; while Rep. Paul himself is certainly a small government activist, I’ve met quite a few Paul supporters – at a Patriot event, among other places – who were pretty much DFLers, once you got past the social-libertarian stuff. Now, that’s fine – I’m all about winning hearts and minds. And as I’ve been taking pains to point out, I agree with the Paul campaign on a lot of important things. But I’ve met quite a few Paulians who aren’t remotely interested in the legacies of Goldwater and Reagan.
You’re not giving enough credit to the individual Paulians, some of whom saw a reason to return to the GOP in Dr Paul, some who had been waiting silently within the party for a glimmer of the old principles. You couldn’t keep them away from the caucuses this year!
I AM giving them credit, Ms. Stebbins! That’s the point of this post!
I’m giving them credit – and asking them questions. Even as I ask questions of the party itself.
April 10th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Sure, there were a few of the Paul supporters back then who hailed from Kucinich-land. I won’t deny that. Not many. Half of them ended up going home to the DFL caucuses, and the remaining handful really didn’t get beyond the caucuses. I’m talking with these people constantly, and they’re very much at home in the liberty wing of the GOP. You’ll see a bunch of them out at the Tax Cut Rally on Saturday. Give them a chance and you’ll find a new wellspring of energy and principle that this party desperately needs.
April 10th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Then, Marianne, please tell them to be honest with us.
Don’t call us the “opposition” on the blogs…..I don’t know that I had ever wronged a Ron Paul person to deserve that title.
They came to the caucuses angry at us, ready to change a party most of them haven’t cared enough about to do anything with us for the past 5 to 10 years, or longer. Angry at people they’d never met, assuming the existing Republicans support everything going on nationally or even in Minnesota. Angry that their Libertarian Party (and yes, a lot of them are members of the Libertarian Party) doesn’t have the political clout to get Ron Paul elected on his own merit. Angry at us for what the media has done to their candidate (not once did I personally deny Ron Paul access to a debate!). Angry that we didn’t appreciate the deception involved in getting elected delegate to the next level. I have a lot of long-time friends in the party that are Ron Paul supporters, and never have I belittled their candidate. But then, they were honest with me. We may have joked with each other about Thompson vs Romney vs Paul, but we all knew who the REAL opposition is, and that’s Hillary or Obama.
They were angry at the platform of a party they didn’t belong to….they were angry that our rules didn’t allow them to run roughshod over our process to get what they wanted. They were angry that we actually had standards we expect our National Delegates to meet, like belonging to the party longer than all the way back February 5th, 2008. I know longtime activists–very conservative activists– who never thought they had earned the privilege of being a national delegate, and new people coming to the party felt it was their RIGHT to be a delegate. And after only 60 days in the party.
I am more than willing to give the new people a chance, and once I feel I can trust them, I will. I like the delegates in my BPOU, and yes, I know they’re RP supporters, but they’re nice people, intelligent, and have not lied to me. But I expect them to respect the other members of the party they’ve joined. Don’t treat us as irrelevent activists who just don’t know ‘the truth’. Help out with campaigns other than just RP’s. Don’t try to replace the entire group of people who have tried to keep the party going, and have organized the very conventions they plan to “take over”. And don’t get so angry when we question the policies and history of your candidate. Become a MEMBER of the party, not a RON PAUL member of the party. It can be a very positive thing, but their entrance to the party in many cases started out negative, tarnished by deception and, in some cases, mean-spirited arrogance. I still read the incredibly demeaning things the RP blogs have to say about us, calling us fascists, neo-nazis, Stalinists, blah blah blah. And those are the things I can repeat in mixed company. There is a lot of anger in the RP camp, and unfortunately it’s aimed at the wrong people.
April 10th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Their anger is aimed at the party leadership which has and continues to throw up roadblocks, the same leadership which then gets angry in return when we get around the roadblocks. That’s who they’re talking about when they talk about opposition. Believe me, we do have opposition in the party.
It’s not aimed at you. I’m sorry if you’ve stumbled across a blog which has been less than loving. I’ve been through numerous blogs unnecessarily derisive of Ron Paul and his supporters, so I know how you feel.
As to us being a bunch of newbies from the Libertarian Party, I’ve gone over this on several blogs, but apparently not here well enough. There are a few people here from the LP, many formerly from the CP, but most of us have either been caucusing GOP for a long time, have been involved in the party, or at least have been voting GOP for quite a while. That varies district to district.
As for my bona fides, I’ve been very active in the party for sixteen years or so, been a BPOU Chair twice, YR National Committeewoman, YR Vice Chair, Henn Co YR Chair, candidate for MN Senate, staffer on statewide and congressional campaigns, CD, State, State Central delegate, BPOU treasurer, ran the state fair booth one year, volunteer for surely thirty to fifty campaigns (we spent the summer one year taking the YRs from house district to house district to lit drop), Voter ID, GOTV, parades, every possible volunteer duty there is, I’ve done it. There’s much more than I can remember. No one can claim I haven’t carried water for the party.
As to us helping out other candidates, as I state above, our folks are out helping GOP candidates and running themselves. They’re committed to limited government and a more than happy to help the like-minded get elected.