27 votes

Why was Paul allowed back into the Republican Party?

Once upon a time there was a liberal Democrat that switched parties to become a Republican and had very extreme libertarian views. He ran for president. 4 years earlier his goal was to "take over" CPAC and use that as his spring board to the nomination. Republican's attacked him and accused him of hijacking the party. They claimed that he was a Republican in name only. This candidate ignored his critics and continued to run on an extremely progressive/libertarian platform. He had a very strong ground game. He had his people appointed and elected all across the country in local Republican leadership positions. Ultimately he was successful. He won the nomination and the presidency and is still, to this day, the most popular past president that was ever elected. He successfully "took over" the party from the status quos. But this story does not have a happy ending. The establishment did not quit. They forced this great leader to fight battles from both flanks. The establishment was relentless and they made this president fight against his partisan opponents and against his establishment colleagues within the Republican Party. Ultimately he surrendered to the establishment and in return the establishment agreed to back his re-election to a second term. His second term is marred in scandal and he was very unpopular as a lame duck.

That is a very brief description of Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

Ron Paul was a Republican congressman at the time and supported this man during his 1980 successful campaign and this man returned the favor by endorsing Paul in his re-election effort. When the establishment forced this man to compromise on some very key planks in his successful campaign (for example; abolishing the department of education) Ron Paul was fed up and decided to leave his party and politics in general. He left office after his term expired. After a period of reflection Paul decided that he could accomplish more within the system as opposed to throwing stones from the gallery but he was told that he would not be invited back into the Republican Party. So Paul found a party that would accept him and his ideals and continued to try and drain the swamp using a spoon. When the Republican party found themselves out of power and desperately flailing for traction they finally relinquished and allowed Paul back in the party upon his request, but they refused to endorse him and continued to put establishment candidates against him in the primaries.

In 1996, the Republican revolution was over. The House Republicans lost massive seats in this election cycle, the cycle just after the '94 Revolution. The Senate was basically 50/50 and Clinton was on his way to re-election. They were scared stiff that Clinton would have the House and the Senate. They were begging for good candidates to stop the bleeding. They see a train wreck a'comin.

There has been some redistricting, but the heart of the Galveston district has been Democratic since the 1930's with the sole exception of Paul in the 70's and 80's. The district was currently held by Greg Laughlin who was a Democrat in 1995 then he switched parties to be a Republican after he achieved incumbent status. (There is irony in that. I hope you don't miss it.)

This seat was a Democrat seat (except for Paul) and Laughlin's switch made him vulnerable. His seat was in danger. Newt, GWB, K.B. Hutchison, and Barbour made a strategic decision. They would allow Paul back in the party and run against Laughlin in the primary, but at the same time back Laughlin. They were covering all their bases to maximize the potential for victory. They needed to keep that seat.

Paul got the vetting of his life during that campaign. Karl Rove was Governor GWB’s right hand man down in Texas. Rove, like the late great Lee Atwater (a personal friend of Rove), had perfected the “whisper campaign” strategy. Ironically, Rove also perfected the delegate strategy (the one Paul is currently pursuing) during his campaign for the national chair of the college Republicans (I am sure you remember that one. If it wasn't for Watergate, Rove may have been setting up shop from behind bars). Karl Rove was THE political operative in Texas and really for that entire region of the country. Barbour had him entrenched in Alabama as well. The decision to allow Paul to run in the Primary turned out to be a mistake. Laughlin was not only susceptible to “pay back” from his former Democratic colleagues, but he was losing to Paul in early private polling during the primary so Laughlin reached out to GWB and requested that Bush sic his dogs on Paul. Privately, the Rove led “whisper campaign” strategy was to link Paul to white supremist groups, nut job militias, and underground separatist groups that wanted to secede from the union. Publicly, Laughlin’s strategy was to label Paul a RINO because of his Libertarian campaign for president in 1988. (Newt actually came down to Texas and campaigned for Laughlin in the primary against Paul.) Both strategies failed. The constituents knew Paul personally and ignored the “whispers”. Additionally, Laughlin’s “pot calling the kettle black” backfired tremendously given the fact that in the last election cycle Laughlin had won his seat as a Democrat. In the end, the Party got what it wanted. They were able to hold onto the seat, but it didn’t turn out the way they had intended. Paul had beaten Laughlin in the primary and went on to win the general. Paul re-earned his Republican stripes the hard way.

And now you know the rest of the story.

God Bless.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Of course I am still not allowed to create new threads ...

but I thought I would bump this one in the wake of the New Yorker piece.

Which, I might add, did more good for Rand than his filibuster.

God Bless and glad to be back for the sixth time.

Lol! welcome back man, that's

Lol! welcome back man, that's a lotta lives you got there!



why in the world are you not allowed to create new threads and why were you banished 5 times?

Wish I Had Read This Before

....how could anyone think Ron Paul had not been around the block.

Really thank you for the background.


Reading this makes me really

Reading this makes me really want to see a Ron Paul movie. Dana Carvey could play Ron.

or ....

at least ...

Two Frontline episodes.

"The History of the first peaceful revolution"

"The Ron Paul Story"

Third parties are owned by elites

www.politics1.com has a great list of registered third parties.

Lets ask, Why was Obama allowed back in the Democratic Party? Obama was vetted in THE NEW PARTY.

Why was Ralph Nader, who NEVER belonged to a political party, called a spolier for Al Gore? Nader bashed Gore worse than Bush.

The Green Party was established by Rockefeller in the 1960s to vet Nuclear power. The Green Party split when they endorsed Nader and he refused to join the GP because they were International... so there became GPUSA and Green Party International.

Libertarian Party started in 1972 to give conservatives a voice, as the GOP began going "liberal".

Third parties are established to vet issues and canidates, the major parties know this, and will take anyones money. I don't have a list handy of congress and senators who break laws and spend time in prison, but I know there are many.. why are they allowed back?

I think what's more imporatant is
Are you a Republican?
Are you seated on the Republican Central Committee?
Are you a delegate for Ron Paul?
Are you a volunteer precinct/district leader for the campaign?
Are you a Meet-up site operator or member?
Are you helping Ron Paul win?

I am not sure where you are headed with this but ...

I tend to agree.

But I also think that if Paul did not have his stint outside the Party, it would be more difficult to see the similarities between both of the main stream parties.

As far as I know, you can be

As far as I know, you can be a member of any political party you want. Nobody "allowed" Ron Paul back in.

To register and vote is one thing.

To be a candidate for office, or a delegate, or a party official is completely different.

I just wanted to clarify.

Thank you for providing that opportunity.

God Bless.

It's Just an Organization

The GOP is not a person with one brain. It has no brains. (Couldn't resist.) It's just an organization like Congress, or a church congretation: full of different people with different values and ideas.

As far as I know, there are no barriers to entry for the GOP. Anyone who wants to do so, can.

Only the Libertarian Party requires that, as a pre-condition to membership, the prospect pledges "not to advocate initiating force as a means of social or political change."

The dominant parties have no such screening process, being desperate for more votes any way they can get them. They lucked out that Ron Paul was willing to join them.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

Generally my perspective.


Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

I am not sure what your point is.

Can you clarify a bit further?

Are you saying that the Party does not control and screen its candidates before they are allowed ballot access under the Republican label?

What about delegates that have registered with Americans Elect or have not voted in a Republican primary in the past?

Everything in that OP is public knowledge. I have not embellished on anything. It is out there for everyone to connect the dots.

I merely summarized it in a manner that can be easily followed and put special emphasis on the several instances of irony in this chain of events.

God Bless.


Membership has no barriers to entry.

Nothing was said about candidates.

Candidates are screened by the Party delegates. Delegates have various requirements for qualification that vary by state and locality, based on rules determined by the Party members and delegates.

Ballot access is controlled by the states and localities (government). Again, those rules vary. Parties endorse candidates and try to obtain ballot access for them.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

Thank you.

And God Bless.

When the narrative was referring to the Party preventing Paul from re-entering, I meant as a candidate. My mistake.

You sign up for a political party, you're in. Free to join.

IMissLiberty makes a clear point.
To wit: No ID. No alias check. No birth certificate. No college transcript. No CIA clearance. No background check of any kind. Requirements for entry are few if any.

If you Obscure Titles have any references documenting barriers to entry, please show your papers. They will be taken away; you need not be concerned about such matters.

Knock on the Speak-Easy door. Door hatch opens. 1920s music heard in background. Guest questions what is going on at the party inside.

Speak-Easy Doorman: Come join our party. Free. Free everything. Drinks. Food. Health-care.... What's that you say? Too good to be true? Please wait... I'll fetch you a letter from the management.

    Dear Patron,

    Admission is free.

    Whether you join or not, the true cost of political parties, is trundled by us all. George Washington, President & Army General would have none of it. He abhorred political parties.

      Sincerely, The Management

Speak-Easy Doorman: Well now... You finished reading. Are there any questions? ... Will you be staying long? Would you like to enter any of our contests? City Council? District Rep? ... May I get you a drink?

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul


was one of the main opponents in the House that tried to keep Ron Paul out.
Newt has been scum forever.

I actually think ...

Haley Barbour was pulling the strings. Newt simply followed orders.

Ok I live in Galveston

and I have been supporting Ron Paul for decades since the begining. First I want to tell you elections in my opinion are all a huge fix, and a lie. A propaganda show for the debt slaves.

Galveston Like the rest of the country has elections for show.

Eletronic machines have usurped the vote along with Pary primary elections and caucuses.

In 2007 Ron Paul recieved 80 per cent of the Republican vote in the primary elections to retain his congressional seat but only 8 per cent for president from the very same voters. These Republicans that I know for decades choose John McCain the stupid, traitor coward who as senator abandoned all the MIAs from Vietnam only so he would hide his traitors actions as a pow. Yet these voters choows McLaim over thier many term congressman that they love and kept in office many years. I think not just evidence of cheating.


you must be one of those "conspiracy nuts".

Not meant as an attack and nothing personal ...

but if you truly believed that, then why are you here?

We can't win. It's rigged. Don't waste your time with such a "trivial", naive movement. The R3volotion is destined for failure. Do something way more productive with your time. Hell, thumb twiddling would be more productive than being here.

As for me, I prefer to have faith that, while the system is tilted against us, it is not completely rigged, and that we have the ability thru our message to balance the scales.

Ron Paul believes exactly what I believe. He disagrees with you. Otherwise he would have started thumb twiddling decades ago.

God Bless.

first off your insult is just a label you mouth from MSM

YOU INSULTING PUP - Labels "Conspiracy nuts" are intellectually corrupt ways that immoral people use assert they know you, when they do not really know you at all. Most labels have been fed to their mind and did not originate with them. It’s Better to be a leader, a thinker, and think beyond labels to see individual sovereign humans.

So it is hard to get to a point of discussion.

You have faith instead of understanding things a child can understand.

The system is designed not against you but for you as every duped dumb false debt slave needs a master, they need a master so bad that when threatened with the understanding of their individuality they prefer to attack the very messengers that would give them freedom.

You do not get it and no matter what I try to explain you wont get it so best just accuse anyone that give you a truth you don’t like as some label you were told to use by your very false debt slave master propaganda corporate media.

If you understand that money is created as your debt but given to those who you serve in government you could see and understand its just basic theft. and that’s one hell of a system you feel so secure in. Tax is theft. Taking without permission is theft. Oh you can go on and on about all the good things that are done with the stolen property. But its about control and debt slavery. Ok no more waste of time with you.


Paul is only allowed into GOP so he doesn't pursue 3rd party.

GOP is no honor to be in and serving Romney is no honor as Rand Paul has been telling everyone.

They only allowed Paul in with an exchange that he can speak on a some issues at a high level, but not much more and that he cannot go 3rd party ever.


It appears that ...

if there ever was such an agreement ...

Paul would be in violation of that agreement.

I don't think your speculation is accurate.

And if it is accurate, then why have they not revoked his membership?

Are you one of those guys that believes the only reason why Paul has not gone public with his full blown 9/11 truther soul is because his master's puppet strings are a tugin'? Because that seems to go contrary to Paul's character. He says what he means and he means what he says.

Ralph Nader agrees with me.

Judge Nap brought Nader on his show to confirm the alliance b/w Romney and Paul as soon as the first media article ran on the 'bromance' between them. Nader said that the deal was that paul would be allowed in gop debates only to share his ideas and in exchange not run third party (and apparently speak well on behalf of romney).


Sorry about that.

I didn't realize how adrift you were.

The OP discusses a chain of events in the 80s and 90s and explains why Paul was allowed to run as a Republican candidate again, after he had left the party and office in the 80s.

I thought you were referring to those events.

As for Nader, I am skeptical that is what he said.

I also knew the story..

..of Karl Rove, and Grinch (yes I meant to spell it that way).
Thank you for making a comprehensive record of this little-known piece of all-too-important history...Now more will be aware.

And yat Dr. Paul, who had every reason for being resentful, with a capital "R", always conducted himself honorably, like a gentleman as he faced off against Grinch in the debates....

Cool Hand Luke couldn't have done it any better.

Just another insight
Thanks for "The rest of the story"...Paul Harvey is smiling down upon you.

It's "pot" calling the kettle....

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

Good Twisting Of The Facts.

Mr. Reagan was hiding the Iran Contra fiasco from the american public, that's why some honest Republicans disowned him.

Ron Paul only left the Republican party in 1988 for a few short months when the Libertarian Party chose him as their Presidential candidate, before that and presently Ron Paul has been a Jeffersonion {Anti-Federalist type }Republican.


November 1984 ...

is when Reagan started breaking the law on this.

The week after he was elected to his second term.

So that has nothing to do with anything that was stated above.

For the conspiracy nuts out there, that timing is somewhat alarming.

That is not accurate when you say Paul was a Libertarian for only a few months.

In fact, when Pat Buchanan bolted the party and ran 3rd party in 1992, Paul endorsed Buchanan over the Republican candidate.

Where did you get that information?

God Bless.

I Tried To Post This Earlier.

Where did I get the information?

I've been following Ron Paul for over 30 years. I also have several books written by Dr. Paul,,,where did you get your information? Please click on the URL.


Paul led the Texas Delegation to nominate Ronald Reagan for president in 1976. Paul was one of only
four Republican Congressmen to endorse Reagan against Gerald Ford.


I stand corrected.

It does appear that Paul was only a Libertarian for a few months.

But that does not contradict anything in the narrative above.

Paul briefly contemplated an independent run in 1992.


Paul never comes out and says that he was prohibited from running as a Republican, but he did say it was for "personal reasons".

The behind the scenes jockeying is never 100% clear, but there is other evidence out there that the Party would not allow Paul back into the fold as a candidate.