Redstate

Ron Paul is running for Congress. He ran for and accepted the Republican nomination for Congress, implicitly accepting Republican support across the country.

It is now incumbent upon him to do the honorable thing and endorse the guy who's going to be the Republican nominee for President: John McCain.

That's not an obsession. That's common sense and decency.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

And I don't completely disagree with you. I am merely pointing out that the methods used are not the best for garnering potential votes--which is the ultimate goal. I am also pointing out that, even if you were completely right, there is no need for a protest candidate to endorse McCain until McCain is officially the nominee.

I would also like to point out that when Paul ran in '96, he ran as a Republican because, of the two-party system, it was by far the closest to his policy position. It was not a demand for all other Republicans to support him...and they certainly did not, as Gingrich, Bush41, DeLay, and others all campaigned against him (in the primary) and I highly doubt they endorsed him (although that is purely a guess, correct me if I'm wrong). Which is their right--he represents a different wing of the party. So I guess I ultimately disagree with the premise as well. It would make for a much more clean system if Paul did endorse around the time of the convention, but I don't expect him to and it doesn't bother me. I don't think it would matter, anyway.

Let me add another point, too: While there is of course no obligation for a registered Republican to vote straight ticket (although I think failing to do so is foolish for the long term health of the preferred policies of the given Republican voter), I think the expectation is entirely different for a nominated Republican candidate for federal office.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

his supporters, or a portion of them, think independently (and I would think a portion of any candidates supporters do so). My presidential vote completely ignores any and all endorsements, and I'm sure there are many others like that. I don't tend to think highly of endorsements in general, at least at such a high level as President (at the local level, where I don't know candidates nearly as well, they certainly affect my vote).

As for your federal office argument, I understand your point, and in most scenarios I would agree with you. The disagreements between Paul and McCain on the GWOT, though, are fairly sizable (and, for the record, I don't completely agree with Paul on this), and I lean towards giving him a pass (although I'm clearly biased). Especially as he is making his donor list and support available to like-minded (R) candidates in several federal-level campaigns in (D)-controlled seats (I don't know enough to say whether he has actually transfer funds to them, or plans to, I hope so). If he is aggressively supported and aiding the (R) pick-up of (D) seats, then I think he becomes an outreach asset.

"I don't tend to think highly of endorsements in general, at least at such a high level as President (at the local level, where I don't know candidates nearly as well, they certainly affect my vote)."

You support a "grassroots" candidate for President and don't even know anything about the local level candidates....quit standing on your political head.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

Many local candidates, especially in primaries, are new to politics. I don't "know" them because there is little to know: no voting history, no years of released tax documents, no years of newspaper articles.

That, combined with the fact that I am relatively new to political activity (Jan. 15th was my first primary vote at the age of 26) will, I hope, sufficiently address your "concern".

During my college years, military service, etc., I didn't really pay attention to politics other then to support whoever the (R) was (I'm ashamed to say that didn't include actually voting for them). I assure you that, for the rest of my life, I will be active in primaries and elections, locally and otherwise. Thanks for your respectful help in solving my problems, though. It's nice to have such constructive criticism.

I know who they are, I just don't know much about many of them due to lack of available information.

Your guy lost the primary nomination. He wants to stay part of the GOP, he can start acting like it. And let me be blunt: we take the pronouncement that losing the Ronulans will spell doom for the GOP just as seriously as we took the pronouncement that their man-god was going to sweep the primaries*. So it's time he joined up, or left. And if he's joining up, it's time he ponied up. Needs of the many versus the needs of the few, or the one, and all that.

Yes, that statement was made with malice aforethought. What made you think I care about Ron Paul's feelings?

Moe Lane

*Not at all, in other words.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

for someone supposedly so dedicated to winning, you don't seem to be very interested in picking up votes. I make no claim you need the votes, just that they are potentially there, and that any constant actions which do nothing to further your cause, and may actually be harming it, seems foolish and petty.

As for staying part of the GOP, that decision was made in the primary down there in Texas. There is no need to point to the door (another action that seems petty), as I clearly pointed out I know your position on those who don't have as much zeal as you. Emphasizing how little you care about people or their votes in such a manner (and I am not thinking solely of this particular thread) does not further your cause. Therefore, as someone who also wants McCain to win, I was asking if you would cease with the needless attacks unless you actually put some policy arguments, or something otherwise substantial, into them. I'll take your response as a no, heh.

Ron Paul can't help our party pick up votes unless he, oh, serves as our party's outreach to his supporters, starting with a clear, unequivocal endorsement of John McCain.

We're running a national coalition party, not a personality cult. If tolerating him only gets us votes for him, and not for the whole party, he's worthless to us. Completely worthless.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

But the reaction to Paul by party leaders, both in '96 and again this cycle, has pigeonholed him in a large way. I completely agree that if Paul is to be a dynamic, effective leader he needs to overcome that. I think the rhetoric of some of his most vocal high-profile supporters (like Lew Rockwell) have not aided this, either, and they take a chunk of the blame.

But I think the potential is there to both steer the GOP more small-government (a wing of the party I reside in) while simultaneously strengthening our get-out-the-vote power among small-l libertarian types (a group I have largely been moving towards the more I've come to dislike Bush). And, as I got involved in the Paul campaign, I ran into other like-minded people, the kind of people who are very capable of swinging to someone like Obama (and, for all the loathing of Obama, let's not pretend that risk isn't there).

Maybe Paul could push them towards someone like McCain, maybe he can't. But he can certainly make an impact in emphasizing the message of, say, personal reponsibility vs. the nanny-state to many groups that aren't normally open to such a message--and that has long-term ideological benefits. Further, I have to imagine that in a place like NH Paul's wing could be a potent weapon as we try to get back some of those (D) held seats.

I agree that Paul could do a better job leading his "revolution" and the party into a mutually beneficial coalition, but I think he has done fare more then most, and continued pigeonholing of his supporters in their *entirety*, at least, does not seem wise, especially when it is done in a near-neurotic way that potentially alienates even those people who did not support him but sympathized with many of his small-l themes.

"And, as I got involved in the Paul campaign, I ran into other like-minded people, the kind of people who are very capable of swinging to someone like Obama (and, for all the loathing of Obama, let's not pretend that risk isn't there)."

Wha? Huh? How does somebody who supports Paul politically come to vote for Obama? They are not similiar at all. Who are you trying to scare?

Also, this talk about Paul having to sign up with the GOP because of the two party system is complete trash. Last time I checked, people were allowed to run as independents in America.

______________________________________________________________
China is Evil. Boycott the Olympics. Give Japan the bomb.

people unhappy with the current administration, or people who thought both BO and RP represented an anti-Washington "principled" candidate, etc. Obama's appeal to independents is not exactly unknown, especially to the anti-Hillary ones looking for an option. And it's been well commented on this site that Obama appeals to some based on his charisma alone. There are also some who, for whatever reason, think of Obama as having small-l tendencies. Personally I don't see it, but that's not the point. I didn't say it was a reasonable position to be in.

It's not die-hard (R) votes we need to win the election (we start with those), and we especially can't avoid the ideological battles that can garner long-term (R) votes. Paul was, and is, very much fighting that ideological battle in some of the most important areas: new voters, non-voters, and other non-traditional (R) votes. Some of these are certainly anti-war lost causes, and some are personality-based votes. But some (such as mine) were ideological votes.

As for your last comment--it's not trash to recognize that the two-party system is incredibly powerful in this country. Just look at ballot laws. You may choose to pretend it's perfectly reasonable to run as an (I) all the time, but I doubt you actually believe that. Virtually every other federal level candidate that actually gets elected has likewise succumbed to that reality.

He wants to stay part of the GOP, he can start acting like it.

Do you actually want him to stay part of the GOP? Particularly if he loves communist butchers?

In fact, I'm somewhat surprised now to see that you too, like Neil, are evidently willing to welcome his endorsement and financial support of the Republican nominee. Do you think John McCain should accept or reject an endorsement from a person who, it has been argued, loves communist butchers?

Also: one step at a time.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Good luck fighting them off! The problem is that some state and local parties just haven't been prepared. I hear some counties in some states are doing a good job shutting them out though.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

They attempted to do so at our county convention last month. We use a nominating committee to make nominations -- the composition of the committee being established before the meeting.

We required that all nominations be made through the nominating committee with no nominations from the floor. That required the nomination slate be voted up or down totally.

A member of the state party objected at the last minute, so we allowed nominations from the floor, but we required that those being nominated challenge a named person with another named person from the same precinct. That shut them out because all the Ron Paul people were from mostly the same precincts. As a result, the only people they could challenge were from the same precincts.

Fight On!

We might even be in the same county, but the same thing was attempted here. Like you said, we will see if what they are trying to do works Saturday. I happen to think that they don't have the strength to pull it off, but others in my party do. I did notice however that at least here there is a big difference between his congressional supporters and his presidental supporters. His presidential supporters are the rabid fans, while down in my area at least, his congressional supporters are just those that know him, know he has been in office forever, or love him, or just like him because he delievered 4000 babies or whatever that ridiculous ad asserts. They, for the most part, can be reasoned with, to a certian extent.