« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Observations after the Arizona Republican Convention

What is behind the Ron Paul convention strategy?

I was an elected delegate to the Arizona Republican Convention.  It was a first for me and obviously it was interesting, but it was also disappointing.  Disappointing because Non Paul conservatives in the party couldn’t make the effort to actually participate in party activities and mount some competition for the Ron Paul activists.  That isn’t in any way a slam at the Ron Paul delegates; they were simply exercising their rights pretty effectively.  The result, however, was a convention that was marked by something more than just spirited debate over reasonable differences.  Although it may not have been true for all or even most of the Paul-supporting delegates, the objective for the Paul activists was clearly to elect a slate of delegates to the national convention who would vote for Ron Paul for President at the first possible opportunity.  Many of the rest of us weren’t aware at the time of what was happening.  (FYI:  Arizona’s Presidential Preference primary went for Romney by 47%.  Paul received 8%.  This will be a useful fact to remember in a few minutes.)

There was an account of the election in the Arizona Republic, headlined Paul supporters boo Romney’s son off stage.  Except that wasn’t true.  It didn’t happen that way, and it puzzles me that the “paper of record” in Arizona couldn’t get it right–there was some booing, yes, but not “off the stage.”

The good news is that fist fights didn’t break out on the floor or in the parking lot.  The bad news is the convention lasted hours longer than planned and ended without taking a final vote for our National Committeewoman (not because of disruptions by anybody but because of serious problems with the voting machines and balloting).  No final vote was taken because a quorum wasn’t present at the end.

A friend wrote in his blog that “Ron Paul supporters were clearly loathed and not welcome to the event.”  I disagreed with that, and responded to him.  But it caused me to give some thought as to why there does seem to be a division between Paul supporters and the rest of the party, one that keeps them from being able to commit to supporting our nominee, especially if it’s Mitt Romney.  My answer follows, including some commentary on the convention events, with some emphasis added:

I wouldn’t say that “Ron Paul supporters were clearly loathed.” That’s somewhat overstated. AFAIK, MOST of us delegates were of a mind to say “we’re all in this together.” The fellow walking around outside (and perhaps inside, I don’t know) shouting that “Only Ron Paul can win” was unique–that is, there weren’t any others on either side. I personally found that to be a bit grating, but not intolerable. I guess I was surprised that there weren’t more like him, though.

The Paul contingents have done a good job of exercising their rights. More power to them. The fact still remains that they don’t constitute a majority of anything, so they might be a little bit less sensitive about having their feelings hurt. Just because you THINK you have a monopoly on the conservative way doesn’t mean that you actually have it.

The fact is, you lost the primary election, and it appears to some people that you’re trying to get by fiat what you didn’t earn at the ballot box. I don’t think that’s the case for most of you. There isn’t a thing wrong with flexing the muscles you have to get concessions during the national convention. I think it’s exactly what you should do. But it’s asinine to spend the day, as SOME did, having tantrums about who you will vote for if Ron Paul loses the nomination.

The calls for unity were calls to get behind the nominee, WHOMEVER it is. (And yes, some might have said ‘Romney,’ but that wasn’t the point for me.) If roles were reversed, I’d cast my own vote and proceed to do whatever I could to help Candidate Paul win the Presidency. Some of us have a bit of a problem that that spirit isn’t reciprocated.

Those who are sane realize that there are reasons why Ron Paul hasn’t done better. There are reasons why his support didn’t skyrocket when Rick Santorum and then Newt Gingrich dropped out of the race, but rather most of their supporters switched to Romney. Those reasons do not significantly include his treatment by the press (generally fair, but not very much in quantity) or unfamiliarity of the public with his ideas and principles. He’s a known quantity. Whether they are VALID reasons or not (although many of them are) doesn’t matter. Most people just don’t want to vote for him.

IF, by some miracle, Ron Paul were able to win the nomination by getting enough delegates to control the convention, it would guarantee an Obama win. NOT because Paul wouldn’t make a better president than Obama, but because millions of Republicans across the nation would perceive the truth, that the convention process had been overturned by deft maneuvering by one group of dedicated supporters (does that remind anybody of the way Obamacare was passed?) to result in the nomination of a man who got a small minority of all the votes cast in the primaries; fewer votes, in fact, than some other candidates who dropped out before the race was over.

IOW, they would perceive that they had been done dirty by the very man who has campaigned on a platform of essentially “I will do the RIGHT thing!” His credibility would vanish, he would not win, and it would probably be the end of the Republican Party, once again snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. If that’s the objective, it can be achieved that way.

So you can see how booing, interruption, and vows to “never vote for Romney” would not be exactly welcome in a gathering of people who don’t agree completely with your objective, IF they think your objective is to thwart the will of the vast majority of the Republican voting public. But not loathed. And you were welcome to be there in the spirit of the event, a coming-together of Republicans to elect delegates to nominate an opponent to defeat Obama.

Personally, I didn’t find the booing and interruptions to be beyond the pale. Rude, yes, and probably counter-productive, but they were not excessive and not profane. In fact, I didn’t find any of it unacceptable. But that’s just me, and it’s because I believe that most of us really are united against Obama.

Maybe I’m too optimistic.  Maybe I’m too pessimistic.  But that’s my assessment of the situation after the convention.  One response to me was, “Half the states have not voted yet so you’re jumping the gun.”  I guess that was before Ron Paul announced he would cease campaigning, other than to try to get delegates for the convention.

My friend asked me if I thought that Republicans wouldn’t vote for Paul if he were nominated.  My answer was that if the circumstances were as I wrote above, many wouldn’t.  That might be rationalized to justify some Paulites non-support for Romney, but I don’t see the two as parallel situations.  Some of them feel much that way, however–their candidate has been unfairly disadvantaged by everything from the MSM to “rich bankers.”  Some were convinced that the problems at the convention, including intolerably long waits for ballots to be tallied, followed by incorrect results that had to be contested and corrected, were generated intentionally by the “establishment GOP” to the detriment of Ron Paul.

I do believe that Mitt Romney would be wise to incorporate as much of the Ron Paul agenda into his own as is possible.  Conceptually, much of it is worthwhile, and not counter to anything Romney has already said he supports.  Not that it would get all the Paul supporters in his corner–there are many who are invested in the idea that Ron Paul is the victim of a conspiracy of sorts, so to them concessions by Romney would just be another lie.  But where the ideas are good, use them.

So the Ron Paul convention strategy seems to be:  Get enough national delegates to have a significant effect on the party platform and Romney’s agenda if he’s the nominee, but also to take the nomination from him if he isn’t elected on the first ballot.  Their tactics seem to have been to elect enough state convention delegates to control the conventions or at least to elect slates of Paul delegates for the national.  Consideration of how Republicans voted in the primaries isn’t in the equation.  As long as Non Paul conservatives are complacently watching without participating, it could work.

COMMENTS

  • keepcoolwithcoolidge

    They want platform points:

    monetary policy reform,, prohibitions on indefinite detention, and Internet freedom.

    None of which seem outside the Republican Party. Could be a good compromise to win the Paulites over. Perry and Gingrich were none to pleased with the Fed, Rep. Amash and other Republicans are against indefinite detention on Constitutional ground, and everyone agrees on keeping the government out of the internet.

    • Flagstaff

      they need to find it.

      I think most Paulites would agree that we have more similarities than differences, but some of them might as well be in a different party. For Romney to find common ground among Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich, and Santorum shouldn’t be that hard as long as they all recognize who is going to be President. Some of them could end up in the cabinet, although Rick S. was burning a lot of bridges there at the end. Anyway, Mitt should appropriate all their good ideas and use them to improve his own.

      The biggest problem with compromising with Paul is that he has made esoteric issues his territory. They aren’t worth arguing about in public, but they are important enough that Romney can’t just agree to be agreeable. In my opinion, I don’t think Paul has made his case about the Fed, but the issue is a complicated one. It’s the kind of thing that if Paul were elected, he might do something about it, but nobody else is likely to. It would be easier to go for a rewrite of the Patriot Act, changing the parts some of us don’t agree with. Heck, Congressman Paul could be put in charge of it.

    • Dave_A

      Indefinite Detention for POWs during wartime has been international law since before their was a United States.

      And Paul’s monetary policy is not just outside the GOP platform, it’s outside any form of reason.

      There is no negotiating with radical revolutionaries who want to use money as a weapon to destroy the USA.

      And that’s what Paul & his people are.

      • trimulchio

        On the other hand, the notion that only fiat currencies get de-based is contrary to the most cursory study of economic history.

        Warfare increases the power of the state as against the individual. I think the Paulist notion of wnding what they call the “Welfare-Warfare State’ has great merit, as any study of Roman history will indicate.

    • trimulchio

      of some kind for Sen. Paul.

  • Flagstaff

    to this post by coldwarrior. Important information for all.

  • azaeroprof

    account of the convention I’ve seen thus far. Sorry I didn’t get to meet up with you there! I did get to meet ColdWarrior in person finally, though.

    Don’t know why the media can’t seem to get simple facts right. The only thing I would differ with you on is that a good number of us did “loathe” the RP folks, at least the more obnoxious ones. I have no quibble with them working within the system to get as many delegates elected as possible. I just felt that their obnoxious and rude behavior and general sense of paranoia of the proceedings would have been much more reasonable had their candidate finished within spitting distance of ANY other candidate.

    We had one guy in the CD-4 caucus whose behavior warranted the sheriff’s deputy who was called on to monitor the proceedings. Thank goodness everything stayed non-violent.

    I will say this, though. For myself, a guy who had Romney near the bottom of my desired candidate list, the Paulites succeeded in getting me enthusiastic about Mitt. I even bought several Romney buttons and wore them throughout the day! ;)

    • Flagstaff

      I’m considerably less sanguine about events, now that I’ve read a column by All American Blogger about the Missouri convention and the Ron Paul strategy. He went into it better than I did.

      A point he made: Warren Harding won the nomination in 1920 from a position like that of Paul, with a similar strategy.

      My point: Unlike Paul, Harding was already an accomplished Governor of a large state. IMHO, the nomination of Paul would result in another Goldwater debacle, not a Warren landslide or a Ron Paul Revolution.

      As long as they follow the rules, there isn’t anything to stop them except a quick organization of Romney delegates to get on the ballots where it’s still possible. And they have a big head start.

      • Flagstaff

        Korrection.

      • trimulchio

        than Romney for a country that is sick of taxation, regulation and war.

        I don’t think he would be a better President than Romney, hence my support for the latter.

  • Dave_A

    This is the one thing that people who talk about ‘making deals’ with the Paul supporters miss.

    They are NOT Republicans.

    They are Anti-American neo-confederate revolutionaries…

    Their goal isn’t to ‘fix’ America, but to destroy the United States of America & break us up into small powerless independent states…

    That’s why they advocate the most destructive monetary policy known to man…

    That’s why they advocate dismantling the military, federal law enforcement, and the CIA

    That’s why they want peace-at-any-price

    That’s why they are against holding prisoners of war for the duration of hostilities (indefinate detention) – they are concerned that in the future they may become POWs themselves….

    They are as close to ‘domestic enemies of the United States’ as one can get, while remaining non-violent participants in the political process.

    As their repeated attempts to steal the Presidential Nomination by fiat (and don’t kid yourself – that’s what they’re doing) indicate.

    We need to EXPEL them from the party, not accommodate them.

    • trimulchio

      Anti-Federalist.

      On the other hand, this is not 1791. We face a bloated, ineffective and increasingly totalitarian central government, not the limited, distributed government foreseen by the Framers.

      Perhaps a bit of Anti-Federalism is just what the doctor ordered. (Pun intended.)

      • Dave_A

        Not because of what it would do to government, but because life in a post-Paul, post-America world would be pretty terrible for the average citizen…

        If we ONLY focus on his monetary policy, that is enough to financially ruin 98% of Americans & the businesses they are employed by or own…

        There is no possible way it can benefit anyone except the paranoid, gold-stockpiling fringe. It is economically impossible for deflation to be positive.

        • trimulchio

          “Pain is weakness leaving the body.” Austrians have (or should have) a saying, “Deflation is inflation leaving the economy.” Both are probably correct; neither are pleasant and both may be needed.

          Read about the 1920-21 Economic Downturn and the post-1876 Downturn. http://mises.org/daily/3788

          • Dave_A

            And Austrian Economics has been dead and buried for years – with each swipe of a credit-card or signature on a loan document adding another shovel on the grave…

            You see, while the Paul backers & their economic fellow travelers have been raging against the Federal Reserve, the argument FOR their position was LOST in the stores, car dealerships, and real-estate offices of America.

            It’s not government debt, or central banking that made it IMPOSSIBLE for Austrian economics to hold sway in the US.

            IT’S CONSUMER DEBT, SPENDING, AND A REFUSAL TO SAVE

            The entire Austrian economic position is based on an economy that’s basically run like a Dave Ramsey book. No debt, substantial individual savings, and limited possessions – thus a huge personal stock in the value of the currency. Think bad-old-monarchical Europe.

            The exact economic opposite of America.

            The reason your argument that deflation may be needed makes no sense in the actual American economy, is that almost NONE of the American people HAVE ANY MONEY – and thus they are actually HURT when the value of money goes UP.

            In a society where SPENDING is the rule, CREDIT is king, and saving is for oddball-paranoids & old folks (the general ‘joe public’ way-it-is in America), DEFLATION – not INFLATION – is a problem.

            You see, in such an economy INFLATION reduces the value of money and fixed-rate debt, and INCREASES the value of personal property.

            Since NO ONE HAS MONEY for more than 2 weeks to a month, no one cares that it’s value goes down slightly over the course of a year…

            However, EVERYONE has lots of posessions – and they generally LIKE inflation raising the value of those things relative to the money they spent to buy them.

            Thus, there is a perpetual demand for INFLATION in the American economy.

            To contrast, DEFLATION – which you say ‘may be neccicary’ increases the value of something NO ONE HAS ANY OF…

            While reducing the value of THINGS PEOPLE ACTUALLY OWN.

            That’s why Austrian economics – completely divorced from Paulistinian Revolutionary crap – can never be used to guide the US Economy…

            It’s 100% contrary to the market choices the American people have made – because it’s 100% incompatible with an economy where all personal and business spending is based on CREDIT.

          • trimulchio

            adjust. Markets work. When you try to fight that, you skew pricing signals and you have what we have now: stagnation without a chance for recovery.

            Please read this: http://mises.org/daily/3788. It is a nice over-view for people who do not know (or do not understand) the history involved.

            “And Austrian Economics has been dead and buried for years ? with each swipe of a credit-card or signature on a loan document adding another shovel on the grave”

            Yeah, the credit card economy worked SO WELL . . . . (Are you joking? I have to ask. Do you NOT see how 2008 demonstrates the building a society on a bulwark of debt DOES NOT WORK?)

            “The entire Austrian economic position is based on an economy that?s basically run like a Dave Ramsey book. No debt, substantial individual savings, and limited possessions ? thus a huge personal stock in the value of the currency. Think bad-old-monarchical Europe.

            “The exact economic opposite of America.”

            Yes, since after WWII, when there were welfare factors that allowed this to work (briefly, through about 1974, when the bill came due).

            Before that, through most of the Republic’s history, when there was real growth, the economy was “basically run like a Dave Ramsey book. No debt, substantial individual savings, and limited possessions ? thus a huge personal stock in the value of the currency.” If you think that there is any way to avoid cave-dwelling that does not involve a return to those things, well, good luck with that.

            We are going back to being a country of free men, free markets and free pulpits, not because of Ron Paul or any other individual, but because that is what is sustainable. To say that people will hate that is to state the obvious. To say that we need to pick leaders that understand that is to acknowledge that “that which is simple is not simply seen.”

          • Dave_A

            Which is why the ‘adjustment’ you describe would destroy the economy (BTW, that adjustment works the same way for an inflationary economy – except that the only folks who get screwed are the 2% who are non-spenders/non-investors).

            Even if people STOPPED using debt today (Which would essentially require Sharia-style usury laws & penalties), the EXISTING debt still has to be paid off.

            The Average American owes at least 150k, against a salary of just under 50k.

            There is nothing you can do, at all, to make a deflationary economy work in this environment.

            So we simply have to accept 2-3% perpetual inflation, with wages rising, prices rising, and the 2% who buck the system & save money paying the economic price (loss of savings value) for their contrarianisim.

            We are in a dillima here: There are 2 groups – an overwhelming majority with massive fixed-rate debt, or significant equity investments, or both, and an extremely tiny minority of economic non-participants with hoards of cash stuffed in various recycled containers.

            In this case, the ONLY viable course of action in a Republic, is to adopt the policy that will NOT ruin the economic lives of the majority with debt and/or investments…

            Even if it hurts the minority who love to count their cash every day.

            Economics should NOT be used for social engineering – policy should follow the market choices of the people, not try to herd them into ‘right thinking’ activities.

            And the people have spoken with their wallets, demanding credit and inflation.

            So that is what we will have. Forever and ever.

            And we won’t become cave-dwellers, either…

            Although it will be nice to see the hogs who have been pumping up the gold-bubble & fear-mongering hyperinflation get slaughtered by the market, after Romney wins & the economy starts to recover (utilizing the massive supply of cheap money made available by the Fed)….

          • bbjaylive

            First off, I’m sure old folks constitute way more than 2% of the population.
            Secondly, why should those old folks who have followed the rules be punished with low interest rates?

          • Dave_A

            That means only 2% of American income was kept in cash or cash-basis savings. During the present ‘bad times’ it has risen to near 5%, but that is still an extreme minority.

            Remember: Investors don’t count as savers, they are spenders (they are buying something (partial ownership of a business, or of a business’ debt) rather than ‘saving’ cash).

            As for retirees, you have to remember that most of today’s retirement-instruments are investments, not cash-basis savings. Those things increase in value under inflation, and decrease in value under deflation.

            So a ‘hard dollar’ policy is what actually punishes the majority of seniors.

            ‘The rules’ of the market place have been ‘never hold cash’ for DECADES now – this isn’t new…

            As for rates on BANK ACCOUNTS that is a separate issue, and is 100% market-driven.

            The MAJORITY of consumers want SPENDING ACCOUNTS not SAVINGS ACCOUNTS. That is, they want FREE BANK SERVICES instead of HIGH INTEREST RATES.

            Since there is no demand for true savings accounts – high interest, high service fees, minimum balance required and limited funds availability – most banks do not offer them,.

            That’s life in a free market – if no one else wants a specific product, it probably won’t be available.

          • trimulchio

            savings and commercial banks are not really cretaures of the market: they are creatures of statute.

            Market-based banks would resemble private banking (think the Medicis and the Fuggers in early modernity) or hawalas in the Dar-al-Islam. People don’t lightly entrust money, absent strong personal relationships, without statutory protection.

            That is why the market-based reform of SNLs was such a failure. That’s why assuming “markets” shape bank policy is deeply debatable.

          • trimulchio

            consumer debt for almost four years now, workouts, write-offs, adjustments, payment plans etc.

            Further, most people and businesses have a fairly hard time borrowing today, which is probably a good idea. (Why do you think “AngelNetworks” and VCs are so important to new businesses? Banks don’t loan unless they are fairly sure they will be paid, which should have been the idea.)

            In a Republic with a freemarket system, the economy goes where economic forces take it, in this case, to deleveraging and deflation. Had these trends been allowed to proceed, it would have been less painful, but here we are.

  • trimulchio

    and helps Gov. Romney take some sronger positions on Federalism and Constitutionally limited government, I think this works, especially since they are working within the rules as Pres. Reagan’s people did in 1976.

    • Flagstaff

      that’s exactly what some of our “legal resident” Islamic and other insurgents are doing to us. It’s hurts us more than outright rebellion would.

      My point above was that even if they do work within the rules and somehow nominate Ron Paul, it will be the end of the Republican party, and of the unified opposition to Obama. The people will know they’ve been scammed. How are they supposed to feel any better about being scammed by a “Republican” (really more of a stealth libertarian/anarchist) than by a big-eared Democrat whose strings are being pulled by foreign one-worlders?

      The idea that Paul would be a better candidate than Romney borders on the surreal. Paul can’t even get a plurality of Republican voters to come out for him. He’d be lucky to get a handful of Democrats and independents on his side. And a whole lot of those scammed Republicans would stay home as well, thinking that even an inept communist in the White House would be better than a halfway-capable wrecking ball.

      The rules may already be written, but the folks who write them could still amend them. Methinks they better start amending the rules in such a way that the convention,and more importantly the will of the people, can’t be subverted from within. They suffer from the same problem as the First Amendment–they were written to administer a convention of like-minded people trying to reach mostly compatible goals. As with Islamic extremists, that isn’t the situation for the Paulistinians. They’ll play within the letter of the rules, but not within the spirit.

      • Dave_A

        NTXT.

      • trimulchio

        living in a Republic may be a very bad idea. “Government of laws and not men” and all of that . . . .

        • Flagstaff

          doesn’t get through to you?

          …they were written to administer a convention of like-minded people trying to reach mostly compatible goals. As with Islamic extremists, that isn?t the situation for the Paulistinians. They?ll play within the letter of the rules, but not within the spirit.

          The rules as they are now are based on the concept that if agreement can’t be reached quickly, like-minded delegates with a variety of ideas can work out their differences and come to some agreement that will aid in the common goal–electing a Republican President. It’s designed to work if sentiment is somewhat evenly split among multiple candidates, with none of them far ahead of the group.

          If too large a contingent is set in advance to nominate a man who has been rejected soundly by the vast majority of the party population, one who has never even garnered a plurality in any representative poll, that doesn’t advance the goal. An honest assessment of the campaign so far is that Ron Paul is the second choice of almost nobody. He is either a first choice or a last choice–there is little sentiment in between. For him to win the nomination by fiat would be a travesty and a subversion of the process.

          My hope is that it doesn’t come to that. If it does, regardless of the outcome, it could easily be fatal to the party. Is that the goal? I don’t know.

          I say all that and I also say I don’t dislike the guy. I think his love of our country is unquestioned. He just shouldn’t be our candidate.

          • trimulchio

            and want to have “living” rules, instead of standards? How can you support a man who does not know and use the rules, but instead expects a coronation over a man who does? Who is more likely to defeat a clever opponent?

            If Paul do this, more power to him.

          • Flagstaff

            of the comment.

            As for your “how can you?” question, I believe in reality. What will be, will be. That doesn’t mean that it will be the best outcome, but it will be the outcome. Or it might be the best.

            But my support or non-support rests on a lot more than this narrow issue, as basic as it may be.

            I normally don’t like to judge who is more “electable” and who is less, but in this case I can make an exception. Paul would lose in a landslide of Goldwater proportions against Obama.

  • renny

    and encourage his followers to work, vote, and support the Rep. candidate, whether Mitt Romney or any other.

    In 2008, Paul went off in a snit and refused to campaign for McCain or encourage his supporters to vote McCain.

    In some other sites’ various interchanges with Paulites, I have found they are adamantly in a Paulornobody frame of mind, and their leader has to break that devotion and show them the idea is to DEFEAT obama and not “send a message” to Reps. because they did not choose Ron Paul.

    • Flagstaff

      you’re right.

      I wasn’t even aware that had happened. I hope the Paulindromes don’t prove to again be sore losers, but you never know.

      They might be even worse as winners.

    • Dave_A

      There are a good deal of extremely authoritarian Paul supporters, who are ideologically closer to Obama than to Romney.

      Why do I call ‘liberty’ people authoritarians?

      Because like most utopian movements (Communisim being the most recent example), they are VERY, VERY willing to use force – in the case of the Paul folks, force of law so far – to build their utopia.

      Examples:
      Anyone who opposes ‘LibertyLand’ must be stomped out…..

      It’s OK to subvert the will of the voters ‘for their own good’ (convention-jacking)….

      If elected, the use of the powers of office to economically destroy anyone who doesn’t live a ‘proper’ life according to the Paul ideology (this means anyone with significant personal or commercial debt).

      Plans to gut institutions that generally oppose the Paul ideology (Military, CIA, law enforcement).

      And so on…

      They’re all for ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ unless it’s the freedom to tell them we’re not buying what they’re selling…

      Then we need to have it forced on us for our own good.

      Sound familiar?

      • mikeymike143

        Leader of Ron Paul convention takeover says Obama would be better than Romney.

        Brent Tweed, the Ron Paul supporter who was elected chairman of the Republican State Convention on May 5 at the Augusta Civic Center said ?If Republicans at the national convention are looking for cheerleaders, they won?t find them with Ron Paul supporters. ?I put Mitt Romney in the same category as Obama,? he said. ?I?m going to be bold here. Obama winning?and I don?t like Obama?is better than Romney winning.?

        http://www.themainewire.com/2012/05/leader-ron-paul-convention-takeover-obama-romney/

        • checkmate2012

          Unfortunately that Rep. chairman Paulbot won’t be ostrisized in ME and agree that they are using party warfare against Republicans. Thanks for the update.

        • trimulchio

          Better a cerebral, dispassonate , aloof moderate who understands basic economics than one who doesn’t.

      • trimulchio

        the thing that makes us a Republic, not anarchy or an Empire?

        There is a difference between being smart enough to sieze an opportunity and forcing something on people for theri own good.

        • Dave_A

          I used to hang out on a site that didn’t ban paulbots & was overran with them (the original point of the site was to talk about guns, but it became a much broader community with alot of political discussion)…

          They aren’t all hippies, and they aren’t all willing to stay peaceful forever, when it comes to their goal of destroying the nation known as ‘The United States’ and returning us to the confederacy of 1777.

          There is a very, very strong ‘We will force you to be free, because it’s for your own good’ attitude among the less pacifistic of the bunch…

          And given how violently destructive Paul’s ideology would be in today’s credit-driven society, it would take an authoritarian government to impose it…

          • trimulchio

            2008. Welcome to the world of pay-as-you go. Debt is death for businesses, householdes and governments.

            To get to anywhere near what the Framers and Ratifiers intended in 1787, we may need to have a leader who is leery of where Federalism has led in teh last 100 years.

  • Flagstaff

    being smart enough to sieze an opportunity

    That is sometimes called “taking advantage of a situation.” Not illegal, not even immoral, but also not exactly an admirable trait in many situations.

    Completely appropriate in a war, however. Are we at war among ourselves?