♠ Time to Concentrate: IDAHO and OREGON State and District Conventions June 21st-23rd
Submitted by sovereignjanice on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 15:40IDAHO:
Thursday 21 June - Saturday 23 June 2012: The Idaho State Republican Convention convenes at the College of Southern Idaho in Twin Falls.
No later than 30 days before the State Convention, each Presidential candidate prepares a list of proposed National Convention delegates. 80% of the the National Convention delegates...
( 80% of 32 = 25.6 which rounds to 26 delegates ) are selected from this list. 20% ( 20% of 32 = 6.4 which rounds to 6 delegates ) are elected by the Nominations Committee. [Rules Article VI Section 7:]... Delegates ... shall be obliged on the first ballot taken at the Republican National Convention to vote for the candidate who nominated them, provided any Delegates selected as representing the "uncommitted" choice shall be free to cast their vote for any candidate whose name has been placed in nomination before the Republican National Convention. In the event of death or withdrawal ... or release of Delegates by a candidate prior to the first ballot ... Delegates committed to such a candidate ... become uncommitted [Rule Article VI Sections 8 & 9]. There is still controversy on the possibility of our delegates being replaced if they vote for Paul if bound to Romney. Looking into running as UNCOMMITTED should be something to seriously consider.
BYLAWS: http://idgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Idaho-GOP-Rules-...
CONVENTION LOCATION, RULES, AGENDA, ETC.:
http://idgop.org/state-convention/
UPDATES: from Twitter: @Jason4Idaho @TNdavlin longer form on: http://www.Jason4Idaho.com
CONVENTION NEWS: http://magicvalley.com/news/local/gop-digs-into-party-platfo... (thank you Ralph Hornsby for finding this)
--------------------------
OREGON:
IMPORTANT: 'newly elected' PCPS HAVE TO BRING THEIR PCP CERTIFICATE, OR THEY WILL NOT BE CREDENTIALED !
Saturday 23 June 2012: District Conventions. Delegates to the 5 District Conventions elect the National Convention Delegates according to the results of the primary. There are 4 ballots in each CD: 1 for each of the 3 Congressional District delegates (total 5 districts × 3 delegates = 15 delegates) and 1 for the statewide At-Large delegates (total 10 delegates). The delegate candidate(s) receiving the most votes will attend the National Convention.
Each person selected as a delegate ... shall sign a pledge that he/she shall vote at the National Convention for the candidate for the President of the United States he/she favors until the candidate is: (1) nominated; (2) receives less than 35% of the votes for nomination at the convention; (3) releases the delegate from the pledge; or (4) until two convention nominating ballots have been taken. Should a delegate ... refuse to cast his/her vote in accordance with this pledge ... the Chairman of the Oregon delegation ... shall report to the convention floor that delegate's vote in accordance with such laws and rules until such time as that delegate is released from his/her pledge. [Oregon Republican Party Bylaws ARTICLE XVII Section B.; State Law (ORS 248.315)] This is more crap from the GOP and evidence that we need to be the majority at Oregon's convention. I can't find anything saying the the punishment is that a Romney allocated delegate voting for Paul can be removed, but I STRONGLY suggest reading as much into your state's laws/bylaws because you can never be prepared enough.
BYLAWS: http://www.oregonrepublicanparty.org/sites/default/files/ORP...
FIND YOUR CONVENTION:
First Congressional District Convention Location:
Shilo Inn Beaverton - 9900 SW Canyon Road, Beaverton, OR 97225
Chairman: Jeff Smith (503) 407-8684
ORP Staff Liaison: Kevin Hoar (503) 595-8881
Registration starts at 7:30am with the meeting starting promptly at 9:00am The meeting is scheduled to concluded by 4:00pm
Second Congressional District Convention Location:
Shilo Inn Bend - 3105 O.B. Riley Road, Bend 97701
Chairman: Tiny Robertson (541) 772-9364
ORP Staff Liaison: Jordan Conger (541) 633-9719
NOT LISTED BUT MOST LIKELY: Registration starts at 7:30am with the meeting starting promptly at 9:00am The meeting is scheduled to concluded by 4:00pm
Third Congressional District Convention Location:
Portland Airport Embassy Suite Hotel - 7900 NE 82nd Ave, Portland, OR 97220
Chairman: Jim Parker (503) 225-9251
ORP Staff Liaison: Andy Scott (503) 869-7612
Registration starts at 7:30am with the meeting starting promptly at 9:00am The meeting is scheduled to concluded by 4:00pm
Fourth Congressional District Convention Location:
Umpqua Community College - 1140 Umpqua College Rd, Roseburg, OR 97470
Chairman: Bob Avery (541) 632-4063
ORP Staff Liaison: Terri Moffett (541) 998-6439
Oregon CD4 uStream here: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/oregonGOP will start Saturday around 8:30 AM pacific
NOT LISTED BUT MOST LIKELY: Registration starts at 7:30am with the meeting starting promptly at 9:00am The meeting is scheduled to concluded by 4:00pm
Fifth Congressional District Convention Location:
West Salem High School - 1776 Titan Drive NW, West Salem, OR 97304
Chairman: Jeff Kubler (541) 224-6158
ORP Staff Liaison: Greg Leo (503) 804-6391
Registration starts at 8:00am with the meeting starting promptly at 9:00am The meeting is scheduled to concluded by 4:00pm
--------------------------
Now is the time for grassroots leaders to both email AND call all the people on their contact list and ask them if they need a ride to the convention. You guys should have all the contact info so it really is on your shoulders.
I'm not in either state so I don't know everything you can do, but NOW is the time to kick into full gear!
---------------------------
As of yesterday they were looking for a few non-PCPs to volunteer as vote watchers at the convention. It's $10 and you have to register by Thursday. You can find out more info and see who to contact here:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/ronpaul360/384156864965641
---------------------------
OREGON Meetup info
INVENT THE FUTURE. FREEDOM. SELF-RELIANCE. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
http://www.meetup.com/Standing-Up-for-Freedom-Campaign-for-L...
We are free individuals who want liberty for ourselves, our families, and others in the community who care about personal freedom.
Ron Paul Campaign for Liberty: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ Fire Congress http://firecongress.meetup.com/11/ & http://www.kickthemallout.com/
http://oregoniansforronpaul.com/index.php?option=com_fron... for discussions, Ron Paul's record, Forums, and ideas for building new self-government systems in America. http://www.cascadepolicy.org is a think tank researching economic issues in Oregon.
Americans for Prosperity http://www.myafpor.org/ are active in Clackamas http://afpclackamas.ning.com/, Washington and Multnomah Counties.
We're delighted you are joining us, Jacques, not Jocks http://condor.eb.com/word/podcast/wd20090830.mp3
Alerts, campaign notices, event scheduling, activities, and membership applications continue at http://ronpaul.meetup.com/118/ . Check daily for events and recent photos.
---------------------------
Please leave any relevant information in the comment section below
---------------------------
Unrelated but important: ♠ Chip-In to the last ditch effort to get Romney's National Delegates from Illinois to consider Ron Paul in Tampa http://www.dailypaul.com/241023/chip-in-to-the-last-ditch-ef...
- Login to post comments
10% of the primary vote gets you no sympathy
You will find that outside of the Ron Paul movement - no one will be upset over the fight over convention delegates - no one will feel that Ron Paul was cheated - no one no where at all - all these convention moves are great and they amplified the Ron Paul presence at the National Convention but when you fall short here or there in your efforts to pick up additional delegates, no one is going to buy your protestations of mistreatment - because you did so poorly when the people voted. It appears that the efforts of the dedicated base is going to give Ron Paul more delegates at the convention than his support within the party would have otherwise gained. That is great - use it to further your ideals but don't think that you ever had a chance of winning the nomination so long as Ron Paul couldn't get much above 10% in most state primaries.
Feel good that you pulled off these convention miracles but keep a grip on reality - 10% of the primary vote will never get one the nomination. And Rick Santorum on Fox and Friends in January: "Ron Paul is disgusting" Direct quote - don't expect the Santorum or Gingrich delegates to come your way in a major way - especially after Rick and Newt have their say in Tampa. Neither is a fan of Ron Paul as he is not a fan of either of these two hacks either.
Saddam Hussein regularly used to get 99%
of the vote in Iraqi "elections".
Romney had the same advantages of media lockdown and bias, rigged elections and establishment bias, yet he only achieved 60 odd percent of the vote.
The media is still spouting jingoistic messages of fear and hate and the sheeple still believe it.
Messages without any foundation in reality, pure propaganda and fantasy.
The ignorant electorate are still voting for perpetual war, penury, corruption and the loss of civil libeties.
The ignorant electorate are still voting to wipe out the middle class in favor of the crony capitalists.
All those who voted for, or otherwise support Romney, voted for this.
But the word is getting out. Hard truths are becoming known by more and more prople.
Your post is a gloat on how little of the primary vote Ron Paul secured.
You are gloating over your own future poverty and the future demise of a once great nation.
You are gloating that the media is totally controlled (except for the internet) and stuffed full of lies.
And yet your gloat cannot disguise that they still cannot control the free spirit of the American people.
Word is getting out.
And Americans have guns. Do NOT let them take this away from you.
The Jews were disarmed by the Nazi's in the early 1930's.
"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."
I'm not going to get into a discussion with you
There are some people who are just so stupid that it reeks from every word they write or say - you are one of them and if you want to say the same about me - great - I take it as a compliment if you think I am dumb because boy I think you are a complete idiot.
I understand that
you do not want to get into a debate with me. I haven't found a single Romney supporter that did.
I will leave you with just 1 point and question.
Even Karl Rove's electoral college map and current polls show that Romney cannot win, so supporting Romney means an Obama 2nd term.
Add in the Gary Johnson factor (3pt swing to Obama) and it really is a foregone conclusion.
Why did the GOP elites choose such a weak candidate as Romney to go up against a very weak incumbent with a very poor record?
"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."
your figures are way off
and false. Virginia: Ron Paul 40.5%, e.g. Further, you take no trouble to acknowledge the execrable cheating and vote stealing going on.
That was one state
And I voted in that primary for Ron Paul but in my county the Santorum people were urging their supporters to turn out to vote for Ron Paul in order to embarrass Romney. Overall taking the primaries in total, he won about 10% and 40% in Virginia is still not competitive in a two man race when the other guy gets the remaining 60% - presidential elections that ran 60-40 such as Reagan / Mondale are mentioned in history as landslides.
more
although gee, wouldn't it be great if ppl did their own homework: Alaska RP 24% MR 32.4; Wash RP 24.8 MR 37.6; N.D. RP 28.1 MR 39.7; ME RP 34.9 MR 39 - and that's obviously without being in any way able to account for the massive vote fraud stealing votes from Ron Paul.
I think that MLJ was talking about primaries...
... according to Green Papers, Dr. Paul has averaged 10.97% of the vote in 2012 (it is unclear to me if this includes caucuses, or reflects primary results only):
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/R
You are correct that Dr. Paul has done much better in caucus states, as your examples show. As far as I know, our second best primary showing, after Virginia, was in New Hampshire, where we had 22.88% of the vote:
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/NH-R#0110
A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand
These are caucas not primary states
Every single one of them - not one primary listed above and total number of votes cast in these caucases were peanuts - total votes in all the primaries and caucases - Mitt Romney 9,414,851 (51%) - Santorum 3,895,526 (21%)- Gingrich 2,712,343 (15%) - Ron Paul 2,028,830 (11%) - source Wikipedia but I have seen these numbers elsewhere - I DID MY HOMEWORK - YOU ARE THE ONE WHO DOESN'T KNOW THE NUMBERS YET YOU ARE SO ARROGANT. I never write or say anything that quotes a statistic without being able to back it up with numbers - ALWAYS - 100% OF THE TIME!
to exclusively cite 10%
is misleading (and low-balled in and of itself) and an incomplete analysis of the facts to the detriment of the big picture.
That is utter garbage
11% is more than 10% for sure but this is hardly a low-balled number - it is the number not subject to challenge - I don't know if there were voting irregularities that influenced the relative percentages but if so then these need to be addressed and redressed. My point was and is that the general public is totally unaware and uninterested in the Republican intramural fight for delegates going on right now - and the reason Ron Paul is not winning the nomination is because he didn't do well enough in primary states which happened to be the big ball games - Ohio, New York, Florida, Illinois, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania to name a few - huge states with huge delegations were off the table for Ron Paul's and states like these formed the basis for Romney's win.
His base did miracles in the caucus states and proved that they were more dedicated and committed than their opponents which is why Ron Paul excelled in these contests but it wasn't enough by a long shot - so the challenge now is to convince those outside the base of the libertarian vision and ideals - if this can be done then the stage is set for a libertarian president but right now it hasn't happened and to deny reality is not wisdom. I didn't low ball anything - if you disagree with my analysis then fine - I'm not God - I am wrong at times and I am right at others but you were simply inaccurate to deny my quoted statistic and you keep going back to the well which is frankly not very intelligent. His primary totals barely exceeded 10% - that is a fact that no one can dispute - PERIOD.
Regarding convincing others about our vision and ideals...
... I posted a response to you here:
http://www.dailypaul.com/241044/time-to-concentrate-on-whats...
Thanks.
A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand
While what you say is not unreasonable, MLJ...
... it does not justify cheating on the part of the Oregon GOP Establishment. If the Party's own rules -- and basic principles of procedural fairness -- are being violated, that is equally wrong whether Dr. Paul won 10% or 90% of the Primary vote.
In my opinion, State GOP Establishmentarians do not tend to care much about "fairness," nor about the percentage of the vote Dr. Paul won in their state. While they do have some desire to see the GOP Presidential nominee win in November (because it might bring some patronage benefits for them and their buddies), it is not an overriding concern. Instead, they are preoccupied with four things:
1. Controlling the Party machinery. This is paramount; what an Establishmentarian fears, above all else, is losing his position of authority within the party (just as an elected official fears being defeated when he stands for reelection).
2. Being able to dispense favors to their friends and supporters (this is an important source of "soft power"). In the context of a convention, this translates into controlling who gets the delegate spots.
3. Winning state and local elections for your party; this relates to rule #2, because if you can get your buddies elected, they then can help you secure your own position. However, it is better to lose the election if the party's candidate, for whatever reason, will oppose you when he is in office (see rule #1).
4. Appearing to support national bigwigs like Presidential nominees, Senatorial nominees, etc. (whether they actually win is not that important, but you don't want them mad at you). Since Gov. Romney is now seen as the presumptive Presidential nominee, Establishmentarians will cheat in order to curry favor with him. (Even if Romney does not want them to cheat, however, they still will if it serves their other interests.)
One important corollary to all this is that Gov. Romney's interests and the interests of the Oregon GOP Establishment are not identical. Romney, who at this point sees his nomination as secure, has one overriding goal: to win in November. Romney realizes that, without significant Liberty support, he is unlikely to prevail, so he does not want the actions of the various state GOP Establishments driving a wedge between him and the Paul supporters (this explains why the Romney campaign came out on our side so quickly after the Louisiana State Convention debacle). I suspect that there have already been some unpleasant phone conversations between Romney staffers and Oregon GOP officials in the aftermath of yesterday's CD Conventions.
A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand
Your comment is also not unreasonable
My comment had to do with the fact that this politics is a contact sport and people with power cling to it - I think that the response from the Democratic Party would have been much more severe if the Ron Paul Revolution was working to infiltrate its state party organizations - I would suspect that union thugs and "community advocates" might even get very physical in places if you did anything to threaten their patronage. So no one is going to notice the intramural combat within the Republican Party except those directly involved in the contest. No one else will even bat an eyelash over what has happened for the most part.
As far as your comment about Romney - Romney is much more benign towards the Ron Paul movement than almost any other leading Republican I can think if - Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich would have been much more active in suppressing Ron Paul's delegate support and when I read people in here talk about Sarah Palin as an ally - I just have to shake my head - I am dead certain that if she were in Romney's position right now, it would be extremely ugly for the Ron Paul movement. And I am dead certain that Ron Paul would never say that any of them were "very dignified" as people as he described Romney and I am dead certain that Rand Paul would not be making any endorsement.
I think that some people in the movement are missing the true opponent - Mitt Romney will be the nominee but if he were to die, the powers that be would ensure that anyone except Ron Paul would get the nomination - and I have a small company with 51% of the shares and I make 100% of the decisions so 20% of the delegates will not buy you much in the end at Tampa - unless Romney throws his support behind Ron Paul on certain issues and I think he will - if it is just kept civil enough to allow Romney and Ron Paul to maneuver - Ron Paul will not sell out his movement or his principles but I strongly suspect that some sort of tactical compromise is in the works.
I mostly agree, MLJ...
... We seem to be saying the same thing as far as how the Establishment of either major party tends to act (and you might be right that the Democrats would be even worse).
I think that the key to understanding Gov. Romney is that, politically, he is almost completely nonideological. Unlike Sen. McCain (and Sen. Santorum), Romney is not inherently hostile to the Liberty Movement; he just wants to win, and he knows that he needs Liberty votes to do so. (Speaker Gingrich, for his part, seems to have a vicious edge to his personality; I think that he might stomp upon a rival's supporters just because he could, even if it would pointlessly cost him votes.)
I don't know that I agree with you about Gov. Palin; while she seems to have a rather insular outlook (which can lead to "lashing out" at rivals), she also seems to have an inherent anti-establishment streak that might have predisposed her to working with Dr. Paul if she were in Romney's position. I also can't help but think that, being from Alaska, she has some libertarian tendencies. (Unlike others, I do not think that she is a clone of Rep. Bachmann, to whom she is often compared.)
I don't think that Romney will have the sort of control over his delegates in Tampa that your stock share example seems to assume. For several cycles now, the pattern on the GOP side has been that the National delegates do the nominee's bidding on the VP vote, but are free to vote how they want on the Platform (and then the nominee mostly ignores the Platform during the fall campaign). I don't foresee Romney ordering his delegate majority to vote in lockstep on Platform votes (with the exception of obvious anti-Romney provisions such as a measure condemning Romneycare), and his delegates would resent it if he tried to so order them. Furthermore, Romney's delegates are all over the map ideologically; this is true because Romney is the frontrunner (and therefore has attracted delegates that would otherwise favor someone else), and also because Romney himself has no real ideological center. Romney's delegates will be close to evenly split on many votes, which will give the Liberty Movement's 20% a great deal of influence. (This is one of the reasons why each delegate matters so much to us.)
The reason why the Paul and Romney camps are working together behind the scenes is not because Paul needs Romney's support on the Platform (Paul will take whatever he can get on that), but for two reasons. Paul wants to have his name placed in nomination (which might require Romney's help on the Oklahoma dispute) and to give a prominent Convention speech (which will require Romney's permission). Romney, for his part, needs the backing of Paul's supporters in November. I think that Sen. Paul's endorsement has everything to do with the backstage maneuvering, and I would not be surprised if Rand ends up being Romney's VP selection (although I do not think that the decision has been made yet).
A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand
I agree with some twists
I agree that Romney will not control all the actions of his supporting delegates except on the votes for President and Vice President - I furthermore expect Romney to care much less over the platform issues than Rick Santorum who will play a huge role in Tampa whether Romney wants it or not - the social conservatives will do battle with Ron Paul over the platform and Santorum is already on record as ready to lead the charge for the social conservatives. The stage in Tampa could be set for 2016 or 2020 for a battle between Santorum and Rand Paul for the soul of the Republican Party.
I think that Rand Paul would have a much better chance of winning this likely future contest if he follows a Romney presidency - the message that will go out if Romney loses which I feel will be the wrong one but nevertheless one that will be repeated over and over and over - is that if Romney had just been more conservative on social issues he would have won and that the Republican Party must move farther to the right - and this movement to the right will not benefit the Liberty Movement - in fact it may force it back into a third party movement.
Sarah Palin is looking out for Sarah Palin - her bread and butter in the Republican Party is the social conservatives with whom she is a heroine to many - the fact that she gave birth as a sitting governor to a developmentally challenged child is a much bigger factor in her mystique than seems to be acknowledged. I can't see the social conservatives voluntarily conceding their stranglehood on the party at this time - just won't happen. And I don't see Sarah Palin doing anything to antagonize social conservatives either.
But what if Rand Paul or Ron Paul is part of a Romney administration? and what if they play a major role in setting the policy that matters? - the policy of a sitting president - and what if Romney is successful to one extent or the other in improving economic conditions in America? - then the Liberty Movement will have a real shot at gaining a more permanent power in the party. Of those three what if's the one that I am most confident would happen would be that the economy would improve under Romney - I personally think just replacing the Obama EPA chief would significantly boost economic growth and employment. This president (Obama) is so bad that the stage is set for the next one to shine in comparison.
I personally think that Ron Paul might not be heading into retirement in 2013 as conventional wisdom dictates - maybe Rand Paul will keep his seat in the Senate and his father may be the one who is given a key role in a Romney administration - not as Vice President but perhaps as Treasury Secretary which I don't think Ron Paul would refuse - especially if he sees that Romney can be converted into a real ally for his economic policies.
I consider "Social Conservatism" and "Neoconservatism"...
... to be two different camps within the GOP universe, and this distinction leads my analysis to take a different form. In my formulation, "Social Conservatives" are the Christian Right: anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and pro-guns. More broadly, they are pro-traditional institutions: family, church, country. To me, the genius of the Liberty Movement, as personified by Dr. Paul, is that it takes the small government message that in "straight libertarian" thinking tends to be premised upon an abstract philosophical foundation that is often atheistic and Darwinist, and recasts it within the distinctively American and Christian paradigm of God-given inalienable rights.
As reformulated, the Liberty message can appeal to Social Conservatives, and the major point of tension with the Liberty Movement concerns where the social issue battles should be fought: State or Federal? I think that the Liberty Movement will win over the Social Conservatives on this point if we can demonstrate that the battles over abortion, gay marriage, etc. can be more effectively waged at the state level. I expect that we will soon have a champion that will successfully bridge the remaining gap between the Liberty Movement and Social Conservatism (Rand Paul and/or Justin Amash are likely prospects).
Neoconservatism is, in my view, a different breed. Rather than being Evangelical and Catholic, it tends to be Jewish and secular; instead of being pro-American (or Globalist, as the Left is), it is Pro-Israel. This faction views preemptive war (whether declared or not) as an acceptable -- and often preferred -- approach to foreign policy, and sees it as appropriate that we give up our liberty in seeking security from terrorism. The Liberty Movement opposes these views, of course; the dislike is mutual and, in my judgment, the differences are irreconcilable. Politicians that have one foot (Sen. Santorum), or even both feet (Sen. McCain), in the Neoconservative camp are inherently hostile toward us, and this isn't going to change. The next few years will be marked by an intra-Republican civil war between us and them, with the loser banished as an organized force within the GOP. (I think that we will win; we have the long-term demographic edge -- young vs. old -- and Neoconservatism has already worn out its welcome with the American public, as G.W. Bush's sub-40% approval rating during the last two years of his Presidency shows. As Americans, we dislike perpetual war, resent being groped at airports, and are leery of being "disappeared" without recourse.)
It is true that Neoconservatism has used an alliance with Social Conservatism to control the GOP ever since 9/11 (although the "Wall Street" wing of the Party was tossed a bone in the form of the Bush tax cuts). If I understand you correctly, what you are calling "social conservatives," I would call the Neocon/SoCon alliance. My take is that the battle you speak of between Rick Santorum (or Marco Rubio) and Rand Paul (or Justin Amash) will actually be a fight for the allegiance of my version of the Social Conservatives: Will they side with the Liberty Movement under the banner of God-given inalienable rights? Or will they continue to ally with Neoconservatives employing the cynical slogan, "God will bless those who bless Israel"? (It is cynical because the Neoconservatives themselves do not believe it, but they peddle it to dupe the Social Conservatives.)
You make an interesting point about a Romney victory being good for the Liberty Movement, and it ties in to why the Paul campaign has clearly favored Romney over Gingrich and, especially, Santorum in this election cycle. To the extent that Gov. Romney has an ideology, he is most closely identified with the Party's Wall Street wing (pro-corporation, pro-Fed, pro-investor class, pro-free trade). A Romney win should at least temporarily wrest control of the GOP from the Neocon/SoCon alliance, giving the Liberty Movement a few years to attempt to pry the Social Conservatives away from the Neocons, while a Romney loss might strengthen and embolden the Neocon/SoCon alliance. From this point of view, tipping the Romney/Santorum fight toward Romney (which the Paul campaign clearly did in the days prior to the Michigan Primary) was shrewd long-term politics, despite the disagreements we have with Wall Street over the Fed and corporate welfare.
I do not see Sarah Palin as a confirmed Neocon, so I can easily envision her (along with other Social Conservatives such as Mike Huckabee, Tom Coburn, Rick Perry, and Jim DeMint) moving our way if Social Conservatism as a whole starts to gravitate toward us. I think that perception will be key over the next few years; if we can continue to disassociate ourselves from the stereotype of the Godless, pro-abortion, pro-drug, pro-prostitution "libertarian," we can ally with (or perhaps even fuse together with) the Social Conservatives to become the new dominant force within the GOP.
A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand
I agree on some key points
I agree with your vision and understanding of Ron Paul libertarianism but I tend to think that some of his supporters in their passion to support him and his policies do at times lose sight of the man's character and principles - winning an election is not everything at this stage. I also agree with the general outlines of the neo-conservative and social conservative split but want to add that I think that the so-called Republican establishment by and large is not part of this division. I also agree that a Romney presidency will give the Liberty Movement a chance for future inroads against both the social conservatives and the neo-conservatives.
I see Romney as more of a throw back to someone like Dwight Eisenhower - someone with common decency, good personal values and organizational skills who can and will lead competently on a day to day basis without per se settling the great philosophical issues regarding the long term direction of the country. Right now that might do the country some good - first Bush / Cheney and then Obama have divided the country into such bitter factions that a little pause and some competent technocratic administration might give the wounds a chance to heal a little. Certainly Romney can and will help the economy - the regulatory nightmare that Obama is constructing on a quiet daily basis - under the radar screen of most voters - is absolutely the most insidious and harmful aspect of his presidency. I'm convinced that Romney will at least stop the regulatory rot that is strangling the economic future of this country.
I agree that Romney will not be bold enough on cutting spending, tax reform and fundamental monetary policy redirection but he will be a step in the right direction - maybe far too timid and far too politically correct but much better than the alternative - this fact plus the fact that I am 100% sure that he will unravel much of the regulatory nightmare leads me to project that the economy will be appreciably better in 2016 under Romney that it would be to continue on the current course. And that is something to achieve because liberty and economic prosperity go hand in hand - I shutter to think how many Americans will be on the government dole by 2016 if Obama is reelected - maybe so many that the productive tax paying citizens will forever lose influence over the politics of this country.
Ron Paul is not stupid and Ron Paul is first and foremost a patriot. If he and his son are being respectful to Romney at this juncture it is because they perceive that to do so is in the best interests of this country, its citizens and the Liberty movement. Obama is not just another Democratic or Republican president - he is not Bill Clinton - he is a left-wing ideologue of a type that we have seldom (if ever) seen in the halls of power in this country. Romney is not the enemy of libertarianism that the Democratic progressives or the Republican neo-cons are - he is as close to neutral as one can get - Ron Paul seems inclined to seek influence over Romney in order to achieve something good for this country. I think some of his most fervent supporters in their zeal are missing the finesse game that Ron Paul seems to me to be playing.
I have also compared Gov. Romney to Eisenhower...
... in a post that was part of a dialogue with Shazad, a Romney supporter:
http://www.dailypaul.com/226948/what-happened-wyoming#commen...
In my post, however, I argue that this is not the right time in our nation's history for such a non-ideological President.
While I agree that Gov. Romney would do well to unravel the regulatory web that President Obama has woven, I nevertheless believe that the economy will get worse (possibly much worse) before it gets better. We are currently running massive annual Federal deficits, which are largely financed by foreign lending and, especially, by expanding our money supply. While grossly irresponsible, and quite harmful to America's long term prospects, these deficits should, in the short term, be resulting in considerable economic growth; instead, our economy can barely stay afloat.
While needed, deficit reduction measures and the reforming (or abolition) of the Fed, when combined with the looming negative feedback from Europe's insolvency crisis, will, in my view, likely result in another significant economic contraction. It may very well be that a President Romney will, through no fault of his own, be blamed for the fallout from the profligacy of the Bush and Obama years; his alternative will be to continue the printing, borrowing, and spending, in the hope that the bills will not come due until after his time in office ends.
I think that being President over the next four years will wind up being a grim and thankless job. If a President Romney makes the tough and responsible choices, and if he somehow manages to be reelected, then his second term could be much better. I suspect that he will instead merely seek to restore the status quo ante of the Bush Administration (with Iran and/or Syria reprising the role of Iraq); the economy will remain stuck in neutral, the debt will pile up, and Romney will lose his bid for reelection. The one bright spot in this scenario is that the next big economic slump would then likely occur on the ensuing Democratic President's watch, leaving Liberty Movement Presidential and Congressional candidates well positioned to win in 2020, along with a voting populace ready to embrace the sweeping changes that will finally lead us out of the wilderness.
A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand
Why something is a lot better than nothing right now
One thing is absolutely clear to me - Obama's regulatory web makes it absolutely impossible that the American economy to grow at any significant rate - I think that the thing a president can do on day one to turn around this mess - with no congressional authorization is to change the regulatory climate - the other things like phasing out the fed will take more time to implement and it will require a pretty solid party control over both houses of Congress.
Right now I maintain the most dangerous largely unknown threat to America's future is Lisa Jackson, the head of the EPA - she is working 24/7 to shut down our economy. Just to get rid of her will result in an immediate rush of investment capital, new jobs and new tax revenues owed to local, state and federal governments - the improvement will be HUGE and more immediate than even balancing the federal budget - we have an appointee at a critical choke point to our economy and she is literally cutting off the oxygen for business - both small and large.
So I maintain that the economic situation in 4 years will be immensely better if Romney is president and immensely worse if Obama is president - because it is Obama's Agenda to shut down economic activity in the private sector. I'm not as conversant about the NLRB but I understand that it is just as big a nightmare as the EPA right now.
In my humble opinion the best possible alternative at this juncture would be for Romney to win - unravel the regulatory mess which is every bit as dangerous as the budget deficits and fed and then vote him out in the 2016 primary. I think that things are much more desperate than many realize and the most immediate threat is the hidden threat under the radar - Obama's job-killing, economy stiffling regulatory policies.
Ok.
Thank you for the dialogue.
A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand
Interwebs
I think they are more in person oriented rather than internet oriented when it comes to networking. But, to answer your question, some of the senior gop people there wispering in the hallways were not very pleased at the way things were going prior to the shut down, and they were not looking forward to the "platform fight" that will likely happen in tampa.
RNC to replace our delegates with their alternates?
"Stalling till a surprise adjournment followed by delegate appointment is not a new tactic.
We've seen this before in this, and the previous cycle. In hindsight, we should have replaced the convention chair and brought our own ballots. I suggest we do our best to maintain momentum and to replace the state GOP leadership, or at least give them a good scare.
One has to wonder why the alternates mattered enough to focus on
the way they did. I suspect they have a national convention strategy
that has something to do with the alternates. Maybe they will try
to disqualify and replace our delegates if they don't like the way
things are going." (cut and paste)
Allen Alley has to go
I'm convinced he's the one behind the shenanigans.
The "alternate delegate
The "alternate delegate strategy" could just be something as simple as hoping that the main delegates don't show up because they can't afford it, or the RNC think that enough RP delegates may not be committed enough to show up.
IDAHO
I still haven't heard anything from the Idaho convention. Was anyone there that can tell us what happened? I heard a little about Bewenah (not sure if spelled right) county, is it the same for all of Idaho? Did we get any delegates?
Thanks
This is what I came up with
from a local Idaho newspaper....not good news.
http://www.idahopress.com/news/state/idaho-gop-approves-dele...
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
"I have one word for you...predator drones. Oh, you think I'm kidding?" Obombya
it's hard to say since all 32
it's hard to say since all 32 were "bound" to vote for Romney anyway so we don't know if we have any stealth supporters. From my understanding though we only represented 20-25% of the total delegation though. Hats off to those that actually showed up. We all thank you for your effort.
► RON PAUL GIFTS:
http://www.zazzle.com/ron+paul+gifts?rf=238040997476137652
► RAND PAUL 2016:
http://www.zazzle.com/rand+paul+gifts?rf=238040997476137652
the article's author
still thinks delegates are bound. We still don't know how many of Idaho delegates are actually RP supporters yet do we? There is at least one. If we take more then a third this will still be a victory considering.
don't underestimate the GOP
don't underestimate the GOP and what they'll do when "bound" Romney delegates vote for Paul. The law hasn't stopped crooked politicians before and the lawsuit is still pending.
► RON PAUL GIFTS:
http://www.zazzle.com/ron+paul+gifts?rf=238040997476137652
► RAND PAUL 2016:
http://www.zazzle.com/rand+paul+gifts?rf=238040997476137652