Is this butthurt or what?

[sailingaway]

http://iowapoliticsexposed.blogspot.com/2013/01/ron-paul-contribute-to-iowa-republican.html

[Origanalist]

Waaaa!! :D

[VictorB]

Don't give that guy any attention. Let him troll and fade to obscurity. We are the future and we're here now.

[AJ Antimony]

If it's accurate, I think it's a fair complaint. If we take over the GOP so that it's now our party, and then proceed not to help our party in the general, then that's sorta screwed up.

[sailingaway]

As I recall it was Romney who avoided the state Gop and had money funneled to shadow parties, if the RNC gives all the operation funds to a shadow party what do they expect the state party to be using for the presidential candidate?

Meanwhile, Spiker says they are sitting on $400,000 so I am not sure what their problem is.

[AJ Antimony]

As I recall it was Romney who avoided the state Gop and had money funneled to shadow parties, if the RNC gives all the operation funds to a shadow party what do they expect the state party to be using for the presidential candidate?

Meanwhile, Spiker says they are sitting on $400,000 so I am not sure what their problem is.

If Romney's team went to the NVGOP, and the NVGOP told them that they didn't like the Romney/Ryan ticket, then it's understandable for them to set up their own organization in Nevada. However, it's also possible Romney's team just assumed the NVGOP wasn't going to cooperate with them in the first place, so they set up their 'shadow party' without consulting them. I don't presume to know exactly what happened.

$400,000.... That's either a tiny amount of what's required to help all the IAGOP candidates, or that's an insanely huge amount of money that should have been spent in November.

[Occam's Banana]

Yes. That is butthurt.

And I like how the author goes on about "stir[ring] the embers [...] to relight the fires of discontent".

I can just see the author's eyes batting innocently with a "what, me?" expression while writing this.

[sailingaway]

If Romney's team went to the NVGOP, and the NVGOP told them that they didn't like the Romney/Ryan ticket, then it's understandable for them to set up their own organization in Nevada. However, it's also possible Romney's team just assumed the NVGOP wasn't going to cooperate with them in the first place, so they set up their 'shadow party' without consulting them. I don't presume to know exactly what happened.

$400,000.... That's either a tiny amount of what's required to help all the IAGOP candidates, or that's an insanely huge amount of money that should have been spent in November.

they set it up before the 'take over' was complete, or any positions had been taken. And you seem really set on making the Iowa GOP the bad guys. Why?

[NoOneButPaul]

Maybe this tweet will be the game-changer for the Iowa Republican Party. It will either

1)Refill the party's coffers, thus taking the spotlight off the Ron Paul crowd and muffling the cries that they are destroying the party. This then avoids a bitter grassroots battle for the party.
2)Start a civil war that will permanently scar the party, lead to the takeover of the Iowa House by Democrats and ensure consternation for Governor Terry Branstad as he prepares for another re-election in 2014.
3)Ensure that the Republican Party of Iowa becomes permanently irrelevant by sending the fundraising, candidate recruitment and get out the vote functions to PACs and the national party forever. Big checks won't go to the party, they'll go to committees and candidates. Why would they donate just to have the Paul zealots use the money for their "growing movement" and not the wishes of the party as a whole?

or

4) Disgruntled Democrats, Independents, Unregistered voters, and Old-School Republicans who've been sitting on the sidelines for 20+ years come together with the Liberty Movement and support the Iowa GOP, which ends up being successful in getting local liberty candidates elected and begins to focus back on Iowa instead of the national scene now that the election is over. Eventually, as more freedom and liberty spreads throughout the state confused Republicans began to realize how wrong the NeoCons are and these people that are all pissed off today quietly slink into the fold.
Mainstream Democrats begin to lose arguments on foreign policy, civil liberties, jobs, and even welfare. Real conservatism returns in the state and it ends up being an example to us all. Donations pour in from inside and outside of the state...

We win. You lose.

[Occam's Banana]

they set it up before the 'take over' was complete, or any positions had been taken. And you seem really set on making the Iowa GOP the bad guys. Why?

Exactly. It had nothing to do with Team Romney being rebuffed by the NVGOP. It happened too fast for that.

It was a "damage control" attempt to preemptively delegitimize the our wins in the NVGOP.

[supermario21]

You would think the establishment would want to support its most fervent activists; you know, the people who are more willing than anyone to go to the committee meetings, do fundraising activities, volunteer, etc.

[AJ Antimony]

And you seem really set on making the Iowa GOP the bad guys. Why?

Nobody's a "bad guy." I'm just saying critics may have a point. If we take over the GOP, then do nothing more than interfere with GOP efforts to beat Democrats, that's pretty messed up.

Again, I don't live in Iowa. I don't follow any of this stuff other than reading about it on the internet every now and then. I don't presume or pretend to know the details about these internal party situations.

My belief is that if our people want to take control of top party positions, then they should support the entire party in the general election. The place to fight for liberty in the GOP is during the primaries/off years, NOT during the general election season.

[AJ Antimony]

You would think the establishment would want to support its most fervent activists; you know, the people who are more willing than anyone to go to the committee meetings, do fundraising activities, volunteer, etc.

Ron Paul supporters aren't the only ones who go to committee meetings, fund raise, and volunteer with a passion.

[itshappening]

Wait until Rand starts visiting Iowa, something tells me they will see huge returns in fundraising and interest from activists and new members.

[eleganz]

Ron Paul supporters aren't the only ones who go to committee meetings, fund raise, and volunteer with a passion.

I can tell you from experience, those that are currently doing it are made up mostly of old people who are set in their ways, the same old people who are f'ing things up.

Of course there are some who are not old and do put in just as much effort as we do but there are very very few.

[angelatc]

Wait until Rand starts visiting Iowa, something tells me they will see huge returns in fundraising and interest from activists and new members.

But there is at least one set of elections happening before then. The head of our local GOP just stepped down at the end of her term, and one of the points that her successor won on was that the party was focused too much on national elections at the expense of local elections. Specifically, one of the townships hasn't had a Democrat on their council for 30 years, but this year there are 2, because the GOP didn't drum up candidates for the seats. The Democrats ran unopposed.

I have no idea what is happening in Iowa, but thinking that Rand will ride in and save the day during his presidential bid isn't really the best plan.

[Adrock]

My belief is that if our people want to take control of top party positions, then they should support the entire party in the general election. The place to fight for liberty in the GOP is during the primaries/off years, NOT during the general election season.

If true, this is a valid point. Now that our people are in place I hope they lead by example and support whoever the primary electorate selects. Besides that, it is important to strengthen the party as much as possible for the general election during the off season. You don't do that by excluding other elements that we may not agree with on everything. That makes us just like them. Being inclusive gives builds goodwill for future liberty candidates, may influence older activists to our positions, stregthens our candidates for the general election, and is be crucial for a future Rand Presidential run.

[itshappening]

I have no idea what is happening in Iowa, but thinking that Rand will ride in and save the day during his presidential bid isn't really the best plan.

Rand will be a frequent visitor to Iowa between now and 2016 if he's running that is, so I think the GOP will benefit from that

[Adrock]

Rand will be a frequent visitor to Iowa between now and 2016 if he's running that is, so I think the GOP will benefit from that

The Iowa GOP will benefit from those types of trips. Running a state, county, or local party is much more than that though. It is fundraising, candidate recruiting, PC recruitment, GOTV, ect. You do that by being as inclusive as possible while sticking to your principles. If they take a bath in the 2014 elections, we will have no one in leadership come 2016.

[itshappening]

The Iowa GOP will benefit from those types of trips. Running a state, county, or local party is much more than that though. It is fundraising, candidate recruiting, PC recruitment, GOTV, ect. You do that by being as inclusive as possible while sticking to your principles. If they take a bath in the 2014 elections, we will have no one in leadership come 2016.

They have a great team in Iowa. Spiker won't be taking a bath. They will be working to elect Republicans whether they agree with them or not.

Brandsted the Republican governor will be top of the ticket in 2014 so that should help the GOP candidates in Iowa.

[Adrock]

They have a great team in Iowa. Spiker won't be taking a bath. They will be working to elect Republicans whether they agree with them or not.

Brandsted the Republican governor will be top of the ticket in 2014 so that should help the GOP candidates in Iowa.

They have a great opportunity, I hope they take advantage of it.

[ClydeCoulter]

http://iowapoliticsexposed.blogspot.com/2013/01/ron-paul-contribute-to-iowa-republican.html

Yes it is...

As to whether AJ and crew do a good job for liberty and their state, is yet to be seen and will depend on support. I have no crystal ball, but I know that we can't go in and then just do what those that came before have been doing. Party cannot be first, but party politics will play a role. This is about people, not party.

My hope is that A.J and crew find that fine line that leads toward liberty, reguardless of party, within the party. The party is a tool and tools can be reshaped, reconfigured or upgraded to do a better job for the tasks at hand.

[sailingaway]

Ron Paul supporters aren't the only ones who go to committee meetings, fund raise, and volunteer with a passion.

No but we do it particularly well. I do agree if you take on the job you have to perform the job you take on, however, with the shadow parties THEY didn't give us the means to do that job, intentionally, and are now bitching about it, when their shadow parties flopped. I consider that disingenuous.

[sailingaway]

But there is at least one set of elections happening before then. The head of our local GOP just stepped down at the end of her term, and one of the points that her successor won on was that the party was focused too much on national elections at the expense of local elections. Specifically, one of the townships hasn't had a Democrat on their council for 30 years, but this year there are 2, because the GOP didn't drum up candidates for the seats. The Democrats ran unopposed.

I have no idea what is happening in Iowa, but thinking that Rand will ride in and save the day during his presidential bid isn't really the best plan.

People who left after 2008 weren't there to help Ron when he came in in 2012. The mid cycle is important. I'm focused on general acceptance for our ideas and All our candidates in the parties, and 2014.

[torchbearer]

If Romney's team went to the NVGOP, and the NVGOP told them that they didn't like the Romney/Ryan ticket, then it's understandable for them to set up their own organization in Nevada. However, it's also possible Romney's team just assumed the NVGOP wasn't going to cooperate with them in the first place, so they set up their 'shadow party' without consulting them. I don't presume to know exactly what happened.

$400,000.... That's either a tiny amount of what's required to help all the IAGOP candidates, or that's an insanely huge amount of money that should have been spent in November.

the shadow party was set up prior to the take over, they knew it was going to happen though.
i think in alaska, the outgoing statist just ran with the money.
it really is about seige tactics.
In louisiana, the statist just use direct violence.

[Matt Collins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PndA7Yf_WcE&feature=youtu.be

[AJ Antimony]

Yes it is...

As to whether AJ and crew do a good job for liberty and their state, is yet to be seen and will depend on support. I have no crystal ball, but I know that we can't go in and then just do what those that came before have been doing. Party cannot be first, but party politics will play a role. This is about people, not party.

My hope is that A.J and crew find that fine line that leads toward liberty, reguardless of party, within the party. The party is a tool and tools can be reshaped, reconfigured or upgraded to do a better job for the tasks at hand.

It's a 'pick your poison' type of thing.
Option A: Run a strictly libertarian, small tent party. This will help us win more primary elections, but we will be screwed for general elections. We need their money, numbers, and experience just like they need our energy.
Option B: Run a more tolerant, bigger tent party. This will make it harder to win primary elections, but we will be in the best position to beat the Democrats in the general.

[sailingaway]

It's a 'pick your poison' type of thing.
Option A: Run a strictly libertarian, small tent party. This will help us win more primary elections, but we will be screwed for general elections. We need their money, numbers, and experience just like they need our energy.
Option B: Run a more tolerant, bigger tent party. This will make it harder to win primary elections, but we will be in the best position to beat the Democrats in the general.

Ron polled brilliantly against Obama in the general.

[ClydeCoulter]

It's a 'pick your poison' type of thing.
Option A: Run a strictly libertarian, small tent party. This will help us win more primary elections, but we will be screwed for general elections. We need their money, numbers, and experience just like they need our energy.
Option B: Run a more tolerant, bigger tent party. This will make it harder to win primary elections, but we will be in the best position to beat the Democrats in the general.

C. Be open, truthful and fair and ensure to the best of our ability that this is exactly what is done.

This is not about Team Red vs Team Blue. I'll vote for a democrat that supports the NAP and liberty over a warhawk any day. I understand that being in a "party position" means you have to do certain things, and one of those could be to seek out and support good people to primary bad eggs.

edit: Maybe even some Dems could be persuaded to come into the liberty movement for the right reasons as new 'R's

[belian78]

Nobody's a "bad guy." I'm just saying critics may have a point. If we take over the GOP, then do nothing more than interfere with GOP efforts to beat Democrats, that's pretty messed up.

Again, I don't live in Iowa. I don't follow any of this stuff other than reading about it on the internet every now and then. I don't presume or pretend to know the details about these internal party situations.

My belief is that if our people want to take control of top party positions, then they should support the entire party in the general election. The place to fight for liberty in the GOP is during the primaries/off years, NOT during the general election season.
I'm sorry, but this is complete and utter garbage. No, you don't pick and choose when to play ball with statists and when not to. The whole point of the, successful I might add, takeover of the Iowa GOP is to make sure that liberty minded people are elected to all levels of the GOP in that state. Just because someone has an R next to their name shouldn't give them automatic support from the party. That person's stances on the issues needs to reflect the party's stances, and in IA that more and more means a liberty based platform. It's not team sports, this is real people's lives and a nation's identity at stake.

[angelatc]

Ron polled brilliantly against Obama in the general.

It's too bad that we don't elect presidents by polls.

[angelatc]

Nobody's a "bad guy." I'm just saying critics may have a point. If we take over the GOP, then do nothing more than interfere with GOP efforts to beat Democrats, that's pretty messed up.

Again, I don't live in Iowa. I don't follow any of this stuff other than reading about it on the internet every now and then. I don't presume or pretend to know the details about these internal party situations.

My belief is that if our people want to take control of top party positions, then they should support the entire party in the general election. The place to fight for liberty in the GOP is during the primaries/off years, NOT during the general election season.

I don't like it much either, but we scream when the GOP meddles in the primaries. It would be pretty hypocritical of the liberty wing of the GOP to do exactly that, then.

[sailingaway]

It's too bad that we don't elect presidents by polls.

He never got that far, unfortunately. I seriously thought (and think) that the primary was the hard part for Ron, not the general. Only certain people pay attention to the primaries.

[angelatc]

He never got that far, unfortunately. I seriously thought (and think) that the primary was the hard part for Ron, not the general. Only certain people pay attention to the primaries.

I like caucuses better for that reason. I think, and this is only my opnion, that the politically active are better suited to choose candidates. But the point remains that the job of the head of the GOP is to support Republicans, and not decide which Republicans to support.

However, politicians are politicians. If they can't oust Spiker, they'll start sucking up. And that will be a good thing.

[sailingaway]

I like caucuses better for that reason. I think, and this is only my opnion, that the politically active are better suited to choose candidates. But the point remains that the job of the head of the GOP is to support Republicans, and not decide which Republicans to support.

However, politicians are politicians. If they can't oust Spiker, they'll start sucking up. And that will be a good thing.

I agree you have to perform the job you take on.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I'm sorry, but this is complete and utter garbage. No, you don't pick and choose when to play ball with statists and when not to. The whole point of the, successful I might add, takeover of the Iowa GOP is to make sure that liberty minded people are elected to all levels of the GOP in that state. Just because someone has an R next to their name shouldn't give them automatic support from the party. That person's stances on the issues needs to reflect the party's stances, and in IA that more and more means a liberty based platform. It's not team sports, this is real people's lives and a nation's identity at stake.

That however defies the duties and responsibilities of the committee as a whole. The responsibility of a committee person is to promote the ticket in the general, not just handpick which candidates they want to promote in the general. If you run for committee, whether it is state or county promoting the ticket is part of your duty.

In all honesty, if someone on my county committee failed to promote the ticket in the general, I would support their removal whether they were a liberty supporter or not. Duty and responsibility comes before ideology.

[sailingaway]

That however defies the duties and responsibilities of the committee as a whole. The responsibility of a committee person is to promote the ticket in the general, not just handpick which candidates they want to promote in the general. If you run for committee, whether it is state or county promoting the ticket is part of your duty.

In all honesty, if someone on my county committee failed to promote the ticket in the general, I would support their removal whether they were a liberty supporter or not. Duty and responsibility comes before ideology.

Whatever, but they weren't given a chance. The 'shadow party' was created and given all funds for the top of the ticket. OBVIOUSLY they would focus on other races and to argue afterwards that they should have done otherwise is nonsense.. If they had been given the 'victory funds' and didn't support the national ticket that would have been different.

[ClydeCoulter]

CaptLou,

Their duty and responsibility is to the people first. Supporting those that will not uphold the party's platform, within the confines of the Constitution, would be more like treason to the party and the people. IF the people do not like what they do, the people will vote them out, just like the liberty movement has done to the hacks there.

We could "Duty and responsibility according to some elusive definition" ourselves right into slavery and destruction. As has been happening.

[CaptLouAlbano]

CaptLou,

Their duty and responsibility is to the people first. Supporting those that will not uphold the party's platform, within the confines of the Constitution, would be more like treason to the party and the people. IF the people do not like what they do, the people will vote them out, just like the liberty movement has done to the hacks there.

We could "Duty and responsibility according to some elusive definition" ourselves right into slavery and destruction. As has been happening.

Read the bylaws of any committee and you'll see that the responsibility of the committee person is to promote the ticket in the general election. Failing to do that is failing to do the duties of the office.

If one is not willing to promote the ticket in the general election, then don't run for the seat.

[Occam's Banana]

Duty and responsibility comes before ideology.

Not to deny the validity of the other points you made, but it is only by way of ideology that the concepts of duty and responsibility can possibly have any meaning. Otherwise, they will amount to no more than arbitrary ad hoc assertions of obligations. Without ideology, there is no way to judge the validity of such assertions.

It is the indiscriminate use of the "Republicans (or Democrats, or Libertarians) must support anyone who gets on the ticket as a Republican (or Democrat, or Libertarian)" dictum that has created & fostered the mindlessly corrosive "Red Team vs. Blue Team / my party right or wrong" environment we find ourselves in. There has to be some point at which we say, "We should not support this person, regardless of what he calls himself". Different people will draw that line at different places, of course, but the line must be drawn somewhere. To say, "Yes, I will support this person - just because he is on the X ticket" is just as bad as saying, "No, I will not support this person just because he is on the X ticket". Otherwise, what's the point of supporting anyone at all?

[Pisces]

Not to deny the validity of the other points you made, but it is only by way of ideology that the concepts of duty and responsibility can possibly have any meaning. Otherwise, they will amount to no more than arbitrary ad hoc assertions of obligations. Without ideology, there is no way to judge the validity of such assertions.

It is the indiscriminate use of the "Republicans (or Democrats, or Libertarians) must support anyone who gets on the ticket as a Republican (or Democrat, or Libertarian)" dictum that has created & fostered the mindlessly corrosive "Red Team vs. Blue Team / my party right or wrong" environment we find ourselves in. There has to be some point at which we say, "We should not support this person, regardless of what he calls himself". Different people will draw that line at different places, of course, but the line must be drawn somewhere. To say, "Yes, I will support this person - just because he is on the X ticket" is just as bad as saying, "No, I will not support this person just because he is on the X ticket". Otherwise, what's the point of supporting anyone at all?

I think there is a difference between an individual or an elected official and someone who is supposed to be a party functionary. These guys ran to represent the Republican Party of Iowa and not the people at large. However, if the new leadership wasn't supporting the whole party, Spiker wouldn't have gotten 13 out of the 18 votes for his re-election. Obviously, a large majority of the Committee members don't agree with the blogger. I think what is happening here is that the social conservatives have joined with the Ron Paul people to push out the establisment types. Nobody in politics likes losing power so of course they are going to bitch about it.

[ClydeCoulter]

Read the bylaws of any committee and you'll see that the responsibility of the committee person is to promote the ticket in the general election. Failing to do that is failing to do the duties of the office.

If one is not willing to promote the ticket in the general election, then don't run for the seat.

There's a lot in the bylaws, you cannot pick out one pet peave and leave it at that. I'm not sure that I have seen "ticket" in the bylaws, maybe I missed it.

[ClydeCoulter]

If a candidate with an 'R' runs and does not support the full party platform in action or word, is he/she required to receive support from the party chairman? I don't see that in the "bylaws", I see that support for the party plank/platform and goals listed.

[Uriah]

I think there is a difference between an individual or an elected official and someone who is supposed to be a party functionary. These guys ran to represent the Republican Party of Iowa and not the people at large. However, if the new leadership wasn't supporting the whole party, Spiker wouldn't have gotten 13 out of the 18 votes for his re-election. Obviously, a large majority of the Committee members don't agree with the blogger. I think what is happening here is that the social conservatives have joined with the Ron Paul people to push out the establisment types. Nobody in politics likes losing power so of course they are going to bitch about it.

Bingo.

[Uriah]

If a candidate with an 'R' runs and does not support the full party platform in action or word, is he/she required to receive support from the party chairman? I don't see that in the "bylaws", I see that support for the party plank/platform and goals listed.

It may be different from state to state and county to county. In my county I must support every Republican that is on the ballot after the primary. It is one of my duties as a central committee person from my county. Although, the word 'support' is vague.

[Bastiat's The Law]

No but we do it particularly well. I do agree if you take on the job you have to perform the job you take on, however, with the shadow parties THEY didn't give us the means to do that job, intentionally, and are now bitching about it, when their shadow parties flopped. I consider that disingenuous.
For Presidential campaigns maybe, but remember, without Liberty For All, the races in Kentucky and Michigan would've been much more dicey. Most Paul supporters in my area knew nothing of Bentivolio or Massie or even Amash.

[sailingaway]

There's a lot in the bylaws, you cannot pick out one pet peave and leave it at that. I'm not sure that I have seen "ticket" in the bylaws, maybe I missed it.

Not to mention, if you have enough votes, you can rewrite the bylaws. How many times was that done to us? Including at RNC, retroactively to remove Ron's nomination on the floor?

[CaptLouAlbano]

Not to mention, if you have enough votes, you can rewrite the bylaws. How many times was that done to us? Including at RNC, retroactively to remove Ron's nomination on the floor?

I have served as a committee man on three occasions and totaling many years. In NJ, the conservatives took control of the county committee in a state that was far from conservative at the statewide level. Never once did anyone suggest that we change the bylaws to state that the committee would only support candidates we liked in the general election.

In the primaries, we worked our butts off for the conservatives, but if we lost we still did our job and promoted the ticket in the general, whether our guy was on the ticket or not. It goes with the "job", which is why not everyone is cut out for it. Nonetheless, it is important to have as many conservatives and libertarians in committee seats if we want to make the landscape more hospitable for like-minded candidates running for elected offices.

[sailingaway]

I have served as a committee man on three occasions and totaling many years. In NJ, the conservatives took control of the county committee in a state that was far from conservative at the statewide level. Never once did anyone suggest that we change the bylaws to state that the committee would only support candidates we liked in the general election.

In the primaries, we worked our butts off for the conservatives, but if we lost we still did our job and promoted the ticket in the general, whether our guy was on the ticket or not. It goes with the "job", which is why not everyone is cut out for it. Nonetheless, it is important to have as many conservatives and libertarians in committee seats if we want to make the landscape more hospitable for like-minded candidates running for elected offices.

Yeah, but we saw them do precisely that and rule against our folks, even having them physically ejected after changing bylaws to make chairs not chairs -- and not even doing it properly.

As I said, I think people should play fair. But I also think the crew complaining are precisely the ones who didn't play fair, with us.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Yeah, but we saw them do precisely that and rule against our folks, even having them physically ejected after changing bylaws to make chairs not chairs -- and not even doing it properly.

As I said, I think people should play fair. But I also think the crew complaining are precisely the ones who didn't play fair, with us.

Are you serving as a committee person in your county or planning on running for the position?

[sailingaway]

Not unless I need to, but appeals to authority or your personal experience don't convince me you are right in this. These people twisted and broke the rules and now have a lot of gall to be saying OUR folks will be biased.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Not unless I need to, but appeals to authority or your personal experience don't convince me you are right in this. These people twisted and broke the rules and now have a lot of gall to be saying OUR folks will be biased.

Well we need as many people who can to run and get seated. Committee seats give our candidates a built in army of support right from the get go. The situation in Iowa is a power struggle right now. These things happen, and all will likely be resolved and settled into business as usual in due time. The important thing for the IA state committee to do right now is work on voter registration and begin prepping for 2013 races. There is far too much work to be done to worry about what happened in the past - what's done is done, it's time to get to work.

And by the way, I am always right. :)

[ClydeCoulter]

What's done is done, and we can learn from what happened in the past.

[satchelmcqueen]

my contribution

"

"GOP Co-Chair Bill Schickel says all of the the party leadership roles being filled by Ron Paul supporters is alienating the rest of the party"

really? sort of like how the gop told the rp supporters they werent welcomed and cheated the rightfully elected rp delegates out of their spots to the convention? like that? like how that rp himself wasnt allowed to spean at the convention unless he let romeny edit his speech? how paul was cheated out of the nomination process he had enough states for?"



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PndA7Yf_WcE&feature=youtu.be

[satchelmcqueen]

if they win the election its fair because thats how the process works...

if paul or his supporters win, its fake and a "planned coup".

[sailingaway]

if they win the election its fair because thats how the process works...

if paul or his supporters win, its fake and a "planned coup".

and we'll be biased because that is how they would be if they had won it.

[AJ Antimony]

C. Be open, truthful and fair and ensure to the best of our ability that this is exactly what is done.

This is not about Team Red vs Team Blue. I'll vote for a democrat that supports the NAP and liberty over a warhawk any day. I understand that being in a "party position" means you have to do certain things, and one of those could be to seek out and support good people to primary bad eggs.

edit: Maybe even some Dems could be persuaded to come into the liberty movement for the right reasons as new 'R's

You can vote for whoever you want, but when you are running for elected positions within the Republican Party, then it becomes Team Red vs. Team Blue. You can't run for GOP chairman telling everyone you're open to voting Democrat. Again, this isn't you sitting on the couch at home, this is you within the GOP wearing GOP clothing.

[CaptLouAlbano]

It may be different from state to state and county to county. In my county I must support every Republican that is on the ballot after the primary. It is one of my duties as a central committee person from my county. Although, the word 'support' is vague.

Generally, the "support" is directed by the chairman of the committee - at least that is the way it is in my county and was in the county I served in previously. The general duties I have always done have been getting poll workers assigned, organizing canvassing, phone banks, and other GOTV tools. The guy that preceded me here in my precinct wasn't a Romney fan by any stretch of the imagination, but he did his job and was knocking on doors with the ticket in hand and a smile on his face prior to election day.

[AJ Antimony]

I'm sorry, but this is complete and utter garbage. No, you don't pick and choose when to play ball with statists and when not to.

When you're just some schmo sitting on the couch, then you're right. You can protest whenever you want. But when you are working within the GOP, you have to support the party at some point. If you join the GOP just to bail on the GOP (candidates) when you lose, then the other members of the GOP are going to dislike you. Not because you're a libertarian, not because you're a socialist... but because you're just the guy that sits there, complains, and never actually helps the party win.


The whole point of the, successful I might add, takeover of the Iowa GOP is to make sure that liberty minded people are elected to all levels of the GOP in that state.

Yeah, how's that working out exactly? Yeah we won the party positions, but we don't have any congressional seats, or any big seats for that matter. I know we have state legislators, but we have libertarian leaning legislators in every state. Don't get me wrong, I know we just took over and we need more time before seeing some results out there. But don't kid yourself, liberty minded people are NOT elected to "all levels of the GOP" in Iowa.


Just because someone has an R next to their name shouldn't give them automatic support from the party.

Again, if you say this as some guy at home on the couch, then I agree. Support whoever you want to. But if you participate in the GOP, work with the GOP, and basically wear GOP clothing, then it's sort of douchey to not support Republican candidates over the Democrats in the general election. It's ok to draw a line in the sand--for example, by refusing to vote for Romney due to his liberal record--but generally you would expect a member of the GOP to vote GOP in the general election.

[CaptLouAlbano]

AJ Antimony in your above post, I think it is necessary to clarify that you (likely) mean an elected/appointed member of the GOP committee, as opposed to someone who is simply registered in the party (i.e. a member of the GOP)

[ClydeCoulter]

You can vote for whoever you want, but when you are running for elected positions within the Republican Party, then it becomes Team Red vs. Team Blue. You can't run for GOP chairman telling everyone you're open to voting Democrat. Again, this isn't you sitting on the couch at home, this is you within the GOP wearing GOP clothing.

Then, there is a difference of interpretation of what "Support the platform and goals" means. I'm a P.C. I represent the people of my precinct. This is me in a 'R' team shirt, but representing the people to the best that I can. The difference is that I can only vote between those who will run as an 'R', narrowing down who the people may then vote for if they choose to vote 'R'. I can also vote for who the county chair might be. But, I still represent the people.

[AJ Antimony]

AJ Antimony in your above post, I think it is necessary to clarify that you (likely) mean an elected/appointed member of the GOP committee, as opposed to someone who is simply registered in the party (i.e. a member of the GOP)

Basically, yes. I'm talking about anyone that gets involved in the GOP more than just showing up to vote every 2-4 years. If you go to meetings, participate, and then maybe even run for party seats, at some point you have to support the party as a whole.

Simply being registered GOP is what I'm talking about by 'sitting on the couch' in my previous posts. You can be registered GOP and vote for whoever you want to in the general election.

[AJ Antimony]

Then, there is a difference of interpretation of what "Support the platform and goals" means. I'm a P.C. I represent the people of my precinct. This is me in a 'R' team shirt, but representing the people to the best that I can. The difference is that I can only vote between those who will run as an 'R', narrowing down who the people may then vote for if they choose to vote 'R'. I can also vote for who the county chair might be. But, I still represent the people.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is here. Could you please clarify?

[ClydeCoulter]

I'm not entirely sure what your point is here. Could you please clarify?

I'm saying that it doesn't matter that I have an 'R' next to my name, I represent the people. If there are candidates that are not supporting the Constitution or platform (within the constraints of the Constitution) then I won't support them even if they have an 'R' next to their name.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Then, there is a difference of interpretation of what "Support the platform and goals" means. I'm a P.C. I represent the people of my precinct. This is me in a 'R' team shirt, but representing the people to the best that I can. The difference is that I can only vote between those who will run as an 'R', narrowing down who the people may then vote for if they choose to vote 'R'. I can also vote for who the county chair might be. But, I still represent the people.

I'm sorry, but how do you "represent the people" you are not in government, you are not passing laws, or voting on resolutions - you are a party representative. In that sense you represent the party to the people in your precinct. You are the face of the GOP to the registered voters in your precinct. What you do in the voting booth is you own business, but don't you have assigned duties from your committee chair like GOTV, working the polls on election day, canvassing, voter registration, attending tabling events, rallies, etc?

[ClydeCoulter]

I'm sorry, but how do you "represent the people" you are not in government, you are not passing laws, or voting on resolutions - you are a party representative. In that sense you represent the party to the people in your precinct. You are the face of the GOP to the registered voters in your precinct. What you do in the voting booth is you own business, but don't you have assigned duties from your committee chair like GOTV, working the polls on election day, canvassing, voter registration, attending tabling events, rallies, etc?

I represent the people in choices for who gets to run on the 'R' ticket. As an example, I voted for someone to run for our state representative on the Republican ticket. I did this after a lot of conversation with him (twice at my home). The people only get to choose between the candidates that we give them. Unfortunately, my pick did not win the committee vote (he lost by 2 votes), so the 'R' general election votes were stuck with someone who will not represent their interests in my county.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I represent the people in choices for who gets to run on the 'R' ticket. As an example, I voted for someone to run for our state representative on the Republican ticket. I did this after a lot of conversation with him (twice at my home). The people only get to choose between the candidates that we give them. Unfortunately, my pick did not win the committee vote (he lost by 2 votes), so the 'R' general election votes were stuck with someone who will not represent their interests in my county.

What about the other duties I listed. Doesn't your committee do any sort of voter registration and GOTV work?

And when you say "The people only get to choose between the candidates that we give them" are you saying that IN does not have a primary election for the state house?

[ClydeCoulter]

What about the other duties I listed. Doesn't your committee do any sort of voter registration and GOTV work?

Yes, and I refused to campaign for Romney.

A precent committeeman (at least in this state) represents the people. There is only one PC per precinct. How can they only represent a party?

[CaptLouAlbano]

Yes, and I refused to campaign for Romney.

A precent committeeman (at least in this state) represents the people. There is only one PC per precinct. How can they only represent a party?

In NJ, we had only one committeeman for each precinct. The Dems had theirs and the GOP had theirs, we were elected in the primary election by the voters of that precinct. Here in SC we have 3 per precinct, but the precincts are much larger, so the work needs to be divided up between us.

Now again, I am only learning what yours is like, but in NJ and also here in SC, if you refused to campaign for the ticket and do your assigned duties, you would be removed from office.

[ClydeCoulter]

It's really kind of screwed up, if you think about it. I ran for PC (unopposed) but because I'm an 'R' I am on the Republican Committee, and so I help choose the 'R' candidate for state representative for our district (committee primarying?).

[CaptLouAlbano]

It's really kind of screwed up, if you think about it. I ran for PC (unopposed) but because I'm an 'R' I am on the Republican Committee, and so I help choose the 'R' candidate for state representative for our district (committee primarying?).

That is confusing. I am looking at ballotpedia, and it does show that there were competitive primaries for state house on both the D and R sides in 2012.

[AJ Antimony]

I'm saying that it doesn't matter that I have an 'R' next to my name, I represent the people. If there are candidates that are not supporting the Constitution or platform (within the constraints of the Constitution) then I won't support them even if they have an 'R' next to their name.

Then yes, it comes down to how you define "support." If by "won't support them" you mean you'll just keep quiet about them and not make much of an effort to volunteer for them, then that's fine. I'd say that's drawing a line in the sand.

However, if by "won't support them" you mean you're going to publicly speak against them, give people reasons not to vote for them, and if you go around endorsing and campaigning for the Libertarian candidate, then I'd call that behavior douchey and counterproductive.

[ClydeCoulter]

In NJ, we had only one committeeman for each precinct. The Dems had theirs and the GOP had theirs, we were elected in the primary election by the voters of that precinct. Here in SC we have 3 per precinct, but the precincts are much larger, so the work needs to be divided up between us.

Now again, I am only learning what yours is like, but in NJ and also here in SC, if you refused to campaign for the ticket and do your assigned duties, you would be removed from office.

We are elected here too, by the people. But there is only one PC per precinct no matter how many parties are running for each. There is no 'D' committeeman in my precinct.

[CaptLouAlbano]

We are elected here too, by the people. But there is only one PC per precinct no matter how many parties are running for each. There is no 'D' committeeman in my precinct.

Do the Dems have a county committee there? I know some parts of IN are bright red, so maybe that is why, or perhaps it is just a vacancy.

[ClydeCoulter]

Then yes, it comes down to how you define "support." If by "won't support them" you mean you'll just keep quiet about them and not make much of an effort to volunteer for them, then that's fine. I'd say that's drawing a line in the sand.

However, if by "won't support them" you mean you're going to publicly speak against them, give people reasons not to vote for them, and if you go around endorsing and campaigning for the Libertarian candidate, then I'd call that behavior douchey and counterproductive.

No, I did not attempt to dissuade people from voting for Romney in my precinct. I did post a ROFLMAO (Romney OFLMA Obama) graphic as my header on FB and posted things showing how he was no different than Obama. But I stayed pretty quiet about it here locally, except for my mentor PC (92 year old precinct committeeman just north of me) knew of my distaste for how the RNC and certain state conventions were run.

[ClydeCoulter]

I look at it like this: If I'm going to support a candidate expressly, then that candidate needs to be one that I can later look people in the eye about.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Well Clyde, I have to say what they are doing there in IN is far different than anything I have been aware of before.

Basically, here is my duties as a committee man. In the off season we work on fundraising, issue education, getting speakers in for events, etc. The county committee makes endorsements for some, but not all, of the primary contests. We then promote the endorsed ticket, but committee members are welcome to campaign on their own for another choice. If SC is similar to NJ this probably won't be an issue, as we only would endorse a primary candidate that had overwhelming support of the committee. After the primary it is all about GOTV for the general, and we are responsible for bringing out as many voters from our precinct as possible. We do this through canvassing, phone work, mailers, etc. We promote the ticket as a whole.

Come 2014, I will work my butt off for whoever decides to primary Graham. If Graham wins he primary though, it is my responsibility still to GOTV on election day for the ticket. I probably won't vote for Graham myself, but that doesn't mean I can shirk the responsibility I have for the office I hold, and I sure as heck won't come out publicly against Graham because that is just cause for my removal from the seat.

[ClydeCoulter]

That is confusing. I am looking at ballotpedia, and it does show that there were competitive primaries for state house on both the D and R sides in 2012.

Ah, it was for State Senate (product of age?)

Perhaps I didn't quite understand it either then, this may have been a "special" committee election thing.

Connie Lawson was appointed as Secretary of State (during her term as our state senator). So, a special committee election put Pete Miller in as a temp State Senator to replace her. THEN, after the primary (now I'm a PC), the committee voted on who would run as Senator on the 'R' ticket in the general. On Ballotpedia, it shows the first committee election of Pete Miller, but does not mention the one after the primary where the decision was made between 3 'R' candidates as to who would be on the general election ticket.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Ah, it was for State Senate (product of age?)

Perhaps I didn't quite understand it either then, this may have been a "special" committee election thing.

Connie Lawson was appointed as Secretary of State (during her term as our state senator). So, a special committee election put Pete Miller in as a temp State Senator to replace her. THEN, after the primary (now I'm a PC), the committee voted on who would run as Senator on the 'R' ticket in the general. On Ballotpedia, it shows the first committee election of Pete Miller, but does not mention the one after the primary where the decision was made between 3 'R' candidates as to who would be on the general election ticket.

That does sound like an extraordinary circumstance.

[ClydeCoulter]

Well Clyde, I have to say what they are doing there in IN is far different than anything I have been aware of before.

Basically, here is my duties as a committee man. In the off season we work on fundraising, issue education, getting speakers in for events, etc. The county committee makes endorsements for some, but not all, of the primary contests. We then promote the endorsed ticket, but committee members are welcome to campaign on their own for another choice. If SC is similar to NJ this probably won't be an issue, as we only would endorse a primary candidate that had overwhelming support of the committee. After the primary it is all about GOTV for the general, and we are responsible for bringing out as many voters from our precinct as possible. We do this through canvassing, phone work, mailers, etc. We promote the ticket as a whole.

Come 2014, I will work my butt off for whoever decides to primary Graham. If Graham wins he primary though, it is my responsibility still to GOTV on election day for the ticket. I probably won't vote for Graham myself, but that doesn't mean I can shirk the responsibility I have for the office I hold, and I sure as heck won't come out publicly against Graham because that is just cause for my removal from the seat.

There is a push to get donations, etc... Noone here is required to do so, at least not to my knowlege. It's voluntary, but they do push at you somewhat.

GOTV is nonpartisan, they just want people to register and vote, reguardless of party. At least thats the attitude that I have seen so far.

I'm not worried about losing my position. If they can find someone they would rather have and that person runs against me and wins then they have it.

[CaptLouAlbano]

There is a push to get donations, etc... Noone here is required to do so, at least not to my knowlege. It's voluntary, but they do push at you somewhat.

GOTV is nonpartisan, they just want people to register and vote, reguardless of party. At least thats the attitude that I have seen so far.

I'm not worried about losing my position. If they can find someone they would rather have and that person runs against me and wins then they have it.

Sounds like the might need some more aggressive leadership in the county. We busted our rear ends in NJ, and my friend tells me it is the same here. We used to have GOTV contests among ourselves to see who could turn out the highest % of GOP voters in their precinct, and a lot of other things that kept us pushing and made it fun at the same time. Some of my fondest political memories are working on election day, driving around a van to pick up the senior citizens and taking them to the polls.

[ClydeCoulter]

The attitude of people in the country may be very different from that of the city. There doesn't seem to be a divide here between 'R' and 'D' anymore than a wrestling match, you wrestle, then you shake hands. But the differences aren't so great between 'R' and 'D' here in the country. They all love freedom and honesty and very few, if any, trust politicians :) Most of the land here is farming and acreage homes. We do have some poor families that get help locally (and some from the feds) that live in town (that has 1 stop light).

[ClydeCoulter]

Sounds like the might need some more aggressive leadership in the county. We busted our rear ends in NJ, and my friend tells me it is the same here. We used to have GOTV contests among ourselves to see who could turn out the highest % of GOP voters in their precinct, and a lot of other things that kept us pushing and made it fun at the same time. Some of my fondest political memories are working on election day, driving around a van to pick up the senior citizens and taking them to the polls.

Maybe that's part of the problem, some people don't want leaders. But they do want those that represent them to represent them properly. Like other have said, when they talk to people about politics they just get the "They all lie" response. And that is an earned response.

Here, they do understand that corruption exists, they see it in their dealings with those that buy the corn and beans and at the auctions for beef, pork, lamb and hay. But they deal with it more from a relationship point of view. They know who to deal with and who not to. Sometimes you can't avoid bad deals, but you remember it. And they don't ask you if your a republican or democrat, cause they could care less (although most are conservative around here) as long as you deal straight with them.

My goal, if I stay in politics at all, is to continue education through conversation. But around here, that's a slow process. Not because they are hard of hearing or unable to understand, but because they feel so far removed from it. Deer season, 'coon season, gardens, guns, beer and their woman/man are the things that have meaning and that they can touch. I would not even try to educate them on the FED or foreign policy if it didn't adversely affect them. There are things in 'civilization' that could well be done without. Social constructs are, after all, just man made images. And many of those constructs are just sly ways for one man to take from another without going to jail or getting shot.

[CaptLouAlbano]

When I speak of aggressive leadership, I mean as far as the county committee itself. Leaders who will challenge and motivate the committee persons to perform at their highest level.

The voters in your area are no different than in my area. Most have a lot of other things going on in their life that they care about. My job as a committee man is to be the face of the party for those people - in that sense I am a salesman. One of the things I am presently doing is getting out and meeting each and every registered voter in my precinct since I am the new guy. I am not there to pitch a candidate, or platform - just to be a friendly face that they can associate with the county GOP.

And keeping contact with the voters is something as a committee we do on a regular basis. That comes from the leadership we have in the committee that act as "cheerleaders" for us.

[ClydeCoulter]

When I speak of aggressive leadership, I mean as far as the county committee itself. Leaders who will challenge and motivate the committee persons to perform at their highest level.

The voters in your area are no different than in my area. Most have a lot of other things going on in their life that they care about. My job as a committee man is to be the face of the party for those people - in that sense I am a salesman. One of the things I am presently doing is getting out and meeting each and every registered voter in my precinct since I am the new guy. I am not there to pitch a candidate, or platform - just to be a friendly face that they can associate with the county GOP.

And keeping contact with the voters is something as a committee we do on a regular basis. That comes from the leadership we have in the committee that act as "cheerleaders" for us.

Cheerleading is what you might call what our committee chair is doing also.

The point I was trying to make, is that many PC's here feel as though they do represent the people rather than just a party. We do have to make decisions on votes (in unique cases such as described above) and support/promote the right candidates (hopefully) during primaries (some are unknown to the locals, new or from a different county/towns).

As far as support in the general, that's a hard thing to do if you don't believe in the candidates. I'm not one for "taking one for the team", and if I were to think that a different party had a better candidate, ...well...maybe this PC thing is not for me, and I don't see it working for others with my point of view (edit: if party comes first).

[sailingaway]

Maybe that's part of the problem, some people don't want leaders. But they do want those that represent them to represent them properly. Like other have said, when they talk to people about politics they just get the "They all lie" response. And that is an earned response.

Here, they do understand that corruption exists, they see it in their dealings with those that buy the corn and beans and at the auctions for beef, pork, lamb and hay. But they deal with it more from a relationship point of view. They know who to deal with and who not to. Sometimes you can't avoid bad deals, but you remember it. And they don't ask you if your a republican or democrat, cause they could care less (although most are conservative around here) as long as you deal straight with them.

My goal, if I stay in politics at all, is to continue education through conversation. But around here, that's a slow process. Not because they are hard of hearing or unable to understand, but because they feel so far removed from it. Deer season, 'coon season, gardens, guns, beer and their woman/man are the things that have meaning and that they can touch. I would not even try to educate them on the FED or foreign policy if it didn't adversely affect them. There are things in 'civilization' that could well be done without. Social constructs are, after all, just man made images. And many of those constructs are just sly ways for one man to take from another without going to jail or getting shot.

We are supposed to be electing public servants, not leaders. Somewhere along the way that seems to have been lost - particularly but not exclusively in DC.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Perhaps it is not for you, because if your bylaws are similar to the ones I have sat under then there are requirements for you to be out there promoting the ticket at general election time.

The good thing is though, being on committee gives you the opportunity to interact with every single registered voter in your precinct. You can build trust and respect with these people, so when you come knocking at their door during primary season, and ask them to support your candidate, they will do so.

Politics, at the level you and I are operating, is a team sport. Just as your peers on committee want you to put your best foot forward supporting the ticket when their guys are on it, you want them to do the same when your guys are on it. And you cannot get your guys on the ticket, unless you (and more folks like you) are involved in the committee.

Remember, we are a minority in many of the county GOP's across the country, but it is not a permanent minority if we do our jobs, smile and make allies. We increase our numbers, and therefore the likelihood that our candidates of choice will be successful, as the years pass and new seats are open. But if we are not involved, or walk away from the duty just because we don't like the ticket, we will be a permanent minority.

And something else to consider, and I have done this many times throughout the years, when it comes to the general election - we all know that either the R or the D will get the nod. At that point I always reflect on the reality of the situation - is it better for my precinct if the R wins or the D wins. Having lived many years in NJ, where the Democrats were always way to the left of even the worst Republican candidate, pragmatism won out. So I would hit the streets, do the job, and live to fight another day.

So your guy might not win the primary this year, but there is always next time - and being in that seat where you have influence with the voters is a great position to be in.

Keep your chin up.

[CaptLouAlbano]

We are supposed to be electing public servants, not leaders. Somewhere along the way that seems to have been lost - particularly but not exclusively in DC.

Leadership, as referenced in a previous post, was in reference to the county chair and their ability to motivate the committee persons to perform at their highest level.

[sailingaway]

I agree that people should be selected in part for how well they motivate.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I agree that people should be selected in part for how well they motivate.

They have to be, otherwise the committee cannot operate at its maximum effectiveness. We (committee persons) are, in many respects, the front line. We are out there talking about candidates before most of the public starts paying attention, we are the ones calling on people to volunteer their time, we are the ones hitting up donors for money. Without strong, and as I said, aggressive leadership at the top of the committee, the committee suffers.

[sailingaway]

So it is the responsibility of the people voting to take what they want into account. One problem is that those who seek these positions are often the sort who want power, and start thinking of themselves as being special by virtue of their positions. I'd rather have someone a bit klutzy who depends more on consensus to motivate, than someone with technical 'motivation skills' and worrisome ambition. It will depend on the options available.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I have sat under various styles of leadership over the years, and I believe those who have a passion for this and are able to inject that passion into other committee members are the ones that succeed. The committee position is not a glorifying one, it can be difficult work. Some do the bare minimum and others do as much as possible. For example right now, I am under no requirement by the bylaws to go out and knock on doors and introduce myself to the voters in my precinct. I am doing so of my own accord, to build goodwill and to find out more about the voters in my precinct and their concerns. A good leader would encourage others like myself to do the same, the want the best from their committee persons, and ultimately that benefits the party as a whole.