« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Power abhors a vacuum: What can happen to our Party when conservatives sit on the sidelines.

Do you want the Ron Paul followers to fill up all the vacancies inside the Party at the precinct level? Well, stopping that from happening means conservatives must figure out what’s necessary to fill those vacancies and then show up to fill them. According to this article, in Maine, Nevada and Iowa, sufficient numbers of Ron Paul fans have shown up when, and how, necessary to become voting members of the Party apparatus to change the inner make-up (and rule making) of the Party.

Maine:

The (alleged) bias against Paul may also be the product of an organic opposition to the libertarian Congressman and his army of ardent fans. Paul volunteers tend to be young and relatively new to party politics, and their presence has many state GOP stalwarts feeling territorial.

“People feel threatened — they don’t want to see a bunch of kids who may have voted for Barack Obama take over,” Wead said. “They feel a sense of ownership over the party — but there has to be an accommodation.”

But state party machinations are already starting to backfire. The Paul campaign believes it has won the majority of Maine’s delegates — and the perceived election fraud has galvanized Paul supporters to demand their votes be counted in the state’s straw poll ‘beauty contest.’

Caucus chaos has also proved to be fertile ground for Paul’s quiet takeover of the Republican Party. Since 2008, the campaign and Paul’s Campaign for Liberty PAC have made a concerted effort to get Paul sympathists involved in the political process. Now, tumult in state party organizations has allowed these supporters to rise up the ranks.

“We like strong party leadership when it comes from us,” Paul campaign chair Jesse Benton told Business Insider. “Our people work very hard to make sure that their voice is heard.”

In Maine, the caucus disaster has made the state GOP prime for a Ron Paul takeover. And that means that Paul’s hard-won delegates will be protected as the delegate selection process

“We are taking over the party,” Wead told BI. “That’s the important thing — and that is what we are doing in Maine.”

Iowa:

The fruits of this labor are evident in Iowa, where Paul’s former state campaign co-chair A.J. Spiker was just elected as the new chairman of the Iowa Republican Party. Spiker replaces Matt Strawn, who stepped down over this year’s Iowa caucus dustup.

Nevada:

In Nevada, the state chair has also resigned over caucus disaster, and several Ron Paul supporters are well-positioned to step up to fill the void. These new leaders not only expand Paul’s influence at the state level, but also help protect Paul and his hard-won delegates from state party machinations as the delegate-selection process moves to district and state conventions, and eventually the Republican National Convention this summer.

Read the rest here: Ron Paul Is Secretly Taking Over The GOP — And It’s Driving People Insane
.

In Pennsylvania, it’s more an issue of how “the Establishment” GOP officers employ rules to prevent local, county and state Party committees to give any support to non-incumbent Pennsylvania Republican candidates, including preventing them from even speaking at Party committee-hosted events.

The PA Republican party issued a memo Monday to county chairmen and women around the state, in which it laid out the protocol in races where state committee has endorsed.

“As our endorsed candidates travel on the campaign trail, they should receive concessions in regards to official party events,” the memo stated. “As members of the PA GOP and leaders of your county party, we request respect for the following longstanding traditions associated with our endorsed candidates.”

Namely, non-endorsed candidates are to have nothing to do with any official party functions. They are not permitted to speak at county functions (dinners, etc), and county party members should only circulate petitions and literature for endorsed candidates.

The full memo is below.

And those are on top of the standard benefits of a state committee endorsement: a significant fundraising boost, the support of PAGOP staff, direct mail paid for by the party, and more. Those are on top of the inherent advantage of establishment support in a party whose voters have historically been comfortable deferring to the establishment.

Since the news came out, conservatives activists have flocked to social media to criticize the party.

“This top-down enforcement of ‘traditions’ that stifle any meaningful debate among candidates is ruthless,” the Bucks County based Kitchen Table Patriots Tea Party wrote of the memo.

Read the rest here: PAGOP to County Chairs: Non-Endorsed Candidates Need Not Apply
.

Similar underhanded misdeeds are happening at the Ohio Republican state committee level (as reported here at Redstate by by bytor3bp):

Kevin DeWine is going to go down in history as the most corrupt chairman of the Ohio Republican Party ever. And he doesn’t seem to care. The more people that turn against him and call for him to resign, the more desperate and brazen he seems to become.

As a brief recap, remember that just a couple of weeks ago, in an attempt to save his chairmanship and disqualify people running to defeat him, he and his allies proposed an amendment to change the rules of who can be seated on the State Central Committee, even though candidates had already filed for the election weeks ago. On Friday, the committee met and voted on several issues, including the rule change.

The committee consists of 66 members, and a majority of them, 34 or more, is required to make such a rule change. However, DeWine declared a victory for the rule change with a 29-28 vote, claiming a majority of members present. This is clearly a violation of the party bylaws, and is bound to be challenged in court.

We now have some new information about Friday’s events. Most votes of the committee, and even most of the votes on Friday, are conducted in the open. However, for the proposed rule change, they used a secret ballot. So, it appears that to protect their seats from a fair election, DeWine and his allies are willing to:

Change the rules after candidates have already filed, and early voting has already begun,
Violate the party bylaws in order to enact their rule change, and now…
Hide behind a secret ballot so voters can’t hold them responsible.

Unbelievable, despicable and very, very cowardly. I spoke with a SCC member on Sunday, who informed me that in his 8 years on the committee, it was only the 2nd time he could recall a secret ballot being used.

Read the rest here: Kevin DeWine and his Ohio Republican Party cowards hide behind secret ballot.

Those who show up, and create a majority, make the rules. I don’t want a Party run by Ron Paul supporters or Republicans In Name Only. I’d rather have conservatives in the majority. So I show up.

I hope you can, and will, too.

Thank you.

ColdWarrior
——————-
In 2012, will YOU become a “voting member” of the Republican Party in your precinct?

Where it all started. Twitter @kaltkrieger
Learn how to GOTV at The Concord Project and at Procinct and Unified Patriots.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • keepcoolwithcoolidge

    First off, I am in general agreement with the majority on this site that Paul would be a bad Presidential candidate because of his foreign policy stances as well as his flawed character that allows him to justify earmarking and his silence on the newsletters.

    That being said,local and state precincts have little influence over foreign policy matters, and since you are the leader on this website about the precinct strategy, I was wondering if the above article could be seen as beneficial? At the micro level, positions reflecting Paul’s views would deal mostly with increasing local and state control over power, limiting government involvement in matters, privatizing, and the like.

    As the precinct strategy is about kicking out non-conservatives who are just fine with big government when it suits them, wouldn’t the increasing number of Justin Amashs or Mike Lees or Jim DeMints at the local level square away with your vision? Paul is ancient and his time in the sun is up, so I doubt his influence would continue.

    • Dave_A

      Is that while the local and state party positions have little influence on what happens after a candidate makes it into office, they have immense influence on who gets nominated to make the run FOR office.

      Paul’s fanatical insurgency is trying to literally steal the nomination by taking advantage of ‘run of the mill conservative’ apathy towards the actual mechanations of the party…

      They are so completely convinced that ‘Ron Paul is the only one who can save America’, that they feel justified in jamming his candidacy (and later, his son’s) down our throats by any means neccicary.

      It’s a bloodless coup, and the only way we can counter it, is if actual conservative Republicans take an interest in the party structure, and become involved…

      If we don’t want the Pauliban Insurgency, or various milquetoast RINOs to be the ‘Establishment’, we have to make the effort to become the establishment ourselves, rather than leaving these state/local positions unfilled & open to whoever realizes they can use them…

      Right now, poor interest allows this sort of stuff – just like poor interest in state primaries during the 2010 race allowed abjectly horrid candidates to eject electable Republicans, because only one side showed up….

      • keepourrepublic

        Ron Paul supporters believe in limited government. Many Conservatives make a lot of hay about how they are true conservatives who want to limit government to the bounds of the constitution.

        So why exactly do people who want to limit government (conservatives) want to wage war against people who want to limit government (Ron Paul supporters)?

        If someone identifies as a conservative and wants to repress Ron Paul supporters then A) you believe in big government, want to stop those limited government loons from actually limiting government, and thus are not a conservative or B) are extremely confused about what your priorities are.

        If A) then they are a RINO we need out of the party and if B) then I suspect emotions are clouding their judgment.

        • Dave_A

          Plain and simple.

          ‘Small government’ is good, when the subjects of the cuts are entitlement programs, pork, and corporate subsidies.

          When the first things that come to mind are the DoD, CIA, and DEA… Sorry, go back to Democrat-land…

          ‘Small Government’ does not justify handing control of our money supply to Congress with no ‘buffer’ against politically motivated economic insanity (like the type that got us in the current mess – something that was ALL Congress and in NO WAY caused by the Fed or the banks), or placing it at the whim of the highly volatile international gold market.

          ‘Small Government’ does not justify abandoning our strategically positioned outposts around the world (the number of which, Ron loves to lie about on a regular basis) and turning our military into a combat-ineffective bunch of parade-marchers and border-patrollers.

          The fact is, Ron Paul wants to dismantle the federal government completely, and return us to the pre-Constitutional confederacy.

          He is not a Conservative. He is a neo-Confederate. And there is no place for him in the GOP.

          • aesthete

            renowned for their hatred of military spending and strict adherence to the gold standard.

            Q: Can a state constituted to protect and aggressively expand slave-owning as an institution through military force be considered “small government”?

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            plain and simple.

          • keepourrepublic

            Dave,

            If you really believe that Ron Paul seeks the destruction of this country, then you must not have any kind f interest in actually understanding Ron Paul’s actual positions let alone understanding his followers.

            I hope someday you stop fighting limited government conservatives.

            Cheers.

        • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

          You see, in order to experience true freedom you have to first allow your neighbor to be free.

          Now, there are a lot of people who are conservative, they mean well, heck I used to be one of them. But they just can’t quite be comfortable with letting their neighbor live his life as he pleases.

          And a lot of them are also brainwashed into thinking that constant foreign adventurism is actually enhancing our security.

          Now, I personally don’t think Ron Paul is a great standard bearer. I could wish that he was less obsessed with ideas like the gold standard, or that he didn’t oppose all use of the military, even when prudent. Or that he had not been associated with anti-semites.

          But he is almost beside the point because he is retiring. But many many more people are becoming convinced that we need to move in a direction of more personal freedom.

          • keepourrepublic

            Kyle,

            I am in general agreement with you.

            The first political book I ever read was “Conscience of a Conservative” something like 5 years ago. That’s the standard for what Conservatism should be. I understand that a lot of “conservatives” don’t get it. They choose to fight genuine conservatism. They choose to be statists. I understand that this happens. I just don’t understand the mindset that allows it to happen. But by the same token I do not understand how a thinking person can embrace socialism, so there you go.

          • http://MichaelHarrington.org creinstein

            I believe in a strong military, for I accept that evil exists.

            I also believe in some regulations because as a truck driver I know the pressure a fleet manager can put on you even with rules in place. I do not want an explosive laden truck being driven for 20 hours straight in a rural area crashing because the driver was tired but under to much of a threat.

            I believe in defending Israel because Israel is a friend and is outnumbered amongst other valid reasons.

            In short if you are a Ron Paul supporter you support the death of small nations to appease bigger nations, you support razing our military, you support suicidal level of reductions in regulations, and you support every child becoming a meth addict.

        • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

          What you dont get is that they dont care about the GOP candidates They will do nothing to help any GOP candidate not named Ron Paul or in his wing. I’ve seen it in prior elections.

          They are not loyal trooper Republicans out to help the party, they are attempting a coup d’etat OF the party. As such, they are dividing the party, and harming it. As a conservative, the activities of Ron Paul and his supporters are counterproductive and destructive of our goals and agenda.

          Big difference.

          • keepourrepublic

            You are not going to get their support nor form a coalition with an attitude like that.

            And if you want people who are blindly supportive of the GOP then how useful exactly do you expect them to be in fighting the establishment?

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            .

          • keepourrepublic

            You don’t care about the negative consequence of getting people into the party who are likely to blindly support the RINOs?

            I don’t think you have thought that one through.

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    get into the internal voting ranks of the Party.

    I’m not leading anything on this website, I’m just a contributor. I try to encourage conservatives who land here to consider, if at all possible, seeking out their local Party committee, attending the meetings, “learning the ropes” of how their committee functions and how one becomes a voting member of the Party (usually called “precinct committeeman) and then deciding whether, in their particular circumstances, it would be a good use of their time and effort to become a voting member of the Party.

    Where I am, our Republican Party committees, since the election of Obamistake, have much greater numbers of conservatives in the precinct committeeman slots. In Nov., 2008 less than 32% of the allotted slots were filled. Now, we’ve got about 52% of the allotted slots filled. Most of the new PCs are conservatives. Those greater numbers of conservatives inside the Party have translated into greater numbers of conservatives winning the officer elections on many local (legislative district), county and state committees and, we hope, will also result in making sure our three RNC delegates are conservatives.

    I hope that answers your questions.

    Thank you.

    ColdWarrior

  • okvoter

    If you don?t want a Party run by Ron Paul supporters or Republicans In Name Only, then you don’t want a Republican Party. Those are your choices. At least Ron Paul actually cares to try to help us. The others only care about furthering their own power. Look at their records, then look at Paul’s. Is it any wonder that even his opponents call him “incorruptible”?

    Coolidge’s comments regarding character are nonsense; Ron Paul has never voted for an earmark, and he has not been silent about the newsletters, either. By the way, Justin Amash and Mike Lee both endorse Ron Paul, and DeMint has all but done so in numerous interviews.

    Paul is also the only one with an economic plan; the others just spout whatever nonsense they think appeals to the group they are currently addressing. Add to all this the fact that he gets more support from the troops–not the brass, the actual people risking their lives for us–than all other candidates combined, and I don’t see how you can support anyone else.

    • Dave_A

      Ron Paul’s ‘plan’ is to hobble America, because he thinks that doing so will push us one step closer to governmental collapse & chaos – the prerequisite to the rise of his anarcho-capitalist utopia.

      His ‘economic plan’ would result in the abject financial destruction of the entire private sector (Everyone who has debts), to the benefit of a very small group of his supporters & like-minded individuals who are ‘preparing for the collapse’ by hoarding gold.

      His foreign policy would not only weaken US security, but also accelerate the economic collapse brought about by his economic policies…

      He’s a ‘cyanide pill for America’ in human form.

      Ron is also pretty well universally rejected by everyone above E-3 (everyone outside his ‘normal’ 18-23 demographic) in the military… His ‘donations’ claim doesn’t back it up in fact – in 08, we voted overwhelmingly for ‘one of our own’ McCain (along with his pledge if elected, to increase the size of the Army), this year we’ll probably split among the Not-Pauls….

      Ron Paul might as well be chanting ‘Death to America’ right alongside Iran’s Ab-jab, because that is the road to which his policies lead.

  • keepourrepublic

    Either you can choose the Socialist RINOs or you can choose Libertarian Ron Paul supporters. If you try to find some wierd middle ground then you follow in the footsteps of all the other “conservatives” over the past 50 years who have enabled socialism.

    Conservativism as articulated by Barry Goaldwater in “Conscience of a Conservative” is in large agreement with libertarianism so why exactly do you want to choose pro-life statists instead?

    That doesn’t make any sense. I suspect the solution is getting over yourself and realizing where your interests truely lie.

    • Dave_A

      1) A strong & forceful presence overseas, ensuring a world safe for free & open commerce.

      2) An economy that is not bound by ancient pre-Adam-Smith monetary policy, where the value of money is artificially pegged to a commodity or commodities – and thus subject to constant volatility unrelated to the health of OUR economy.

      3) The right of the people – especially at the state and local level – to criminalize and punish whatever misbehavior they desire (including the use of recreational drugs) so long as they do not violate the Constitution or the law of higher levels of government made pursuant to it.

      4) A government equipped to meet whatever threats we face at home and abroad, not hobbled by paranoid-delusional conspiracy theorist’s fear of the CIA & other security services.

      I’m sorry, but there is no room for the accomodation of Ron Paul’s views in the GOP.

      There are more perspectives than ‘socialist’ and ‘libertarian’, and if you actually look at it, you Paul-backers are closer to Democrats than Republicans on every issue except ‘the size of government’.

      • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

        self evident than real. They all beg the question of degree, and “at what cost”.

        The days are over when you can just plaster over those issues and ignore libertarian arguments. Ron Paul is going away, but not all of his ideas. The younger people especially, who are getting involved in the party are much more impressed with arguments about personal freedom than they are of your paleo logic.

        • Dave_A

          Except for the lifelong-church-going social conservatives, who start out Republican at 18 over social issues….

          So I’m not worried about the GOP failing to appeal to starry-eyed utopian college kids, longing for peace on earth & legal weed…

          The fact is, the GOP will lose more votes going libertarian, than we will staying conservative…

          Libertarians are at odds with 2 of Reagan’s 3-legs to start with (hawks & social conservatives), and become at odds with the 3rd (business/country-clubbers) when they start talking about intentional monetary suicide via a Fed abolition, gold-peg and/or a legislatively capped money supply.

          Further, the same approach that worked for fanatically liberal college kids, will work for the libertarian ones:

          Once they get older, start having kids, and start seeing the neighborhood pot dealer as a menace rather than their hook-up, they become traditional Conservative Republicans.

          Utopia and ‘unhindered freedom’ are great to dream about as a 20-something sitting around drinking with your friends… They’re not so great when you’re a 30-something sending your grade-school-aged kid out into that world to play….

      • keepourrepublic

        My definition of Conservatism comes from Barry Goldwater’s “Conscience of a Conservative”, but from the way you and other conservatives talk if he was a live today you’d call Goldwater a libertarian and try to run him out of the party.

        I am not impressed by such “conservatism” because it sounds to me more like the actions of a conservative socialist. If you want to fight conservatism, if you want to be part of the problem, then that’s your choice.

        But don’t go pretending that you aren’t fighting Conservatism.

        • Dave_A

          Libertarians seek a utopia of ‘abject, unhindered license’ that has absolutely never existed – and something that flies in the face of the Constitution & the principles of all but the most radical of the Founders.

          Since their ideal never existed – it’s something new – they aren’t conserving anything…

          Ron Paul’s movement goes beyond this, and mixes in the types of folks who would have joined Shay’s rebellion – extreme anti-bank populists – along with every other extremist nut imaginable – conspiracy theorists, ZOG believers, and so on…

          To be a Conservative, you have to be trying to CONSERVE something that existed in American politics at some time in our history…

          For folks like me, it’s the 80s – an increase in economic freedom via deregulation, and a policy of aggressive confrontation of America’s enemies, combined with a crackdown on crime & a return to more traditional social views.

          There’s nothing socialist about any of that… Or perhaps you mean ‘statist’, which is similarly bull – no one is arguing that we force people to ‘worship the state’ – just that we maintain an ordered society with the degree of order determined by the wishes of the electorate.

          • acat

            At the Federal level, the differences between a libertarian and a conservative are remarkably immaterial.

            At the Federal level, a Libertarian can only move issues back down to the States for decisions, where they can each do as their constituents decide. Should one State decide to go more anarchist, unless you live in that State, what’s that to you?

            At the Federal level, fiscal conservatism looks remarkably similar – transitioning programs back to the States via block grants, reducing the weight of the federal behemoth, devolving power to the States.

            Social Conservatives should also like this because superior numbers in every single State make it possible to dominate liberals in most statehouses.

            Unfortunately, the values-voters types – many of whom self-identify incorrectly as social conservatives – keep trying to fight at the federal level what should be easily wins at the State level.

            Get this, Dave_A. Social conservatives nor fiscal conservatives nor libertarians can win this on our own, which is kind of the point of fusionism. We have much more in common with one another than any of us do with the liberals .. yet it’s our inability to work together, to even understand one another, that lets the left keep winning.

            Wake up, Dave.

            Mew

          • kowalski

            .

          • westcoastpatriette

            “values-voters…whom self-identify incorrectly as social conservatives…” Why do you say that? Why is that incorrect?

            My guess is that looking to the federal level to deal with social issues is not conservative. But correct me if I’m wrong.

          • acat

            I’ve tried to write this more tersely, but it just doesn’t work .. there’s so much history crammed into conservative thought .. and that’s really where the values voters get it wrong.

            I’m specifically referring to the sub-group of social conservatives who appear to think that just changing the people in charge of the D.C. behemoth will be sufficient

            Those who seek to leave the D.C. power structure intact but replace the driver with one who shares their values are setting themselves up for perpetual disappointment – the very next election, the Left will attempt exactly the same thing… and eventually, we’ll be right back to this point.

            It’s an incomplete understanding of the republic our forefathers* created – and of the incredible diversity they created it to hold together. The early Colonies contained virtually every form of government from a near-theocracy to the almost-feudal system of the southern slave plantations, to the rough-and-tumble frontier freeholds, to the otherwise unclassifiable social experiments like the Oneida Colony.

            The initial plan was a confederation, one weak enough to let all States govern as they so chose, unified only in defense against external threats. That didn’t work out so well. The replacement, in 1789, granted the Federal level the ability to act as a buffer between the States, and ceded certain additional powers from the States to the Federal, to reduce friction – not to exert control.

            The goal must be to restore the balance between federal and state – and any candidate who does not see this is at best a short-term victory and at worst a defeat.

            Hope you don’t mind a Washington’s Birthday history rant.

            Mew

            * Read up on Ethan Allen sometime… the revolution would have been lost without him but he’s nothing like what most would recognize as a “founding father” …

          • westcoastpatriette

            As I stated, I am still in learning mode with respect to U.S. history and how we got from there (the 1700′s) to where we are now. And even though I would not call myself an expert in all of this, I find myself at odds with many social conservatives not on the issues of concern but on how to go about addressing them. And that is what concerns me most about Santorum — he sounds like he would have no problem violating the Constitution at the federal or state level to achieve the goals he feels are right and necessary to correct America’s problems with morality.

            And this is why I keep stressing for people to study the Constitution as I really don’t see many conservatives with a clear understanding of federalism. They seem just as guilty of using big government if it suits their purpose. It is such a waste of energy when all we have to do is look at the Constitution, take an axe to the Washington behemoth and trust the States to govern themselves.

    • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

      Your claims that the choice is the looney Ron Paul or moderates RINOs is 100% wrong.

      Just as there are more choices in the presidential race, there are more choices that your false dichotomy.

      Why would you waste your conservative principles on an guy who speaks small govt but takes earmarks, then blasts every other candidates hypocritically for doing what he does? Why would you waste your support on a guy who has literally been a donothing legislator? Why would you waste your support on a guy with racists newsletter articles in his past and looney positions on marriage, drugs and dealing with Al Qaeda that are more to the left than Obama? Meanwhile he has done NOTHING to actually speak out and stop key Obama offenses, blathering about the Fed rather than going after the REAL problem – OBAMA.

      Ron Paul is the right-winger the left just LOVES because he has undercut the conservatives in so many ways, harmed and hurt our unity, our principles, and our chance at electable power.

      It’s a pity more small govt conservatives dont see through the farce.

      • keepourrepublic

        While you said that my assertion was wrong and a false dichotomy you did not actually bring up anything to support those assertions.

        It’s really very simple. Which groups are actively seeking to gain positions and gain/retain control of the republican party? The establishment RINOs, a motley crew of conservatives, and Ron Paul Supporters.

        Do you think there are enough anti-Ron Paul conservatives who are interested in taking control of the Republican party from both the establishment and Ron Paul supporters? Cold Warrior was already saying it was all hands on deck to take it back from the establishment. You can’t get any more all hands on deck then when all hands are on deck. And that’s to take it away from the establishment.

        It would be much faster if you would form a coalition with either the establishment RINO’s or the Ron Paul supporters in order to freeze one of them out.

        Unless you have something to add to that basic equation – like either proof that a massive number of conbservatives suddenly woke up and decided to join the republican party or that the RINO’s have decided to leave voluntarily – then my point remains.

  • Don T.

    by your exhortations, Cold Warrior, these many months. And this year, I couldn’t stand by and do nothing. Last month, I joined my county GOP. Yesterday, I attended our mass precinct meeting and I signed up to be a precinct delegate to the county convention next month. And I will go on to participate in our state convention. I also applied to be a state delegate and a district delegate, with the intent to be in the running to be one of the 76 party delegates for Georgia, at the Tampa convention.

    At my precinct table, there were 4 of us, me and another younger man, who it turned out lived not far from me, and two local Georgia elected officeholders. Me and the younger man were brand new to the process and it was our first try at doing something like this. We had a great discussion, as we sat there, about the issues, about the danger to the nation at the reelection of Obama and what motivated us to take the time to be here, and about our GOP candidates. He favored one candidate, I favored another, and we politely and civilly discussed the pros and cons of our candidates, and the issues of the day. All around the room, there were buttons and handouts for each of the candidates, friendly bantering and good natured persuasion between supporters, and signs for most of the candidates lined the lawn outside the church.

    There were over 400 party participants at that meeting, and at about 40 other tables at that large church conference room, I know that very similar, spirited, and respectful discussions and debates were going on. Regardless of who becomes our nominee, I was impressed with the fact that here, and all around the nation, people are waking up, they are mobilizing. I think it’s so important for everyone to remember that in the end, we are all in the party on the same side, with the same goal in November. And we need to do it with civility and with calm persuasion. We may not make all of our goals, we may not totally unite as a party in every policy area, but we must make the effort to recognize how important it is to defeat Obama. We’ll all have to unify as a party to do that, and move forward from there.

    • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

      Well said.

      Thanks so much for getting involved with the Party where you live and for sharing your experiences here — your account will inspire others to get involved, I hope.

      I will add you to my list of Redstaters who have gotten into the real ball game of politics. I hope you will occasionally fill us in with how things are going for you.

      Thank you.

      ColdWarrior

      • Don T.

        I appreciate it, and I’m energized to get involved. I’ll be sure and keep you posted on how it goes.

  • Common_Cents

    Curious to know how many it would take to fill all the spots.

    Gingrich would be smart to promote this as part of his campaign. He’s got Cain and Perry to help promote conservatives taking on the establishment DC elite by rallying all the new PC troops. That may even tempt Palin to get aboard with a full endorsement.

    I’m wondering how long the Paul supporters will even stay active in the local party if he does not get elected. I think a large portion of them are not exactly Paul supporters, but rather legalize pot supporters.

    • Dave_A

      Which is why many of us in the traditional-conservative wing are concerned that RAND Paul will use his senate seat to become the ‘Heir to the Paul Heresy’ and keep the movement alive…

      Personally, I think pot is less of an issue for them, than Paul’s crazy economics & anti-war ‘bring the troops home’ positions… The types he attracts either want to disband the military, or (Especially his Stomfronter supporters) see us manning guard towers on the Tex-Mex border for the ‘coming race war’ with ‘Aztlan’… They also see banks as inherantly evil, and believe that bankers are conspiring to ‘enslave’ them…

      Without a Paul to promote, they will fold back into the Libertarian Party…

    • Creedo

      In WA state, the libertarians I know don’t care anything about pot as a main issue – i mean, they’ll say it should be legal, but that’s not what drives their politics. Seems that taxes is what drives their politics for the most part – which I can relate to. I do agree that if Paul is booted out of the party, they will end up organizing around the libertarian party. Whatever happens now will tell us about what we’ll be up against in 2016. If Paul is given a seat at the table, we’ll be able to keep the libertarians in the Republican party. If he’s chased out, we’ll be running against both Libertarians and Democrats in 2016, and the Libertarians will be more organized than ever (based on their experience in the Republican primary during the last two campaigns).

    • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

      I am using the Reply To button, which sometimes does not work, to respond to Common_Cents’s question about how many Republican Party precinct committeeman slots exist nationwide. I’m not sure anyone actually knows, but there are estimates. I recommend you read Martin Knight’s article linked below at “Where it all started” and then Ken Blackwell’s plan referenced in Martin’s Diary (the links to it no longer work; Mr. Blackwell’s plan is here: http://images.redstate.com/Blackwellplan.pdf

      At the time Martin wrote his Diary, he estimated 80,000 -100,000 PC slots were filled and that as many as 60 per cent of the allotted slots were filled. Here in AZ, we have about 10,000 slots statewide and just over half are filled. Here in AZ, every precinct has one Republican PC slot and then one more for every additional 125 registered Republican voters or majority portion thereof. By statute, the county recorders are to determine these allotments, by precinct, for each recognized political party that has achieved permanent ballot status.

      In some states, each precinct has only one PC slot. In others, two, one male, one female.

      I once called the California Republican Party to find out if the state committee knew how many slots existed in California and how many were filled. I spoke to the person on staff who was in charge of “Membership.” She said she had no idea as to both questions and wondered why it would be worth knowing. I told her that it might be helpful to know the relative strength of the Party in terms of the number of “ground troops” it had.

      I spoke recently to our Secretary of State and asked if his office, which compiles voter registration for the entire state, which it receives from the individual county recorder offices, also compiles the number of allotted PC slots from the counties as well. As his office has no requirement to do so by statute, it does not. So, if anyone wanted to compile the exact number of allotted and filled PC slots for the AZ GOP, they’d have to contact each of the county recorders and ask for it.

      Another way would be to ask each Republican county chairman for that information, except that one of our AZ counties has NO Republican Party structure at all.

      Today I volunteered at the Maricopa County Republican Committee’s Lincoln Day Luncheon at which Rick Santorum spoke. I bought a program for tomorrow night’s debate. In it, on the first substantive page after welcoming remarks by Gov. Jan Brewer, by our state chairman and by Mesa’s mayor, was an article, “The Most Powerful Office in the World.”

      Here’s an excerpt:

      There are nearly ten thousand PC positions in Arizona with about one-third vacant. Hundreds of precincts are without a Precinct Committeeman because no one has bothered to run. In addition, there are many precincts with Committeeman who can easily be defeated because they don’t do their job.

      - To change things, we must change the laws.
      - To change the laws, we must change the people who make them.
      - To get elected, your candidate must be on the ballot.
      - To get on the November ballot you must win the Primary.
      - To win the Primary, you must get the support of people who make endorsements in the Primary, who reliably vote in the Primary, and who get out the vote of others in the Primary. Those people are the Precinct Committeeman.

      Those bullet points sounded oddly familiar. ;-)

      As you’ll see from Martin’s Diary, he stated 203,000 or so precincts exist. From that number, knowing that some states have one PC, some two, and, in others, like AZ, as many as 18, I thought a more likely total number was in the neighborhood of about 400,000. Again, using AZ as an example, whereas in 2008 fewer than one-third of the slots were filled, we know have just over 50% of the allotted slots filled. Thus, my hopeful SWAG (scientific wild-ass guess) is that the number of filled slots nationwide is in the neighborhood of about 200,000 out of a total allotted slots in the neighborhood of about 400,000.

      If you really want to have some fun, called the head of “membership” at the RNC and ask them these kinds of questions. That is, if you can get someone to answer the phone. I have asked my three national committeepeople to see if they can get the RNC to try to compile a list, for each state committee, of the number of allotted slots and filled slots. Keeping in mind that the state committees do not work for the RNC.

      I hope this helps.

      Thank you.

      ColdWarrior

      • Common_Cents

        I guess its a good opportunity that the higher ups don’t track it too well, eh? ;) A real strong ground game could be developed before anyone knew what was goin on.

        I was curious about what kind of mobilization effort it would take to make a significant difference in the party.

        I’d think a Gingrich, Perry, Cain team would want to get behind this, since taking on the DC establishment is a part of their agendas.

        So each state has its own way to select their national delegates for the convention?

        • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

          national GOP conventions are set forth in the RNC rules. From there, you go to the individual state committee rules/bylaws. A very complicated subject.

          www.thegreenpapers.com has compiled a lot of information about the process.

          I hope this helps.

          Thank you.

          CW

          • Common_Cents

            It would be a great question at the debate. Candidates, why haven’t you or the Republican party been out front encouraging people to join their local party precinct in addition to making phone calls for you etc…

  • aesthete

    Why are folks making such a big deal over Ron Paul? The guy is a) not going to win the nomination, b) retiring, and c) is not nearly as bad, and has not done nearly as much damage, as either Democrat liberals, social democrats, or establishment “conservatives” in power. His supporters are for the most part kids who are hearing about (or reading about) classical liberal or Constitutionalist ideas for the first time, or disillusioned conservatives — perhaps immature, but not particularly pernicious influences.

    I don’t like Ron Paul, but he’s retiring and the people who like or tolerate his presence in the Republican party (Lee, DeMint, Amash, Flake, his son, etc) are the people who were most on our side during the Bush administration on fiscal issues, and are themselves pretty solid conservatives, as well. Ron Paul is not an existential threat to the republic as it’s constituted — the debt may very well be, and guess who’s ignoring it? For the most part, it’s the very same people on the right and left who keep bringing up the Paul boogeyman.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      making any deal about him.

  • http://www.texasyoungrepublicans.com Mark Brown

    We’re basically seeing the GOP fracturing into three groups: Rino’s, Teapartiers, and Paulbots. There is no way the Teapartiers and the Rinos will allow the Paulbots to gut the US military. Sam goes for the gold standard. BUT – there is no way the Paulbots and the Teapartiers will let the Rino’s spend the country into bankruptcy.

    So let the Paulbots in! Teaparty conservatives will get much more of what they want with the Paulbots in the party – which is a smaller federal government, still backed by a strong military.

    • keepourrepublic

      n/t

  • Creedo

    The establishment is the poison in this party. Here in Washington State, we got Dino Rossi in both a governor’s bid and a Senatorial bid. There was no energy around him. Nobody cared about him. All anyone cared about was the false hope of beating the liberals here. But at the end of the day, the establishment couldn’t throw enough money to get anybody excited enough to organize to beat anybody. Meanwhile, the libertarians were energetic and organized to get their guy elected (don’t remember his name at the moment). They, of course, didn’t have enough money and supporters to knock off the establishment guy, but you couldn’t help but admire their dedication and energy. It would be nice to be able to build a coalition with them and harness that energy.

    As a tea partier, I find MUCH more kinship with the Paulbots than I do with the people who vote for the establishment all the time. I might not agree with their foriegn policy, but they’re right about one thing: we don’t have the money to police the world. Throwing buckets of dollars out the window to protect nations who offer lavish social programs (looking at you France and Germany) while our economy is in shambles has never sat well with me.

    • keepourrepublic

      That is the simple idea more conservatives need to come to. :)

    • jamesm

      That seems to be a good analogy.

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    when they unite inside it, by becoming “voting members” of it locally, by giving a concrete example in this Diary, an example which should send shock waves through the Republican Party and the incumbent “conservatives” in Congress:

    http://www.redstate.com/augustine25/2012/02/21/ocs-john-campbell-fails-to-win-ocgop-endorsement/

    Thank you.

    ColdWarrior