NH Nat'l Delegate for Paul, Thoughts about RNC

[FSP-Rebel]

Via the RLCNH email list:

I attended the convention as a Ron Paul delegate. I cast my vote for Ron Paul and I communicated quite a bit with many of Maine's RP delegates about their situation concerning the seating of Maine delegation. I also spoke with with many RP delegates from Nevada, Minnesota, Louisiana, Texas and other states about the Maine problem. After a fractious second and third day, on Thursday, RP delegates more or less came together and resolved that the wisest approach would be to not walk out of the convention but to instead remain a force within the Republican Party, to work for further reform of the Party and to work for the defeat of President Obama.

As a Goldwater Republican who has been a minority in my Party through most of the intervening years since the 60's, what I now see is a Republican Party that has, in very large way, come to embrace my 1964 champion's ideas. Ron Paul's recent and and past campaigns have been very positive in this regard. Today, our new Republican Party Platform is simultaneously more socially conservative as well as more liberty and freedom oriented than ever before (see, among other sections for example, new Platform sections dealing with declarations of war and the Federal Reserve). From here out, our first job as liberty and freedom activists will be to hold our gains and to hold our elected Republican officials accountable to the new National Platform just as we presently hold our NH Republican office holders to our own NHGOP Platform.

Party insiders and Party hacks will always try to control whatever they touch and so it's the grassroots members of the Party's job to both prevent and remedy upper echelon ham handed behavior. Having been deeply offended by tin eared RNC convention managers, grassroots delegate/organizers for all minority candidates will, over the course of the next two years, be working to correct amended Rule 12 in order to restore the ability for all prospective candidates to have a voice and to promote candidates of their choosing. We have lots of work to do internally.

Regardless of how any of us may feel about the current higher-ups in the RNC, we have a strong and dedicated cadre of liberty activists throughout the Party to draw strength from and from which to effect further reform. Since Ron Paul will not be running again, and since there is not another candidate out there at the moment in whom we can have 100% confidence, last Thursday, RP convention delegates were working together to organize a national freedom coalition to carry our ideas and message forward.

Finally, we have to recognize and build upon our successes. Responding petulantly when offended in politics wastes effort and energy and loses accrued good will. We can't allow ourselves to fall backward just because we've experienced certain (momentary) setbacks within the Republican Party hierarchy. Betrayal is common in politics. Political warfare is not a place for emotional decision making. What's most important now, assuming that we all want to hold on to our hard fought gains, is to now do whatever we can to insure that Barack Obama is not elected to a second term. We must be constructive and we must stifle any inclination we may have to act in any way that could or would enhance Obama's potential to win a second term. Given the magnitude of the threat, destructive behavior on anyone's part at this point in our history would constitute irresponsible - bordering upon politically criminal behavior.

Paul Mirski

[1stAmendguy]

In summary he's telling me to vote for Mitt Romney and that is not going to happen.

[muzzled dogg]

how can i get on that mail list?

[rp08orbust]

Via the RLCNH email list:

...After a fractious second and third day, on Thursday, RP delegates more or less came together and resolved that the wisest approach would be to not walk out of the convention but to instead remain a force within the Republican Party, to work for further reform of the Party and to work for the defeat of President Obama.

Interesting. Reading about the convention has convinced me that the exact must be done: Mitt Romney needs to be defeated. While before I considered him nothing more than a hollow, flip-flopping opportunist who would maintain the Bush/Obama status quo, the convention revealed a frightening authoritarian streak in Mitt I did not know existed, one that eclipses Obama's and therefore makes him the greater of two evils.

[CPUd]

We need more of these delegates posting their thoughts on the convention. Too many people are under the impression that they lost.

[FSP-Rebel]

how can i get on that mail list?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RLCNH/
There's a mod that screens applicants

[FSP-Rebel]

Interesting. Reading about the convention has convinced me that the exact must be done: Mitt Romney needs to be defeated. While before I considered him nothing more than a hallow, flip-flopping opportunist who would maintain the Bush/Obama status quo, the convention revealed a frightening authoritarian streak in Mitt I did not know existed, one that eclipses Obama's and therefore makes him the greater of two evils.
I agree but perhaps the takeaway concept (to me) is to silently let R-money fall on his sword instead of being proactive in his demise so as to not be labeled the fall guys for his defeat. Defeating Obama can also fall under the category of boosting our totals in the House and Senate ensuring he can't continue to push through his garb.

[alex_florida]

In summary he's telling me to vote for Mitt Romney and that is not going to happen.

Never

[affa]

I was never here to 'defeat Obama'. I was, and am, here for Ron Paul. These 'not Obama' people are the reason politics are such a terrible mess in the first place.

Voting 'against' bad choices (like Obama) is exactly the trap two party politics got us into, where it's in the best interest of the ruling parties to put up bad/scary candidates. That is to say, if both parties put up solid, reasonable candidates, people would feel free to vote third party. However, if both put up candidates that scare the other side, it effectively forces people into voting for the 'lesser of two evils', because they're so scared of 'the other guy'.

I call bullshit on this terrible, terrible system. Buying into it is the reason it exists.

Romney will not get my vote. Period.

[runamuck]

Sounds like the Republicans got you right where they want you.

Let's just continue voting for the lesser of two evils while simultaneously believing we can convert evil to good from within the belly of the beast.

anyone who still thinks this is going to happen is delusional. Did the Goldwater Republicans go on to take over the party? Point made.

[wgadget]

It's hard for me to believe that a NEW HAMPSHIRE delegate would be writing such drivel.

[wgadget]

Sounds like the Republicans got you right where they want you.

Let's just continue voting for the lesser of two evils while simultaneously believing we can convert evil to good from within the belly of the beast.

anyone who still thinks this is going to happen is delusional. Did the Goldwater Republicans go on to take over the party? Point made.

Ah, but Goldwater "set the stage for Ronald Reagan, who..." OH, WAIT.

[MisfitToy]

I'm sorry but I agree this wishy-washy attitude is exactly what got this country in the mess we're in right now.

This country wasn't born by compromising with corruption.

[CPUd]

At first, I was taken aback by some of these delegates' statements, mostly because I didn't like what they were saying. But I can understand why they are taking this position.

The 2 key videos are the wearechange interview with Doug Wead and the delegate press conference.

Doug Wead doesn't really dwell on parties, his focus is on the movement in general. What he was saying in this interview comes from someone who has inside knowledge on how these things work. The movement needs activists, media, and politicians. These groups do not always see eye to eye, and shouldn't be expected to.

The guy who read the statement at the delegate press conference gave the message that people are in place, and they will not be leaving the party. With the wording and tone of the statement, they are speaking as politicians. These are delegates who were duly elected to spread the ideas of the movement in a political environment; they went to the RNC and did exactly what they were elected to do. Another interesting segment of that video is the guy from Alaska who referred to the RNC as an "organized crime syndicate". The other delegates worked a bit to try to get some distance from that statement.

The movement needs for these delegates to exhibit political wisdom. That is their role. If you don't like what they are saying, remember that they are not saying it to you- they're speaking in a way that those who were waving the Mitt signs would understand. These delegates are the future officeholders of the movement. They made it through the hostile and unjust atmosphere of the RNC and their dignity is still intact.

[wgadget]

At first, I was taken aback by some of these delegates' statements, mostly because I didn't like what they were saying. But I can understand why they are taking this position.

The 2 key videos are the wearechange interview with Doug Wead and the delegate press conference.

Doug Wead doesn't really dwell on parties, his focus is on the movement in general. What he was saying in this interview comes from someone who has inside knowledge on how these things work. The movement needs activists, media, and politicians. These groups do not always see eye to eye, and shouldn't be expected to.

The guy who read the statement at the delegate press conference gave the message that people are in place, and they will not be leaving the party. With the wording and tone of the statement, they are speaking as politicians. These are delegates who were duly elected to spread the ideas of the movement in a political environment; they went to the RNC and did exactly what they were elected to do. Another interesting segment of that video is the guy from Alaska who referred to the RNC as an "organized crime syndicate". The other delegates worked a bit to try to get some distance from that statement.

The movement needs for these delegates to exhibit political wisdom. That is their role. If you don't like what they are saying, remember that they are not saying it to you- they're speaking in a way that those who were waving the Mitt signs would understand. These delegates are the future officeholders of the movement. They made it through the hostile and unjust atmosphere of the RNC and their dignity is still intact.
Ah. They're taking the Randian position.

[alex_florida]

Sounds like the Republicans got you right where they want you.

Let's just continue voting for the lesser of two evils while simultaneously believing we can convert evil to good from within the belly of the beast.

anyone who still thinks this is going to happen is delusional. Did the Goldwater Republicans go on to take over the party? Point made.

This.

[MisfitToy]

I understand the position as well, however the longer we wait to succeed the less chance we have at success. The difference between 2008 and 2012 is immense. The difference between 2012 to 2016 is quite possible a take-over. To support the corruption or imply it's acceptable in 2012 will diminish our push for 2016.

Of course it's fine to state all this comformity as a ruse. But as a plan for success? I don't think so.

[Keith and stuff]

It's hard for me to believe that a NEW HAMPSHIRE delegate would be writing such drivel.

Paul is a big believer of working within the Party and has been for years. He has already severed 6 term as a NH state rep. He endorsed Ron Paul way back on July 7th, 2011. He is the chair of not 1 but 2 NH house committees. He helped co-found the House Republican Alliance. The HRA is one of the most powerful groups in the NH House. To is the constitutional conservative wing of the NH House and about as powerful as the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance or the libertarian wing of the NH House. It's stances on political issues tend to be about as pro-liberty as Rand Paul (though perhaps, more pro-liberty on social issues). 1 of the current co-chairs of the NRA is a libertarian free staters.

Paul is likely the most powerful state rep. in the US to endorsed Ron Paul in 2011/2012. He is more pro-liberty than Rand Paul but he isn't as good as Ron Paul on the issues.

Frankly, I don't care which is the 4 presidential candidates in NH he votes for. I also understand why he would want to continue working within the GOP. He is one of the 20 or so most powerful politicians in the US to endorse Ron Paul. He was, obviously, also 1 of the 1st politicians in the US to endorse Ron Paul.

[TruckinMike]

Great Post FSP-Rebel!

As great as it may have been I don't buy it. If we are going to view it from a lesser of two evils viewpoint thats fine with me.

Four more years of Obama < Eight more years of Romney

Not to mention that during those four tumultuous years the GOP will be awakened to the tyranny of government -- Thus demanding a return to the Constitution - the only thing able to stop that train of tyranny. Think of Obama as a life lesson, a good 'ol fashioned ass woopin' if you will, one that the GOP not only needs but deserves.

And as the saying goes ---> no pain, no gain.

TMike:)

[WhistlinDave]

Interesting. Reading about the convention has convinced me that the exact must be done: Mitt Romney needs to be defeated. While before I considered him nothing more than a hollow, flip-flopping opportunist who would maintain the Bush/Obama status quo, the convention revealed a frightening authoritarian streak in Mitt I did not know existed, one that eclipses Obama's and therefore makes him the greater of two evils.

Totally agree. I don't know how we're supposed to feel good about voting for a candidate who cares about our Liberty and freedom and what's good for America, when that candidate just demonstrated he DOESN'T care about our Liberty or freedom, doesn't care about anybody lower down the totem pole, only cares about achieving power and is willing to cheat and break rules to achieve that goal.

Since Obama signed the NDAA into law, that makes Romney even more dangerous if he were to win the presidency. Judging by the way he had delegates removed, and the way he had two members of the rules committee removed who were opposed to his power grab rule changes, I would say Romney will probably start filling up Guantanamo with US citizens at every opportunity. If he feels you are working against him, you can go bye-bye.

Neither one of these corrupt power hungry war monger puppets is getting my vote, and when Romney loses, the GOP and RNC have themselves to blame. Not Ron Paul, not me, and not Ron's supporters. They just f*cked themselves, plain and simple.

[No1butPaul]

Interesting. Reading about the convention has convinced me that the exact must be done: Mitt Romney needs to be defeated. While before I considered him nothing more than a hollow, flip-flopping opportunist who would maintain the Bush/Obama status quo, the convention revealed a frightening authoritarian streak in Mitt I did not know existed, one that eclipses Obama's and therefore makes him the greater of two evils. ESPECIALLY with authority under the NDAA!

[CPUd]

I understand the position as well, however the longer we wait to succeed the less chance we have at success. The difference between 2008 and 2012 is immense. The difference between 2012 to 2016 is quite possible a take-over. To support the corruption or imply it's acceptable in 2012 will diminish our push for 2016.

Of course it's fine to state all this comformity as a ruse. But as a plan for success? I don't think so.

I don't see it as support for corruption. They are denouncing the actions of the RNC every chance they get. Generally, when asked if they will vote for Mitt, very few have said yes. They can say they are committed to defeating Obama. They can say their focus is on local candidates. They can even say they are disinterested in supporting Mitt. What they can't say is that they are going to actively work to make sure Mitt loses.

I think the root of the issue here is that some people are here to elect President Paul, and others are here to stack the committees with liberty-minded people who will ensure a fair process. Some people have, for some period of time (including right now), wanted to do both. And there's nothing wrong with that, unless something causes the 2 groups to turn on each other.

[69360]

In summary he's telling me to vote for Mitt Romney and that is not going to happen.

No he's not.


I agree but perhaps the takeaway concept (to me) is to silently let R-money fall on his sword instead of being proactive in his demise so as to not be labeled the fall guys for his defeat. Defeating Obama can also fall under the category of boosting our totals in the House and Senate ensuring he can't continue to push through his garb.

Pretty much this. Stay GOP registered and vote Johnson or leave the top of the ballot blank. Keep your vote to yourself.


Did the Goldwater Republicans go on to take over the party?

Yes, Ronald Reagan was elected.

[FSP-Rebel]

Sounds like the Republicans got you right where they want you.

Let's just continue voting for the lesser of two evils while simultaneously believing we can convert evil to good from within the belly of the beast.

anyone who still thinks this is going to happen is delusional. Did the Goldwater Republicans go on to take over the party? Point made.
Initially I was all for the tear down R-money approach because it was easy to want retribution against him and his ilk while also having a hand in participating. Taking the moral high ground while letting nature take its course on his campaign will separate us from being patsies in the aftermath of his inevitable demise. Obama getting reelected will carry emotional baggage in most republicans and they will have no problem blaming the liberty wing of the party (or the Paul name in general, hence Rand's endorsement for cover) for the top of ticket demise just like we're doing to the R-money camp for ours. Both are true yet plausible deniability can be used on both sides if played right. No need to carry water for R-money to defeat Obama in their (the average republicans') eyes especially if the GOP makes gains in the Congress with our help, which will mitigate R-money's loss.

Regarding the Goldwater republicans, they didn't have the internet working for them yet the neocons who took over had Buckley and his influential rag to promote their positioning up until the tea party thing came up.