Man, oh man, did the Paultards screw themselves or what?
First, Ron Paul’s out-of-state operative, Jeff “Chemtrail” Greenspan reneged on a deal to put four Ron Paul delegates on the party’s official slate of candidates to the Republican National Convention at the Nevada GOP convention last April.
Four delegates was a fair proportion approximating the 13 percent of the vote Paul received during Nevada’s presidential caucus last January. But Greenspan and the Paultards got greedy and decided they wanted ALL of the delegates. So on the morning of the convention in Reno, they decided to reject the Nominations Committee’s carefully screened slate of national convention delegates, opened nominations to the floor and threw the entire convention into chaos.
The ultimate result was the convention being recessed without any delegates being elected.
Yes, the Paultards claimed victory in two of the three congressional district elections before the recess, but voting irregularities have called that balloting into question. No surprise if those results are now tossed.
As the party tried to figure out how to complete its delegate-selection process, the Paultards rejected out-of-hand a simple, inexpensive, common sense suggestion: Mail-in balloting. Apparently the Paultards didn’t trust having the ballots delivered by the party’s black helicopters or letting the Tri-Lateral Commission count the votes.
You just can’t please some people.
Instead, the Paultards - led by Reno proctologist Dr. Wayne Terhune - decided to hold their own “convention” to elect delegates even though (a) they didn’t possess an official list of credentialed delegates to invite, (b) didn’t give proper and sufficient notice of the meeting, (c) barred some credentialed non-Ron Paul delegates from participating, and (d) would never have their meeting or any decisions made at the meeting recognized or accepted by either (1) the Nevada Republican Party or (2) the Republican National Committee.
But other than that, it was a swell idea.
In the meantime, the Nevada GOP announced that it would officially reconvene to settle the unfinished convention business on July 26. However, to assure that delegates didn’t go through the time and expense of traveling to Reno once again only to find that there wasn’t a sufficient numbers of delegates to reach a quorum and conduct business, it requested RSVPs from delegates.
Lo and behold, many of the Paultards refused to RSVP. Go figure. And many non-Paultards, not wanting to subject themselves to another Mike Weber soapbox derby, decided not to participate as well.
So it turns out there was insufficient RSVP response to warrant a convention restart. In other words, due to lack of interest, the convention has been cancelled.
The Paultards, naturally, are apoplectic - refusing to acknowledge that their own amateurish, self-serving, ham-handed actions brought all this on themselves. A number of them are, at this very minute, gathered in front of the Nevada GOP’s headquarters stomping their little feet and holding their breath until their paranoid faces turn blue while holding up signs which read, “I Am Not a Troll!”
The Paultards have prided themselves for the last three months on their knowledge and command of Roberts Rules of Order. What they failed to understand was that Roberts doesn’t mean beans in a fight like this. It’s like bringing a knife to a gunfight.
The fact of the matter is the party’s Executive Committee has the power to pretty much do whatever the hell it wants - and neither Roberts, nor Nevada Revised Statutes or even Republican National Committee rules can trump ‘em. And thanks to the Paultards’ greedy attempt to hijack the convention back in April, the Executive Committee will now use the powers invested in it to choose the party’s delegation to the national convention.
Don’t be surprised if not a single Ron Paul supporter is selected.
Welcome to the real world.
Now…what will all this mean for the Nevada Republican Party in the long run?
Not a damn thing.
There will be a lot of sound and fury and pissing and moaning for a few days, but in the end the party will go on - just as it did after the Pat Roberts people tried to take over the party in 1988 and the Aaron Russo people tried to take over the party in 1998. You see, the party goes through this aggravation every ten years or so. The Paultards will eventually be nothing more than a footnote in Nevada’s political history. Maybe a trivia answer.
And they did it all to themselves. They could have been a part of the solution. They could have become a positive force for change within the party. They coulda b’en a contenda’. Instead, they consigned themselves, their candidate and their cause to irrelevancy and ridicule.
Nice job, Greenspan. Hope they paid you a big bonus for this cluster-$%#&. Bozo.
Posted on July 17th, 2008 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: Nevada
[…] Chuck Muth’s blog post titled The Little Convention that Couldn’t and Sue Lowden’s The Lowden Line which has a history of this year’s previous attempts at a convention. […]
Chuck,
It is a little disappointing to hear you talk about particulars of what happened at the April convention since you were not there and are apparently basing your comments on what you’ve heard from others (who also may or may not have been there or paying attention). You mention the Ronulan Paultard rule change that threw everything into chaos and the rejection of the carefully chosen slate of delegates selected by the nominations committee.
I happen to know that the potential for this rule change was communicated to the state party at least a week prior to the April convention. For the party to say this was an unanticipated surprise is either ignorance, incompetence, or a downright lie. I sincerely believe that even with open nominations we could have completed the selection process on the day of the first convention (and before 6 pm).
The party could have helped the situation immensely by publishing its list of vetted National delegates prior to or during the convention. Perhaps the State delegates at the convention would have been more willing to accept the choice of the Party if they had known who the Party had selected. As it turned out, the rules change (from the 2004 convention to the 2008 convention) indicated the Party was unwilling to have any input and many delegates formed an immediate distrust of the Party’s intentions.
Clay,
There was nothing illegal about Bob Beers calling a recess. According to the Rules of Robert, the chairman is allowed to adjourn or recess, without a vote, where the agenda calls for it to occur. Although we delegates did not have the time for adjournment set out in our program, I imagine Bob Beers did.
Additionally, there is no requirement for the credential list to be made available to the delegates unless it is requested during the convention. According to the Venerable Rules, the list is given to the chairman or secretary only. See p. 597 of the 10th edition.
N.B. I sent a response to Clay, because there used to be a comment by him here. Not sure where it went . . .
As is the case all over the ‘net, many Paultards and their comments are removed from this blog when the host deems it appropriate. Folks such as Clay have the right to free speech, but they don’t have the right to use my soapbox to exercise their right. A little lesson in both liberty and civility.
Diarmait–
Well, maybe Chuck wasn’t at the April 26 event, but I sure was. I was on the nominations committee too, and it simply isn’t true that we were trying to keep the list secret. Doug Mathews, the committee chairman, was in fact in the process of giving his report to the convention when the body decided to scuttle the whole thing and start from scratch.
As I have said in many fora, I asked the RP supporters to prepare a slate that could be considered as a whole by the convention. If they had done this they could have campaigned for their slate and possibly won the whole thing.
Unfortunately, rather than take this advice (and perhaps this was unacceptable to their own anarchic forces), they chose the logistically impossible task of taking all nominations from the floor and having 1400 delegates choose 31 candidates out of 200 nominated. Did anyone know any of the individuals nominated? Did anyone consider how long it would have taken to count the ballots? Did anyone running really understand the commitment and expense required to attend the national convention? How many of them actually would have shown up??!!
One thing I think I can say with certainty: If the RP brigade thinks this is going to court, they are very much mistaken. This is an internal party affair, and the courts won’t touch it.
Howard Hirsch
Chairman, Lyon County Republican Central Committee
Dayton, Nevada
Yeah, I noticed that comments tend to magically disappear on this blog. I certainly hope Chuck isn’t selectively allowing certain people or posts to remain in the comments section…..
Yes, Chris, I am. I am selectively deleting comments which put forward paranoid and inaccurate information. If you want to spread your BS, do it on your own blog.
I’ll note that I’ve never had to take this kind of action for anyone other than Paultards…including liberals. What’s that tell you?
I’m not sure how long this post is actually going to stay up, but you in fact *did* take down one of my posts yesterday, where I pointed out that your characterization of the teacher’s union as being against pretty much any reform that benefits students was unfair.
For the record, I am not a Ron Paul supporter.
And you have, in fact, taken down posts from me, Chuck, and I would hardly consider myself a liberal or a Ron Paul supporter. They might challenge you, but I would consider that a prime opportunity to respond. If your response is reasoned and well-articulated, that would, in my view, have a far better impact than merely removing it. However, I quite agree that it is your blog, and you are free to edit it as you see fit. Any other reality would smack of a lack of freedom.
Dear Moral Guy, here’s today’s lesson: Life’s not fair. Get over it.
You can’t reason with insanity, “Teacher.” Many of us have given up trying to talk any sense to the Paultards.
I’m *sure* this post will be taken down, but I can’t resist.
Let’s revisit what we’ve learned today:
1. Chuck admits that it’s unfair for him to selectively take down comments on his blog, based on content.
2. Chuck lied when he said “I’ll note that I’ve never had to take this kind of action for anyone other than Paultards,” since he has, over only the last 24 hours, taken down two comments which a) had nothing to do with Ron Paul and b) were not written by Paul supporters.
Hurray for honesty in political discourse!
I love this propaganda.
Chuck, explain to us again why Ron Paul supporters should be happy getting less delegates then McCain who is universally despised in the state.
Ron Paul received far more support in actual votes, and he has more delegates to the state convention.
Chuck says ” here’s today’s lesson: Life’s not fair. Get over it.”
Dear Chuck, life is what you make it. It’s my job to BE fair. I am. If your blog isn’t fair… it’s because of you.
If there are parts of life that are not fair, it is our job to correct them. And not do as you do and adopt that sort of behavior and proclaim that the norm.
I can’t speak on behalf of Chuck, and I certainly am not in contact with him enough to claim to be able to read his mind or predict his thought patterns, and I hope he will correct me if I am inccorect in what I say next, but I gathered from his blog entry that from a purely Game Theory perspective, the Ron Paul supporters basically hosed themselves. They could have had at least some presence at the National Convention had they played the game. At this point, from a simple legal perspective, Chuck is correct, the RNC will basically recognize those people who the State Party send. While there could be a credentials fight, hypothetically, this is hardly a race as close as the Obama/Clinton race, where each has allies on the Credentials Committee and could pose a spoiler as far as which delegation is seated (and even in that case, where the counts were close, it seems unlikely that anyone could actually have done such a thing). At this point the McCain/State Party folks will be seated, and probably none of the Ron Paul people will. If the Ron Paul supporters think they have enough support at the ground level, then the path is clear: convince people to vote to put you into the Central Committee positions and work towards permanent change. If you can not accomplish this, then it seems a void point even to argue over. The test will be time and results, in my view.
To Teacher: I agree. At every Party meeting we are gathering strength.
Maybe we’ll see you at the next meeting?
Well, I have attended every County Central Committee meeting since the Convention, and was elected to the State Central Committee, so I suppose if you are there, we will see each other.
Same here Teacher. I intend to bring at least one friend next meeting. Say hey. I’ll be wearing the sleeveless “Don’t Gavel Me Bro” t-shirt.
Dear Eric, congratulations. You went from getting fewer delegates than the GOP nominee to getting no delegates. Great job, folks!
Dear Clay Season:
Whatever.
A couple of delegates is basically the same as no delegates. It makes no difference in the longterm for the party or the country. It’s seriously time to move on.
What all this discussion with its perjoratives about ‘tards, and its mischaracterization of a dentist as a proctologist (humor, I suppose?) ,misses is that Senator McCain’s support in this state is a millimeter deep and about half an inch wide. The man is barely a Republican by any measurable standard. He’s wrong on taxes, on guns and on free speech. He’s wrong on campaign finance. He’s just wrong. And no late in life makeover can fix what’s wrong with him because if we’ve learned anything about the man over the last 30 years it’s that he’s stubborn. He can say whatever he wants to during the campaign, but in the end he will revert to form. And that means lots of “reaching across the aisle.” The thing that scares me most about any politician is that he may compromise away our liberty. And nobody has done more of that in the Republican party over the last few decades than Senator McCain.
The best our side can come up with is: “He’s not that awful Obama.” Well, true, they are somewhat different. And Obama is truly awful. But if it took Jimmy Carter to teach us the lesson of Reagan, then maybe it’ll take 4 years of Obama to teach us this lesson: Do not run Bob Dole for president . . . twice.
If Senator McCain had been more than mininally supported in this state, none of the events that have transpired would have been remotely possible. It’s instructive to note that Senator McCain was put over the top by states that allowed independents and/or Democrats to vote in Republican primaries and caucuses. I may never understand the logic of allowing that to happen. And see what it got us.
Did Paul supporters screw themselves? Again, I was never a party to any deal, but If the deal was supposed to be 4 delegates and it turns out to be 0 delegates, the only way Paul supporters could screw themselves is to stop showing up and participating in the party now and in the future.
Ron Paul supporters are exactly the sort of people the Republican Party DOES NOT need. Of all the ones I have met, not a single one has been able to refrain from a long rant about immigration and the border. By 2050 Hispanics could make up one in four Americans. By that point African Americans will comprise 15% of the population. If the xenophobes had their way, 40% of the country in 2050 would automatically be aligned against the GOP. One of the few positive legacies George W. Bush would have left the GOP was the negation of the Democrat’s advantage amongst Hispanic voters. However, yahoos like Tom Tancredo could not contain their xenophobia long enough to follow through. So now, instead of Republicans gaining further Hispanic support through a comprehensive immigration reform plan, they would rather kill the plan and along with it the GOP’s gains amongst Hispanics. Then the Democrats can dominate all branches of government and we get amnesty anyway. Real rocket scientists.
Well, the Ron Paul people are silly and wrong but they did do McCain a favor. All the Republicans who were moaning about McCain have now been forced to embrace him, or at least bite their lips. As a long time McCain admirer I am use to supposed Republicans throwing the RINO slur at me. Thankfully the Paul people were around this time to draw fire away from Johnny Boy.
I have to enter this next section of the blog very carefully, and I really want everyone to read it carefully. I have met two distinct camps of Ron Paul people. There are the men and women who have been Republicans for many years, and who have a more vested interest in economics and Libertarian issues than moral/social. I may disagree with such people on a basic level, but I respect them for being genuine and thoughtful, even if in my opinoiin misguided. Then there are the men and women I have come across — and there have been quite a few of them — who have been Democrats all their lives, or unaffiliated, and who clearly have no idea what the Republican Party stands for, or what its history entails, but who for whatever reason are gung-ho about Ron Paul, and who do nothing but cause disruptions. I am not certain how to engage with such people, and am even further perplexed by the fact that it is unfair that categorize all of them into the same camp. Many of the Ron Paul people are well-thought, well-educated men and women……and then many of them clearly have not read anytrhing of genuine academic value. I witnessed a heated argument with one particular man who was convinced that amending the constitution with regard to the marriage issue was wrong, and I quote “because we should never change the constitution, for any reason! It’s fine just the way it is.” That’s fine and genuine if you really believe it, but then not 5 minutes lates, he was yelling that the Constitution needed to be amended to stop “anchor” babies. Now, hold on a minute. Either the darned thing is good enough as it is, or it isn’t. You can’t have it both ways, at least not if you are being intellectually genuine. Anyway, just my thoughts on the matter.
Just like any other organization or group, not all involved can be pigeon holed into the exact same mold. It’s true of the Dems., the Reps. Catholics, etc. and certainly the Ron Paul supporters. And I can assure you there are much more than just two sorts. There are many. As a long-time Paul supporter I can tell you there are some supporters I am friends with and some that I don’t like at all. Surely the same can be said of Clinton, Bush, McCain and Gibbons. We should judge each issue in politics case by case and not declare we are for or against something based on whether McCain is supporting it or Paul is supporting it.
That being said, the mess the State Convention has become should not be judged based on which political figure we support but rather point by point based on whether each act was right or wrong. I attended both the April Convention and Day Two of the Convention in June.
Last night, State Delegates File Suit Against Nevada Republican Party.
http://www.ktvn.com/Global/story.asp?S=8701618
I hope everyone will carefully listen to both sides of this case. I am confident most points raised in the lawsuit are based on righteous objections.
Clay and all of the rest of you who are listening. I hope my previous post made clear that I did not think that all Ron Paul were dolts. Quite the opposite. I was merely expressing some of my frustration with some of the Ron Paul supporters I came in contact with. That being said, you are absolutely correct, there are people of every camp who are not well-informed, and who should not err on the side of not speaking, regardless of who we are speaking of. Chuck, what do you think will happen as a result of the lawsuit being filed?
I just want to say you are a complete ahole Chuck the schmuck. I am going to put your site down as spam in my email because you have HUA disease, Head Up Ass. You are a crap salesman with a mouthful of samples. Your words mean nothing to Ron Paul supporters because you are so apparentely an ahole.
Here’s the thing. I had the actual list from the nominating committee…
(Editor’s Note: We interrupt this post by Jeff Greenspan because he’s full of crap. He never had and still doesn’t have the Nominating Committee’s list. And if he wants to spread his paranoia somewhere, he can do it on his own blog. - Chuck)
There are so many new Ron Paul supporters because the news on TV is filled with lies and disinformation. Ron Paul showed us the truth and the reality of the situation, which made us do the research and realize the direction our country was headed. Through Ron Paul we have realized it was the time to take action, thus new Republican supporters into the party. It is not your right to tell us when we should become politically active. If the news told the truth, we would have been active a long time ago.
I called in on KXNT to discuss the lawsuit with Casey Hendrickson and Heather Kid. They were discussing Lowden’s decision to cancel the July 26 reconvening and appointing the delegates on July 25. The screener put me hold and when I got on I was immediately disconnected from the hosts’ conversation. I called back and the screener put me on hold for approximately 45 minutes while they discussed the subject with another caller who was very poor at debating with them. He sounded stupid… they sounded intelligent. (Wrong, but intelligent.)
Finally, they put me on again and again I was immediately done away with, due to technical problems they told me.
I wanted to agree with them that they were right, the caucus program is better than the primary system because it allows the little people, not the Party elite, to nominate and elect the national delegates. But here we have Lowden and the insiders dismissing the little people’s wishes by ending the April Convention before we entirely completed the electing of delegates by the little people, then, not announcing the winners of the election that was completed at the April Convention, then, not telling us when they would reconvene within 2 weeks as Beers said he would when he ended the April Convention, then, waiting more than a month and announcing they would reconvene July 26 (the day after we announce we would reconvene on June 28 since they weren’t, which I thought was just a tactic to disrupt our June effort) then, they announced they were cancelling the July 26 reconvening - which brings us right back to the system they had used for years, which was they would themselves appoint the national delegates and make sure the little people were kept in their place.
It’s very difficult to imagine their intentions were ever to allow the caucus program to work, that is, to allow the people to choose their own national delegates, especially when you consider when we arrived at the April Convention they told us they had already selected them.
I am looking forward to the lawsuit. Hopefully, the media will finally present both sides of the case so the masses can see what’s been going on.
Hyberbolic B.S.
The bigger idiot is one who tries to argue with and idiot. The newest label of “paultards” isn’t even insulting as it can’t make it past stupid. Closer to actuality is that the Republican Party does not have a presidential candidate. Take you childish insults back outside and share them with other second graders during recess.
The party may go through it every ten years but didn’t the party go through it’s own realignment of ideas in the last 8 years?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqiBwsjAa2s.
Bush won in 2000 on a much more conservative platform than McCain is running on. I think it makes the party vulnerable when they completely change ideology and opt for one sounding more like the Democrats.
And the conservative end of the party in their dislike for McCain may either not vote, or dare I speak it, vote for Obama. Granted their are party line towers who do whatever they are told, but our thinking members not following the ideological about face won’t bring it home for November.
I personally can’t vote for McCain, he’s too liberal.
you bootlicking ass-wipe. It was a convention. The delegates get to choose the nominee, not the popular vote.
“Nice job, Greenspan. Hope they paid you a big bonus for this cluster-$%#&.”
Missed this one. Nice touch, Chuck. All they had to do was not lie and not break the rules.
Since you protect lies and rulebreakers, you are a bad person. Flat out - bad person. No good fruit, no good analysis, no truth can come from a bad person.
Take THAT to court!
Chuck Mouth: “I’ll note that I’ve never had to take this kind of action for anyone other than Paultards…including liberals. What’s that tell you?”
You’re frightened.
Really, “LeeO”? I use my real name. You hide behind a fake name. So I guess we know who’s really scared now, don’t we?
Dee dee dee! Looks like we are going to have to get more hockey equipment and a bigger bus so that we can make room for LeeO, Clay Season, Eric, et al. Maybe Bunce, Holloway, Smack, and the Terhune Loons have some extra helmets and pads (and don’t forget the aluminum foil to block out the evil death rays) to lend you.
Thanks for the entertainment, ‘tards, you rock!
Honest Abe
Ladalang:
I very much disagree with you view that McCain is “too liberal.” I think the problem stems from different interpretations of what being a Republican means. As such, I can respect your reasons for not voting for him. You know what you want and you are sticking to it. The same can not be said for the “Republicans” out there who threw a fit when McCain wrapped up the nomination. They are, as we make pointless blog comments, slowly bringing themselves into line behind McCain. This is very satisfying as I A) think McCain is the best Republican nominee put forward by the party in 24 years and B) get to see all the far ring wing nuts out there grind their teeth and reluctantly vote for McCain.
This election is about more than just the composition of the government for the next two years. It is about the very future of the Republican Party. Republicans can either embrace McCain and reach a hand out to Hispanic voters, or they can watch as Republicans in office are gradually whittled away until we are unable to win elections anywhere outside of the South.
The most annoying thing about Chuck Muth is that he is so caustic. Must be trying to copy Ann Coulter.
As for the April Republican convention, it was stolen by the party leadership. We will do what we can to get justice, whether Muth likes it or not.
You are not afraid to reveal your name (secure in the knowledge that the boot you are licking will not kick you). You are afraid of the TRUTH, becuase if the truth gets out, that boot could be on another foot. In the (extremely unlikely) event that war crime trials commence, I suspect you Bush/McAuns supporters will be as scarce as Nazis in post-war Germany.
Furthermore, I have no illusions of anonymity. I’m sure my ISP will be happy to divulge my identity without a warrant of any kind (Thank you, FISA supporters). Why do you want to know who I am, anyway? What purpose would it serve except to facilitate some ad hominem or Brown Shirt retribution? If anonymous political writing was good enough for the founders, it’s good enough for me. It’s not like I have Habeas Corpus, or anything (Thanks again to the same crowd). At any rate, as a Paultard, my donations are a matter of record. The trouble with you, Mouth, is that you are too stupid to write anonymously. In your monumental Hubris (Full Spectrum Dominance, New American Century, Sole Remaining Superpower….ad nauseam) you are blissfully unaware of the danger you are in. The shit pile of corruption you and your ilk have constructed with fiat money is about to collapse. When our economy turns ugly, Boobus americanus will turn on you (Nemesis) like the Red State dog he is. I think you better start blogging for Obama before it’s too late.
Gawd, how I’m loving this. Nothing I could possibly write would embarrass the Paultards as much as what they write themselves.
Jeff G or Kenny G or whatever continuously shows what a boob he is and always has been. Robert Halloway shows that he’d be out of his depth in a parking lot puddle. And “LeeO” proves that he not only fell out of the Stupid Tree and hit every branch on the way down, but is a bigger chicken than Foghorn Leghorn.
And the best part is, I’m just sitting here simply egging them on hoping they’ll keep making complete asses of themselves…and they keep falling for it. Over and over and over again. What a riot.
Come on, guys. Write some more!
OK, Mouth. Point by point. Did the Founders use pseudonyms? Were they chicken?
“LeeO,” you’ve obviously confused me with someone who has an interest whatsoever in engaging in a conversation with a mental midget such as yourself. Go bother someone who cares.
Typical politician: Evade, obfuscate, misdirect, dissemble. Well done. The question was never really my anonymity, and is certainly not my mental stature. It is your insistence in disgracing the Republican party with the nomination of a war criminal; an insistence so compelling that you guys shut down your own convention, in contravention of your own rules, rather than letting a true Republican take a single state. You sold your integrity for a few brownie points. Bravo! You bootlicking asshole. Bye.
Wrong again, as usual. The question absolutely has always been the fact that you’re a coward who hides behind a fake name to post big words on a blog.
I see. Your laser mind zeros into the essential and all important point of anonymous blogging – sweeping aside the trivial point of depriving delegates of their right to nominate someone other than an addled war criminal. I say again: If anonymous blogging (1770s style) was good enough for the Founders (would you care to dispute that?), it’s good enough for me. A lot that was good enough for them is good enough for me. You know (or do you?) Limited Government, Honest Money, Habeas Corpus, The Bill of Rights….
It takes a lot of chutzpah for a jackass like you to compare himself to the authors of the Federalist Papers. What are you so afraid of, “LeeO”?
That’s the whole point, Mouth. Who I am is unimportant. Obsession with this point is a form of ad hominem. Instead of answering my question (you STILL have not.) you focus on my refusal to identify myself . And again you attack me personally: How dare I compare myself to the Founders. I am not surprised. If I were you I wouldn’t want to discuss war crimes and convention chicanery either.
FINALLY, something we agree on. You are absolutely correct. You are unimportant.
Good. If I am unimportant, my name is less so. Now the test of courage. Let’s see if you have the guts to leave our little exchange on your pathetic blog. bbml
If I was going to delete this exchange, I would have done so already. But since it shows what a total jerk you are, I’m only too happy to leave it up for all the world to see.
Politicians: Shame ain’t in ‘em. Thank you.
Chuck - It seems you’ve made some angry people . . . . . um . . . angry.
You have missed out on the many considered, thoughtful, intelligent people who supported Dr. Paul. There really are a lot of them. Most of them are pretty quiet, but in a fight for something worthwhile, you’d be happy to have them on your side. They just don’t seem to read your website.
I only hope those frustrated people on this thread are out waling precincts. Dehydration and fatigue tend to take the anger right out of you.
Once again, Chuck, this story isn’t about Ron Paul. Hasn’t been for a long time. Dr. Paul has suspended his campaign, and even before he did that, the numbers were pretty clear.
It’s about getting the Republican party to follow it’s own philosophy, and about electing delegates and party officials in a fair and open process. That’s what the people in our neighborhood precincts said they wanted when we were elected as county delegates, and that’s the message that we’re carrying forward as far as we can.
Did we shoot ourselves in the foot? I don’t think so. The worst thing that happens now is that a delegation goes to Minneapolis that doesn’t push for a return to Republican principles by our candidates and in our platform. Had we done nothing as delegates, the result would have been the same, so nothing was lost. In the meantime, some progress was made, specifically with the adoption of a conservative platform for Nevada.
Maybe there was a deal before the April convention, maybe there wasn’t. There’s only a few people that know for sure. I’ve heard directly from a person that should know on the party side that there was no deal, and I believe him. And that’s a good thing – Nevada delegates aren’t pledged, and they should have just been elected in a fair and open process from the beginning. That’s all the rule change was designed to accomplish.
The June reconvening happened because a group of delegates could see that the state party was unwilling or unable to do it’s job and finish the business of the convention – nothing more or less than that. If a group of people aren’t getting an important job done, it’s the responsibility of those that believe they can get it done to step up and do the work. Now that we know the party is never going to deliver a completed convention, I’m particularly glad that the delegates arranged the June 28 convention. A meeting of over 300 delegates comes a lot closer to expressing the will of the people than a backroom meeting by a handful of party officials.
Like you, I left the Republican party because I felt it had abandoned it’s beliefs. I returned to the party because Ron Paul reminded us that the Republican party was the solution, not the problem. The problem doesn’t lie with what Republicans believe, it lies with those running the party that have forgotten or decided to ignore the party principles.
Does “I believe that the government must practice fiscal responsibility” sound familiar? It’s on the party website, along with a few other important ideas. Those of us that were brought back to the party by Ron Paul’s candidacy will be in the party long after his campaign is forgotten, working to make sure that we the party follows it’s own principles.
I’ll be working hard to make sure that Republicans win in November, from president all the way down to the state and local level. I’ll be voting Republican for president, even though it will have to be more of a vote against Obama than a vote for McCain. The bottom line is that our financial situation is the gravest danger we face as a nation, and only Republicans can fix it. Our job as voters is to make sure that whenever possible we elect those that believe in conservative principles and will act accordingly. McCain’s way down on the list of ideal choices for president, but he’ll do far better than the alternative and he gets my vote because of that.
You say that the delegates who wanted change “could have become a positive force for change within the party”. Those delegates may not be national delegates this year, but they’re not going away. Some of them have been members of the party for decades, and they’re not leaving over this. Both the state party and the delegates have made some brilliant moves in this whole convention saga, and they’ve made some serious mistakes as well. One side will win, but the goal stays the same: a strong Republican party that’s committed to it’s principles.
Maybe you’re right when you say that the State party “has the power to do pretty much whatever the hell it wants”. We’ll find out, but if you’re right it doesn’t make the delegates wrong; it just proves how important their cause is. Because I’m pretty sure that the Republicans of Nevada aren’t interested in an imperial party that doesn’t have to answer to NRS or the RNC, let alone to it’s own membership. I think there’s even a few people within the state party that think so, too, so this is far from a lost cause or a trivia answer.
Brian, you wrote: “You have missed out on the many considered, thoughtful, intelligent people who supported Dr. Paul.”
No. In fact, I consider myself one of them. I supported Ron Paul. I donated to Ron Paul. I urged my readers to donate to Ron Paul.
I have no beef with the “thoughtful and intelligent” Ron Paul supporters. My beef is with the Paultards; those Paul supporters who are the mirror opposite of thoughtful and intelligent; those Paul supporters who actually think all this fire and fury over CONVENTION DELEGATES is somehow more important than actually electing candidates at the state and local level who believe as you and I believe when it comes to government.
Jim, you are correct. This isn’t about Ron Paul. It is about the unhinged, looney-tunes amateur element of the Paul supporters whom I call “Paultards.”
You write: “(S)ome progress was made, specifically with the adoption of a conservative platform for Nevada.”
Unless you elect candidates who embrace and adhere to that platform, that platform is useless. If you people would spend a fraction of the time and effort electing candidates to real offices that you’ve wasted on a meaningless national convention, where the nominee has already been determined, then I’d say you’ve made some progress. As it is, you’ve accomplished nothing other than smear the good names of two principled conservative Republicans - Bob Beers and Sue Lowden.
“As it is, you’ve accomplished nothing other than smear the good names of two principled conservative Republicans - Bob Beers and Sue Lowden.”
Including Ron Paul, that makes three. While not technically a “smear” the “Paultards” have done Ron and the cause of Liberty more harm than good (last evidenced by their ridiculous and embarrassing speaker line-up (save Paul and Scheuer) at the recent Revolution March in DC.)
As far as I’m concerned, trying to change the GOP is an exercise in futility. Only election losses, and the natural deaths of the current establishment at the national, state and local levels, can change it.
For proof of Paul’s ideological unpopularity in the current GOP, one need look no further than the manner with which Paul was been treated by the other R candidates (in the debates and beyond), at the state conventions (shutting him out at the MN state convention, etc), and by GOP voters both on the ground and in the blogosphere (one site even has him at the top of their list on a poll as a “traitor”).
The GOP ain’t the party of Barry Goldwater anymore. For them, small government is just sooo yesterday, libertarians are more dangerous to America than liberals, and conservative principles are for suckers.
I got the message loud and clear and opted to change party affiliation instead (LP).
For those revolutionaries who will continue to try: You catch more flies with honey. [/my own exercise in futility]
“No. In fact, I consider myself one of them. I supported Ron Paul. I donated to Ron Paul. I urged my readers to donate to Ron Paul. ”
–Muth
That’s funny. I found my name among the donors. I found the name of my sister, my aunt, my uncle….but not yours…….Hmmmmm
Obviously, you don’t know where to look. Then again, considering the fact that we have now established beyond any reasonable doubt that you are a boob, that doesn’t surprise me.
Perhaps you can point me in the right direction so I won’t think you are a boot-licking liar.
You’ve obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a $%#& what you think.
L.O.L.
So now we have come around to selective deletions. What are you afraid of, you balding, bespectacled, ass-kissing dork? Don’t you have a better picture? (for the record - you fired the opening shot with “Paultards”). You can relax now. I’m outa here.
Howard,
Sorry it took so long to reply - I was gone for the weekend and did not know how active this blog could be.
I did not necessarily mean to imply that the nominations committee was being secretive about the list of delegates. However, in retrospect, it would have been very helpful if the nominations committee had decided to publish its list of national delegates prior to the April convention.
In 2004, Rule 2.9 of the Nevada Republican Convention provided for nominations for national “at-large” delegates from the floor. This rule was changed in 2008. It is interesting that the Ronulans are being accused of fomenting a “rule change” where they really just wanted a return to the 2004 rules.
If the nominations committee published the selected delegate list, the attendees at the convention may have been satisfied and not voted for the return to the 2004 rules.
Chuck,
Just wanted to make it clear that I see the election of candidates to support the state platform and traditional Republican principles as the next step in the process, and the most important thing we have to do. It will be a relief when this whole convention business is behind us and we can concentrate on that.
You mention that all we’ve accomplished is to smear the names of good Republicans like Bob Beers and Sue Lowden. I don’t think either of them have been smeared by what happened on April 26 or since. My experience has been that everybody looks at the events of that day from their own perspective and decides for themselves based on the facts as they see them whether they did good or not. I’ve found a lot of people on both sides, but so far I’ve seen a lot more support in general for both of them than otherwise.
In my opinion, Bob Beers is absolutely the best man for the position he holds. Anybody that’s fighting for traditional Republican values recognizes that Senator Beers is one of the most fiscally conservative and traditionally Republican representatives that we have in the Legislature. No, I don’t like the things he did on April 26, but ultimately it was just a desperate political move by the party who didn’t think things were going their way. It doesn’t take away from his record of doing the right thing in the Senate, and we’d be nuts to try to remove him from his seat because of his actions at the convention. Most of the people I know that supported Ron Paul support the heck out of Senator Beers, and for all the same reasons. And they’ll do whatever they can to support him and his campaign.
I’m not as sure about Sue Lowden. She’s done some great things for the party in Nevada. I think the caucus process and an early date for it were fabulous achievements. I also applaud her for including both John McCain’s representative and Ron Paul at the state convention, and for promptly publishing the ratified platform on the NRP website.
Her handling of the rest of the convention, however, is another matter. She wasn’t willing or able to either finish the convention on the weekend when it was planned, nor has she been able to reconvene the thing since.
By the way, that’s not, as you say in another post, because the former Paul supporters didn’t RSVP. Most of the ones that I know, including myself, attended the June 28 convention and RSVP’d for July 26 as well. You see, we hoped that everyone would show up to one or the other so that business could be completed, and we considered it our duty as elected delegates to represent the people that elected us whenever there was a chance for the business to be done. We didn’t favor one convention over another – we just favored getting the thing done.
So, no, we’re not interested in smearing the names of good Republicans. We’re interested only in what you and I agree is most important: making sure that we get the best qualified people in the right jobs. And we’ll decide who those people are on the basis of their voting records and their support of traditional and accepted Republican values. Whether it’s in Congress, the Nevada Legislature, the county commission, or the school board I hope we’re successful.