My friend Elizabeth Crum shared a press release the other day from the “Ron Paul Nevada Team,” bragging about their continuing “takeover” of the state Republican party. I have to ask – what’s their point?
Fortunately, like all would-be-tyrants, they’re pretty open about it:
“Republicans understand Ron Paul is the only candidate who can challenge status quo candidate Mitt Romney, defeat Obama, and Restore America Now. Proof of this is ordinary citizens including first-time political activists investing their time to become the delegates required to win Dr. Paul the GOP nomination,” [said Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse] Mr. Benton.
I’m glad Ron Paul is in the race, because this country has deadly serious long term fiscal issues that must be discussed, issues that probably wouldn’t be on the radar if he wasn’t running. But he’s not my candidate, and I’m certainly not alone. Paul has yet to win over a majority – or even a plurality – of Republican voters anywhere in the country under any electoral circumstances, and he’s unlikely ever to do so.
I suppose it’s possible that Mitt Romney will not secure a majority of delegates before the national convention in August. It is also possible that Romney would not win on the first round of balloting at a brokered convention, freeing Nevada’s delegates to vote for Paul. I suppose Paul supporters could even engineer – all in strict accordance to some arcane and too-lightly considered rules of procedure, to be sure – a rules change that would allow them to completely ignore the result of any primary vote and get Paul nominated, regardless of current RNC or various state party rules.
Do these goons really think that this would be seen as legitimate? Do they really think a candidate nominated under such circumstances could unite the party and defeat President Obama in November? More importantly, what does any of this have to do with advancing individual liberty?
~~~
Just because something is done in accordance with a certain set of rules doesn’t make it legitimate. Bullying a majority of voters out of the picture by abusing a parliamentary process is no less tyrannical than refusing to hold votes altogether – it’s just a more subtle tyranny.
Beyond that, it’s politically stupid. You can annoy, insult, bore, and waste the time of every non-Paul supporting Republican in the state, and then you’d have a “pure” party, I guess. But the politics of subtraction don’t win elections. At best, you’ll have small gold standard love-ins in mostly empty convention halls, followed by commiseration parties on election night.
Ron Paul simply has no claim to the Nevada GOP. Even with incredibly low turnout in a caucus state (supposedly the conditions he would be expected to do the best), he could only muster a third place finish with 19% of the vote. His overall platform (which includes his own electability argument) was proffered and rejected. By continuing to push that agenda, the will of the Nevada GOP electorate is being purposely ignored in favor of what a small minority feels is “for our own good.”
So much for “We the People.” So much for representative government. So much for individual liberty.
Can you imagine if people with attitudes like this actually had any real power? Oh, wait. We don’t have to imagine – we can just cast our eye over towards the White House to see how this “ends justify the means” BS turns out in the end.
~~~
Of the two candidates currently vying for the State GOP Chair, I wonder which of them will repudiate this sort of nonsense. I know Dave Buell will insist that the expressed views of Nevada’s Republican voters – including the vast, vast majority who voted for Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum – be respected. Under his leadership, the Washoe County party is a respected and effective partner of our local elected officials, which means those elected officials care what our local party activists have to say.
I wonder about Michael McDonald, though, who draws much of his support from these Roberts Rules abusing tin-pots. Will he agree to insist that the majority of Nevada’s Republicans be represented by their party leadership? Or will he just plead the Fifth if pressed on the issue?
~~~
Political parties do not make policy. Policy is only made by elected officials, which means that the only hope a party apparatus has to influence policy is to be useful in actually winning elections.
I’ve asked it before, and I’ll ask it again – what makes these folks think that “taking over” the party in this manner is going to lead to Republicans (conservative or otherwise) winning elections?
The good news is that none of these folks have any prayer of actually exercising any real power. The bad news is that they will make the party apparatus almost completely irrelevant in Nevada politics. Republican elected officials will move further to the left as they feel the activist base is overtly hostile, poisonous, and/or a waste of time. Down ticket and cash strapped Republican candidates in tight but winnable races will suffer from not having the financial or organizational support that a well run and respected Party can bring to bear on their behalf.
But hey – at least some delegates to our state convention can waste a lot of time and beat their breasts about sticking it to the elitists or something. Yeah, that’s it. Those elitists! Those elitists who think the voters are stupid, and our will shouldn’t be respected. Those elitists who are actually in a small minority, but want to control everyone else because they think they’re soooooo right that the noble ends justify the tyrannical means.
Elitists indeed.
OK, Orrin – you’re two for two in my book.
I attended CPAC in 2010, and was surprised and disappointed when the Paulista Children’s Crusade (college-age guests of CPAC) voted in the straw poll and gave Congressman Paul an undeserved victory. Those kids were in no way representative of the ten thousand or so people who paid good money to come to CPAC and participate in that annual conservative event … yet they gladly (I mean, they were high-fiving each other all over the place) abused the courtesy of CPAC by stealing the election, stuffing the ballot boxes with “votes” which were unrepresentative of the real conservatives who were there.
I remember what it was like to be a teen/young-adult activist – I was President of the Georgia Federation of Teen Aged Republicans in ’68, attended that year’s Republican Convention, and was thrilled to be a part of it all … but even in my youthful exuberance (hey, I was 16) I knew that my voice didn’t count, nor should it.
The Paulista Children at CPAC, and the more adult (but still child-like) Paulistas you describe here, haven’t learned that lesson. Sadly.
Ned Barnett – Nevada Conservative
We Ron Paul supporters understand the political process. We understand that both Liberal and Conservative media ignore him, because he has identified both parties as Political Hacks.
No one saw the 2008 economic collapse coming, except for Ron Paul- who is on record calling it 5 years in advance, and even longer.
Banks, Lobbyists, Media Centers, Weapons manufacturers, and Washington officials have been manipulating our system for too long, trying to “engineer” their perfect society, while stealing from the tax payer in terms of printing money, and loaning it to War Mongerers like John McCain and Rudy Guilliani to supply their lobbying Weapons Manufacturers with increased business, all in the guise of “Keeping America Safe” in order to rob Americans of their purchasing power, to help the lobbyists make money.
Even moreso, this has extended into political corruption in the form of vote tampering and other means.
Ron Paul supporter understand, that in order to overcome all the Vote Manipulation (Romney’s company owns the voting machines) and BS you people shove down America’s throat, we have to work the delegate process. Don’t be mad, just because we are smarter than you and can smell BS miles away.
There is nothing wrong with being 1%, as long as it is based on merit, rather than theft and manipulation of laws in order to favor. That is where the despising of the 1% comes into play, because they think the end (their benefit) justifies the means- and as you said, IT DOESNT.
So, Henry Clay, just to be clear – you believe that:
a) You and your fellow travelers represent roughly 1% of the electorate; and
b) That the rest of us aren’t smart enough to see what’s “really going on”; and
c) You lack the intelligence or skill required to actually persuade a plurality of voters to support your candidate or positions; and
d) That if we DO understand what’s “really going on,” then we’re either too lazy to do anything about it or we’re part of the conspiracy; therefore
e) you are free to actively subvert the clearly expressed electoral will of the vast, vast, vast majority of Republicans, both in Nevada and across the county for our own, ignorant selves’ own good.
Dude. Do you not see how this just fully makes you a statist? Your justification is the justification for every dictatorship in the planet. You may be “following the rules,” but that doesn’t make what you’re doing legitimate. You’re just a thug using Roberts Rules instead of a billy club.
And please answer me directly – I’d love to know: How do you think this helps win actual elections? Do you honestly believe that if Ron Paul is selected at the convention that his nomination will be viewed as legitimate by a majority of Americans or even Republicans?
BTW, in Nevada, we didn’t use any “voting machines” owned by Romney or anyone else. Allegations without facts – talk about irresponsible.
But thank you for helping me make my point that you believe neither in representative government or individual liberty (unless of course it’s your OWN individual liberty). Honestly – your philosophy is much closer to an #Occupier than a true liberty loving Conservative.
Orrin,
You have at least one valid point: that if Ron Paul wins the nomination, it will likely be criticized.
Everything else is suspect, at best (including your citation from the huffingtonpost). You would do yourself a service to dig a little deeper in your research.
I don’t really know where to begin, but let’s just focus on the beginning: Maine. As I am sure you are aware, there is much controversy over the Maine caucuses – particularly in Washington County. Ron Paul WOULD have likely won the Maine caucus by popular vote; however, do you recall how Chairman Charlie (a Mitt Romney supporter) conveniently canceled the Washington Country caucus due to a snow storm HE predicted – that never happened. Then, once the caucuses were finally held, Chairman Charlie excluded the results from the state’s final, official results. That county accounted for SEVENTEEN PERCENT of the total Maine caucus results. Ron Paul was on track to sweep Washington County.
Now remember, Ron Paul lost that caucus by no more than 200 votes. If it wasn’t for Chairman Charlie’s blatant ethics violation, the Maine caucus would have been a Ron Paul win.
So, I do not exactly know what point you are trying to make with this article. As is clear – the Romney camp is guilty of REAL election fraud (refer to http://www.dailypaul.com/226259/virginia-delegates-blocked-by-corrupt-committee-chairman for just one of MANY examples out there if you dig deeper than the first page of Google results).
So, you are doing nothing more than accusing Ron Paul supporters of what? Participating in a democratic republic? Playing by the rules in a grassroots revolution that will no doubt reclaim the liberties and principals that the Founding Fathers originally sought? From the sound of your blog entry here, it would appear that you would have considered the Founding Fathers themselves lunatics for speaking out against the establishment of their day.
However, I won’t hold that against you – perhaps you just need to do a little bit more research. Word of advice: avoid fox news, CNN, NBC, CBS, HuffingtonPost, and anything related to the Associated Press. Go out there and actually FIND news for yourself, or you will never be taken seriously as a blogger or journalist.
Good luck,
Ken
Just for your edification, here is just more of the Romney camp fraud that you have neglected to take into consideration with the arguments presented in your blog entry: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9105
One last point:
You say that, “Political parties do not make policy. Policy is only made by elected officials, which means that the only hope a party apparatus has to influence policy is to be useful in actually winning elections.”
Well, sir, what exactly are delegates then? Are they not elected officials? I am currently nominated as a delegate for my congressional district & state delegate in the State of Virginia. But I must be ELECTED during our city’s mass meeting first. Then, if ELECTED, I will be ELECTING a new GOP chairmen for my district, and ELECTING our national delegates, who will in turn be ELECTING the republican nominee, who will then either be ELECTED or not by the delegates they are awarded during the general presidential ELECTION.
I suppose the greater argument you are making in this statement is that Ron Paul is unelectable? It is hard to tell. Either way, your argument is flawed, and therefor any conclusions therein are flawed.
If the shoe was on the other foot and Mitt Romney was put in the position of having to fight for delegates through the parliamentary process I bet you wouldn’t say the same would you?
ahhh, filtering my comments?
I will just say that this writer seems to mistakenly equate liberty with majority rule. He should also examine more carefully the differences between a republic and a democracy. And yes, we do believe that if Ron Paul can secure the GOP nomination he will crush Obama in the general election just as Harding won in a landslide.