RNC Chief Reince Priebus Fends off Paulite Rebellion

[sailingaway]

http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/24/rnc-chief-reince-preibus-fends-off-pauli

[Deborah K]

He [Jeff Larson] worries that the establishment sees the Paul forces as obsessed with legalizing drugs and abortion. He thinks they can work together on fiscal issues.

Abortion???? Did abortion become illegal?

[sailingaway]

since when to the terms 'Paul' and 'abortion' go together?

[kathy88]

And so begin the compromises. Is no one principled?

[sailingaway]

And so begin the compromises. Is no one principled?

we need to pay attention to the three who did NOT sell their votes out. We need to keep track of who IS principled, under pressure.

[Matt Collins]

Ok, if you can't beat them, then get whatever you can out of them which is what happened.


I am wiling to bet (I have no insider info) that AJ Spiker is now less concerned about losing control of the Iowa GOP because Prebius is more favorable to him. Same for the NVGOP. This will be important come 2016 when Rand runs for President.

Again, long term strategy> short term victories. Win the war, don't kill ourselves for every battle, especially when the battle is a guaranteed loss.

[sailingaway]

So sell out for what you can get for yourself instead of doing what people put you there for?

Wow.

[Lucille]

Ok, if you can't beat them, then get whatever you can out of them which is what happened.


I am wiling to bet (I have no insider info) that AJ Spiker is now less concerned about losing control of the Iowa GOP because Prebius is more favorable to him. Same for the NVGOP. This will be important come 2016 when Rand runs for President.

Again, long term strategy> short term victories. Win the war, don't kill ourselves for every battle, especially when the battle is a guaranteed loss.

Oh GMAFB. Also, you act like these evil neo-Trots just fell off the turnip truck.

With these bastards in CONtrol, Rand won't get anywhere near the nomination.

[fr33]

Ok, if you can't beat them, then get whatever you can out of them which is what happened.


I am wiling to bet (I have no insider info) that AJ Spiker is now less concerned about losing control of the Iowa GOP because Prebius is more favorable to him. Same for the NVGOP. This will be important come 2016 when Rand runs for President.

Again, long term strategy> short term victories. Win the war, don't kill ourselves for every battle, especially when the battle is a guaranteed loss.

battered wife syndrome

[jkr]

that Icelandic passport is l00king better every day...

[Agorism]

Impossible to know what went on behind the scenes at this point.

[kathy88]

Ok, if you can't beat them, then get whatever you can out of them which is what happened.


I am wiling to bet (I have no insider info) that AJ Spiker is now less concerned about losing control of the Iowa GOP because Prebius is more favorable to him. Same for the NVGOP. This will be important come 2016 when Rand runs for President.

Again, long term strategy> short term victories. Win the war, don't kill ourselves for every battle, especially when the battle is a guaranteed loss.

Come on Matt. Stop defending selling out like its a win.

[klamath]

And so begin the compromises. Is no one principled?
The whole freaking RP movement is a COMPROMISE! Do you think I like hanging out with proabortion people any more than I like to hang out with neocons?

[kathy88]

The whole freaking RP movement is a COMPROMISE! Do you think I like hanging out with proabortion people any more than I like to hang out with neocons?

If you lie with dogs....

[satchelmcqueen]

this system and people in it are so fucking thin in principle. ron was indeed the only one. ill stand by ron until im dead. fuck being a sell out.

[paulbot24]

/\/\/\ I'll just stand over there with her....:D

[klamath]

If you lie with dogs.... Yeaw i wonder why I even hang out here anymore. Just a habit I guess.

[paulbot24]

Yeaw i wonder why I even hang out here anymore. Just a habit I guess.

Mine's an addiction. I figure this good addiction balances out any bad addictions.....that I may or may not have or had in the past....or something.

[RabbitMan]

Do people here really freak out about abortion that much? Or trying to win a hopeless battle? I thought we were over quixotic challenges at this point and moving on to changing the framework of the GOP? Anyways, I agree with Matt Collins. And I continue to work in my local GOP party providing common sense, constitution-minded and civil liberty protecting ideas whenever possible.

[Matt Collins]

So sell out for what you can get for yourself instead of doing what people put you there for?

Come on Matt. Stop defending selling out like its a win.


It's not "caving" or "selling out" if you use your leverage to get something you need from them that they wouldn't have given otherwise (especially since you were guaranteed to lose if you fought).

[Matt Collins]

With these bastards in CONtrol, Rand won't get anywhere near the nomination.They don't have as much control as you think they do, and their level of control is slipping less and less by every day. Given the way Rand is being promoted by them, come 2015 he may be bigger than they are.

[sailingaway]

It's not "caving" or "selling out" if you use your leverage to get something you need from them that they wouldn't have given otherwise (especially since you were guaranteed to lose if you fought).

Well, we'll know what to expect of you if anyone elects you to anything.

[Matt Collins]

Well, we'll know what to expect of you if anyone elects you to anything.No, not at all. But of course I don't plan to hold elected office.

But remember, Ron Paul has voted for some pretty awful speakers in his day too.

[sailingaway]

No, not at all. But of course I don't plan to hold elected office.

But remember, Ron Paul has voted for some pretty awful speakers in his day too.

that's irrelevant since A, this was not a speaker, and B, when he voted for the only choice, there was no liberty option. Show where he voted for a speaker AGAINST a liberty option. Ever.

[Matt Collins]

that's irrelevant since A, this was not a speaker, and B, when he voted for the only choice, there was no liberty option. Show where he voted for a speaker AGAINST a liberty option. Ever.
Ron has supported establishment candidates in the past, even though liberty candidates were running, and I'm not referring to Speaker.

[sailingaway]

Ron has supported establishment candidates in the past, even though liberty candidates were running, and I'm not referring to Speaker.

Why attack Ron? They weren't his candidates. These are his supporters and the others were elected specifically as Ron Paul supporters. Th worst is the guy in Nevada who DID give his support then pulled it, giving the impression of cratering support, when they were trying to build on it for the third state.

Ron had his rules and set them out and no one else around can equal him, so until you find a competitor at his level, it seems pretty ridiculous to bring him into this.

[kathy88]

It's not "caving" or "selling out" if you use your leverage to get something you need from them that they wouldn't have given otherwise (especially since you were guaranteed to lose if you fought).
And I'm sure whatever they were promised will materialize because Preibus is so principled and would never go back on his word or say... Change rules without a majority... Or be complicit in getting delegates "lost" or helping misappropriate funds or....

[Matt Collins]

Why attack Ron? They weren't his candidates. These are his supporters and the others were elected specifically as Ron Paul supporters. Th worst is the guy in Nevada who DID give his support then pulled it, giving the impression of cratering support, when they were trying to build on it for the third state.

Ron had his rules and set them out and no one else around can equal him, so until you find a competitor at his level, it seems pretty ridiculous to bring him into this.The point is that Ron, even as "pure" as he is, has had to hold his nose and go along with supporting people he didn't want to over the years. He even admits this in a video that was floating around a couple of years ago. So let's not hold our own people up to a mythical standard that doesn't exist unless we're talking about Congressional voting records.

[sailingaway]

No, Matt, the point is Ron never sold out. He had specific rules and he would explain them. He never went to vote on behalf of people for one thing then sold his vote. Ever.

He didn't 'admit' his support for those he didn't like, he specifically explained why he was doing it, then never campaigned for them and it was pretty clear who fell in that category because he defined it.

But he never ever sold his vote.

[Matt Collins]

And I'm sure whatever they were promised will materialize because Preibus is so principled and would never go back on his word or say... Change rules without a majority... Or be complicit in getting delegates "lost" or helping misappropriate funds or....Preibus had nothing to do with any of those shenanigans, unless you have proof otherwise? :rolleyes:

That being said, the quickest way to create mortal enemies and lose one's high ground is to openly backstab people. Romney did it at the Convention and lost the election because of it. Professional political operatives typically don't make backroom deals and then not follow up, really bad things tend to happen as a result.

[ican'tvote]

This was just a warm up. We'll get em' in 2015.

[Matt Collins]

No, Matt, the point is Ron never sold out. He had specific rules and he would explain them. He never went to vote on behalf of people for one thing then sold his vote. Ever.

He didn't 'admit' his support for those he didn't like, he specifically explained why he was doing it, then never campaigned for them and it was pretty clear who fell in that category because he defined it.

But he never ever sold his vote.
Uh yeah, he actually DID endorse establishment candidates in the past.

[kathy88]

The point is that Ron, even as "pure" as he is, has had to hold his nose and go along with supporting people he didn't want to over the years. He even admits this in a video that was floating around a couple of years ago. So let's not hold our own people up to a mythical standard that doesn't exist unless we're talking about Congressional voting records.Bullshit Matt. All these " liberty candidates" promised not to play politics, promised it would be different. And don't go all you don't understand politics on me, I voted for Ron when you were still sucking your mamas tit. I understand that the ass kissing compromising give a lot to get a little doesn't work. It's all or nothing time.

[paulbot24]

Jesus Collins. I know you've earned your stripes and that's all good, but you don't need to inflate your head to match them.

[sailingaway]

Uh yeah, he actually DID endorse establishment candidates in the past.



I never said he didn't. You didn't address what I DID say. When I completely blew holes in your earlier statement, you just switched to another statement, continuously attacking Ron. Yet you don't want us to hold others to his standard.

Odd.

[Matt Collins]

Bullshit Matt. All these " liberty candidates" promised not to play politics, promised it would be different.Politics is human nature, it exists regardless of whether you want it to or not.

That being said, the options are clear, you have 2 choices - get something out of it, or get neutered for the long term (which would include damaging your ability to affect the outcome in 2016). The choice is obvious, and they clearly made the best decision that they could.

They are fighting a war, not just this battle; sorry that you can't see that.


It's all or nothing time.Most of the time I would agree with this, but in this situation, it simply wasn't possible.

Are you a member of the LP? :confused:

[fr33]

It's not "caving" or "selling out" if you use your leverage to get something you need from them that they wouldn't have given otherwise (especially since you were guaranteed to lose if you fought).

We aren't getting shit. You're a goddamned sheep. Boehner reelected. Priebus reelected. The chair says neocon election losers still have the power. Tilting at windmills is what I want to do.

[Matt Collins]

We aren't getting shit. Really? How do you know, were you there in the meetings? :confused: :rolleyes:

[fr33]

The more we lose these smaller battles, the more I dislike Rand's play nice strategy. These petty tyrants aren't going to work with our candidate. They won't even acknowledge that Priebus is an election loser.

[Matt Collins]

Let me pose this question to you -

Do you think it better or worse that going into 2016 the Iowa and Nevada Republican Parties are filled with Ron Paul supporters from 2012?

[kathy88]

Let me pose this question to you -

Do you think it better or worse that going into 2016 the Iowa and Nevada Republican Parties are filled with Ron Paul supporters from 2012?
I think after caving on this very small issue (we know Preibus had it sewn up) that it remains to be seen whether they are supporters or not. They had a chance to dig their heels in and all but one caved to a tiny bit of pressure. What happens when something real is at stake?

[Occam's Banana]

since when to the terms 'Paul' and 'abortion' go together?

George Orwell knows ...

[fr33]

Let me pose this question to you -

Do you think it better or worse that going into 2016 the Iowa and Nevada Republican Parties are filled with Ron Paul supporters from 2012? Change the subject eh? I'm starting to think I should make a file to store links to your predictions on this forum. Just to necro-bump this crap when you told us while we were actually losing, we were winning.

[Matt Collins]

Change the subject eh? It's not changing the subject, it's exactly ON the subject.

Their actions now are laying the groundwork for 2016.

[american.swan]

I agree we need to be principled... I also agree with Matt.

Each situation is different. We don't want to lose ground over some fight we can't win. I'm concerned about the battered syndrome mentioned but that doesn't always apply.

[Natural Citizen]

You know...the thing is that when we spend all of that time and hard work climbing that big old hill, too often we think we're going to just stroll into the castle. Of course, it's only when you get to the top of it that you have a good enough view to see the next three you have to climb to get to where yer headed. True story...

I blame it on addiction to social networking and smart gadgets and all of that. You know? It's like we see a gazillion likes on some dolt's facebook and we think that things get done that way. Everything is so simple and folks just don't want to walk the mile. Just want to hop skip and google everything. Maybe stop and grab a large fry along the way or something. :rolleyes:

[Imperial]

I think after caving on this very small issue (we know Preibus had it sewn up) that it remains to be seen whether they are supporters or not. They had a chance to dig their heels in and all but one caved to a tiny bit of pressure. What happens when something real is at stake?

There was something else at stake. It is sad but true that the state parties in Iowa and Nevada are routinely criticized for their lackluster fundraising. Part of that is a decline in support from the national party, sure, but another is that when you take over a party, the fundraising networks longtime leaders had built do not necessarily transfer. This is particularly true if it is more of a coup than a transition.

I am not saying this to criticize taking over those parties. However, it does mean if there is an opportunity to make demands of the national party, you should consider taking that chance. As Smack said, they extracted certain promises there in Nevada, where the lack of national money hurt particularly badly. And Iowa probably got a chance to ease relations with some of their major donors who are holding back as well. It gives us more credibility when 2016 rolls around and we try to build a coalition that had larger potential than Ron's.

By the way, the national committees around presidential election time are routinely hijacked by the presumptive presidential campaign, whose supporters begin staffing up the ranks of the national party. It is how it works every cycle in both parties, and it is one reason among many why elections are more candidate-centric than party-centric in the US.

[american.swan]

We must pick our battles carefully. We aren't going anywhere if we don't.

[devil21]

^^^^^^
The few posts above are great.

[eleganz]

It's not changing the subject, it's exactly ON the subject.

Their actions now are laying the groundwork for 2016.

Please don't tell me Priebus promised he would go easy on Rand in 2016. Priebus' word means abso-fucking-lutely nothing, especially after he lied, ON CAMERA, about us not turning in Ron's nomination paperwork in on time.

[magoo7042]

"you only fight when you know you can win." the art of war

[FSP-Rebel]

There was something else at stake. It is sad but true that the state parties in Iowa and Nevada are routinely criticized for their lackluster fundraising. Part of that is a decline in support from the national party, sure, but another is that when you take over a party, the fundraising networks longtime leaders had built do not necessarily transfer. This is particularly true if it is more of a coup than a transition.

Makes sense but I'm wondering what is going on with the MNGOP. I thought we had some clout up top that could've offered support for Willis and that maybe they chose to fight another day. Anyways, the simple fact here is that Willis got in way too late and didn't ride the anti-establishment wave of the purges or the bogus debt deal that would've gotten him more grassroots folks focused on the RNC chair effort. And faced with a last minute effort to take on an entrenched national chair, it's easy to see why certain parties sought concessions instead of pumping up their chests in defiance.

Let's face it, Ron didn't even bother getting in on it and Rand is doing exactly what I thought he'd do at this stage of the game. So the Ron-1st folks shouldn't be that uptight about this and Rand's "play nice" w/ the est got him a prime spot on the Foreign Relations Comm which allowed him to attack Hillary and make major waves for the last few days.

[Uriah]

I think after caving on this very small issue (we know Preibus had it sewn up) that it remains to be seen whether they are supporters or not. They had a chance to dig their heels in and all but one caved to a tiny bit of pressure. What happens when something real is at stake?


I mostly share your sentiments. So, they chipped around the edges. Doesn't mean they will back down on bigger issues. Maybe it means they are willing to back down on smaller issues to make gains and then be stronger when they stand up for more important things. I'm not trying to argue against you rather just giving my perspective.

[Athan]

Guys.. find out what happened. NONE of us are making nice with priebus. Just a few individuals that may know something we were not aware of.

[sailingaway]

We can be upset about someone who helped persuade one of our better activists to put himself on the line by promising support withdrawing it at the key moment in an appearance of caving support when he was still fighting for his states to nomination, and had appointments with state GOP chairs to try to get that last state.

Some here think it is ok to cave at that point for personal influence advancement, others think you need to represent those who put you in power, not the establishment, through the end of the task you took on.

I am kinda sorry about Ron's not endorsing (I didn't expect anything of Rand) but as with Iowa, people had been asked to stake out positions before Willis ever said he was going to challenge, and he never spoke with Ron to see what plan Ron was working. I'm not sure how much Ron himself even knew about this, in advance. Striker also was hit up by Priebus for a written letter of support the split second he was reelected, very likely before he knew Willis was making this move (Willis said he didn't speak to him.) So there is another lessen here about moving up the drop dead deadline for grass roots if we really want to make a move, as well, and making sure our own know the plan. However, I think we need to deal with those who let people go out on a limb on their promise of support, then sell that out at the last key moment.

BUT I really want those other two names of people who stayed true. I am starting to get the impression we will have a number of people prove less than ideal, and need to identify those who literally may be the next Ron Paul. I may be speaking only for myself, but that is how I feel. These are all good winnowing tools for finding out who those people are.

[nobody's_hero]

Again, long term strategy> short term victories. Win the war, don't kill ourselves for every battle, especially when the battle is a guaranteed loss.

America has had about 237 years of the long-term strategy. Should I expect to enjoy my freedom within the next 1,000 years? Or am I rushing it?

[Occam's Banana]

America has had about 237 years of the long-term strategy. Should I expect to enjoy my freedom within the next 1,000 years? Or am I rushing it?

You may indeed be rushing it. It took several thousands of years just to get to 1776. (And that's not counting pre-history ...)

[nobody's_hero]

You may indeed be rushing it. It took several thousands of years just to get to 1776. (And that's not counting pre-history ...)

I'm growing increasingly wary of a political solution to restoring freedom, though.

In just 8 years, 1775-83, the colonists were able to turn the tide against an out-of-control government, chiefly because they stopped 'playing politics' and just took what was rightfully theirs. They didn't pussy around with it. They didn't worry about getting on the king's good side or bad side. They weren't looking for special favors. They weren't there to shake hands.

They quit looking for a 'long-term' approach and *poof!* America was born.

[XPhobic76]

I'm growing increasingly wary of a political solution to restoring freedom, though.

In just 8 years, 1775-83, the colonists were able to turn the tide against an out-of-control government, chiefly because they stopped 'playing politics' and just took what was rightfully theirs. They didn't pussy around with it. They didn't worry about getting on the king's good side or bad side. They weren't looking for special favors. They weren't there to shake hands.

They quit looking for a 'long-term' approach and *poof!* America was born.

You should read about what went on before that. They spent more than a decade 'playing politics' and trying to find a solution that did not include seperation from England. It wasn't until troops landed in Boston that the shift towards independence started - and even then it took more time to finally declare it. There was no way that the colonists could have gotten the support to win independemce without the work, coalition building, and 'propaganda,' that went on before the war.

[nobody's_hero]

You should read about what went on before that. They spent more than a decade 'playing politics' and trying to find a solution that did not include seperation from England. It wasn't until troops landed in Boston that the shift towards independence started - and even then it took more time to finally declare it. There was no way that the colonists could have gotten the support to win independemce without the work, coalition building, and 'propaganda,' that went on before the war.

"Gentlemen, this meeting can do nothing more to save the country." -- John Adams

[cheapseats]

"Gentlemen, this meeting can do nothing more to save the country." -- John Adams


I'll see your John Adams, and raise you Gladys Knight:


It's sad to think we're not gonna make it
And it's gotten to the point where we just can't fake it
For some ungodly reason we just won't let it die
I guess neither one of us wants to be the first to say goodbye

I keep wondering, what I'm gonna do without you
And I guess you must be wondering that same thing too
So we go on, go on together living a lie
Because neither one of us wants to be the first to say goodbye

Everytime I find the nerve
Everytime I find the nerve to say I'm leaving
Memories, those old memories get in my way
Lord knows, it's only me

Oh, he knows it's me that I'm deceiving
When it comes to saying goodbye
That's a simple word that I just cannot say

There can be no way, there can be no way
This can have a happy ending, no, no
So we just go on hurting and pretending
And convincing ourselves to give it just one more try

Because neither one of us wants to be the first to say
Neither one of us wants to be the first to say
Neither one of us wants to be the first to say
Farewell my love, goodbye

Goodbye

[Working Poor]

I think republicans will fight us to the bitter end of the party.

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

Authoritarian's that exist in our government, like Priebus, demand compliance and conformity.

You don't have to comply or conform, when you're in our position. But, this is where Matt is correct. You do have to play politics on some level, or we're going nowhere.

They'll just keep rail-roading us into oblivion if you expect to get the whole cake in one election.

[eleganz]

This is from Bryan, the guy that ran Mark's campaign for RNC Chair.


Bryan Daugherty
Just sat down with AJ Spiker, we chatted about his support letter and the rules - we may not share the same political approach or tactics but I do appreciate the fact that he is on our side. He told me that he had already given priebus his support before Mark entered the race. You cannot fault someone for keeping their word - but I told him next time not to be so quick to endorse an unchallenged opponent. Interesting conversation none the less.

[Imperial]

Makes sense but I'm wondering what is going on with the MNGOP. I thought we had some clout up top that could've offered support for Willis and that maybe they chose to fight another day. Anyways, the simple fact here is that Willis got in way too late and didn't ride the anti-establishment wave of the purges or the bogus debt deal that would've gotten him more grassroots folks focused on the RNC chair effort. And faced with a last minute effort to take on an entrenched national chair, it's easy to see why certain parties sought concessions instead of pumping up their chests in defiance.

Let's face it, Ron didn't even bother getting in on it and Rand is doing exactly what I thought he'd do at this stage of the game. So the Ron-1st folks shouldn't be that uptight about this and Rand's "play nice" w/ the est got him a prime spot on the Foreign Relations Comm which allowed him to attack Hillary and make major waves for the last few days.

The big difference in MN (where I do most of my politicking at college) is that the RNC Committee members are not elected by the general convention. Instead, a smaller body, State Central, chose the RNC Committeeman and RNC Committeewoman. One of the committeemen, Jeff Johnson, was re-elected easily. He defeated former gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer for that spot previously, and while Emmer was friendly with us, Johnson has been fair as well.

In the Committeewoman race, we had somebody who privately supported Ron Paul and everyone knew it, Pat Anderson. She was one of the three who really dug up the party's financial scandal, but with Paulites swamping the delegate vote and getting Kurt Bills the Senate nod, she kind of became collateral damage. State Central was full of more traditional GOP activists, many who were either denied delegate spots at state or had friends and other longtime activists who were. Anderson was something of collateral damage. Her replacement, Janet Beihoffer, has not been a bad Committeewoman and started as a grassroots activist herself, but like Johnson she wasn't a Paulite.

So basically even though Paul supporters are in a good position, they couldn't take over everything. And while the state party officers have all been willing to oppose the national rules changes that we have been upset about, challenging Priebus is different. I assume they saw no reason to oppose Priebus himself when it didn't look like he could lose.

Our candidate for US Senate, Kurt Bills, had a record defeat at the hands of Senator Amy Klobuchar. The race was unwinnable. The state party did not have the means to provide support that it had traditionally provided in the past (due to financial issues), Kurt's campaign team made some mistakes with direct voter contact, some establishment folks switched to other races, and some of the more radical Paulites abandoned Kurt as having sold about to Romney right before the RNC. Pile on the fact that both the national party and your big pacs (CFG, LFA, FreedomWorks) stayed out b/c Senator Klobuchar was a very strong incumbent who ran ads targeting Republicans and independents, and you had a blowout on your hands. However, the fallout from that race means Paulites get a lot of blame. The current leadership is more balancing between rival factions and trying to get the party back in the black. From that perspective, it wouldn't make sense to throw in completely with the Paulites by challenging Priebus and angering the rest of their MNGOP folks.




We can be upset about someone who helped persuade one of our better activists to put himself on the line by promising support withdrawing it at the key moment in an appearance of caving support when he was still fighting for his states to nomination, and had appointments with state GOP chairs to try to get that last state.

Some here think it is ok to cave at that point for personal influence advancement, others think you need to represent those who put you in power, not the establishment, through the end of the task you took on.

I don't think that is fair. Smack arguably was not just helping himself, but also creating bridges in Nevada to try to help our credibility there. So while we can criticize him for making the move, others will then criticize those people for wasting opportunities to help us in the future. To put it simply, both paths have tradeoffs that are worth considering and are legitimate.

[sailingaway]

In MN it was a pretty open secret the GOP establishment were only planning to run the guy they were pushing to get him name recognition, so blame for losing seems a bit much.

As to the other, doubtless that is what he will say back in Nevada. The question is why did he agree to back Mark to begin with if he was only going to ditch him in the crunch? I think it was shabby.

[Occam's Banana]

I think republicans will fight us to the bitter end of the party.

I very much hope that they do. Then we'll be in a position to take fullest advantage of the GOP's collapse.

There have only ever been two major parties in America at any given time in US history. The only way that 3rd-party/independent "movements" have ever achieved major party status in America is (1) by taking over one of the major parties from the "inside" (as the progressive movement did to the Democrats), or (2) by replacing one of the major parties when it collapses (as the Republicans did after the dissolution of the Whigs).

If we disengage from the GOP and the GOP collapses, we'll have missed an historic opportunity.

[Imperial]

In MN it was a pretty open secret the GOP establishment were only planning to run the guy they were pushing to get him name recognition, so blame for losing seems a bit much.


Bit more complicated than that. Many 'establishment' GOPers were split between either Dan Severson or Pete Hegseth. A few liberty people wanted Severson, and even one or two wanted Hegseth. And Kurt Bills had support among some traditional Republicans due to his being a member in the state legislature (particularly among his colleagues). I agree he should not receive the majority of the blame, mainly because the race was unwinnable for anyone in that environment against Klobuchar. However, mistakes were made, and we should not deny that moving forward either (not saying you are denying those mistakes, for the record).



As to the other, doubtless that is what he will say back in Nevada. The question is why did he agree to back Mark to begin with if he was only going to ditch him in the crunch? I think it was shabby.

The problem here is none of us can read his mind. We don't know if he was "only going to ditch him in the crunch." I would guess he did not anticipate having a shot at a private dinner with Priebus to discuss his grievances intimately. Maybe he did plan that all along though. So you can look at it from two angles.

1. Smack planned to defect from the beginning, and chose to back Mark long enough to get Priebus' attention and advance himself through a deal.

2. Smack legitimately supported Mark and, seeing that it was unlikely a third state would nominate him, decided to take advantage of Priebus wanting unanimity to help his local group.

Personally, I am more inclined to lean towards the second formulation of the two, but I think we are both predisposed to see this in a certain way and won't convince each other otherwise.

[Occam's Banana]

I'm growing increasingly wary of a political solution to restoring freedom, though.

I feel you, brother. Here's the problem, though. There IS NO political solution to restoring freedom. Liberty cannot be achieved by political means. Politics* is the antithesis of true liberty.

Nevertheless, politics is a very useful (indeed, a critically important) locus for establishing and promoting the "social credibility" of certain critical socio-economic ideas & principles.

This is why the political system must be engaged - not to achieve liberty by "taking over the government" (that is not possible) but to give our principles & beliefs significantly more "currency" than they would otherwise have.

Some of the best examples of the liberty movement's success in this regard is the increased (and increasing) awareness of issues such as central banking & sound money, nullification, and non-interventionism.

* where politics is defined as the process of making rules to be imposed upon a society by an institution that asserts monopoly privelege in the use & application of force.


In just 8 years, 1775-83, the colonists were able to turn the tide against an out-of-control government, chiefly because they stopped 'playing politics' and just took what was rightfully theirs. They didn't pussy around with it. They didn't worry about getting on the king's good side or bad side. They weren't looking for special favors. They weren't there to shake hands.

They quit looking for a 'long-term' approach and *poof!* America was born.

Unfortunately, we live in a very different world today. The colonists lived in a frontier world where self-responsibility was an absolute requirement, just for survival. This necessarily fostered strong strains of independence and mistrust of authority - which are absolutely essential for any truly free and civil society. (This, I believe, is one of the major reasons for the dramatic differences between the results of the American Revolution and the French Revolution.)

Today, we live in a very "settled" world without any real frontiers. That isn't likely to change for a very long time (if ever). So we're going to have to find other ways to achieve our goals. As things currently stand, any (physical) revolution we might have is far, far more likely to be "French" (in nature and outcome) than "American".

[eleganz]

1. Smack planned to defect from the beginning, and chose to back Mark long enough to get Priebus' attention and advance himself through a deal.

2. Smack legitimately supported Mark and, seeing that it was unlikely a third state would nominate him, decided to take advantage of Priebus wanting unanimity to help his local group.

Personally, I am more inclined to lean towards the second formulation of the two, but I think we are both predisposed to see this in a certain way and won't convince each other otherwise.

It was probably number two but number one would've been genius. Priebus was desperate to run unopposed, his last ditch effort to fly to Nevada before the convention when he was going to meet Smack in a few days shows it. I think all of our liberty people should've done this if that is the case. Play Priebus instead of the other way around.

If he reads DP, I'm sure he reads RPF...I Mean...how can you not?

[ClydeCoulter]

This is from Bryan, the guy that ran Mark's campaign for RNC Chair.

Bryan Daugherty
Just sat down with AJ Spiker, we chatted about his support letter and the rules - we may not share the same political approach or tactics but I do appreciate the fact that he is on our side. He told me that he had already given priebus his support before Mark entered the race. You cannot fault someone for keeping their word - but I told him next time not to be so quick to endorse an unchallenged opponent. Interesting conversation none the less.


When it's to the establishment, but we can make excuses for it, if it's to the people?

edit: not aimed at you, eleganz.

[Matt Collins]

I think republicans will fight us to the bitter end of the party.The GOP is not monolithic.

The rank-and-file are already coming around to us. The leadership/establishment wants to retain power so they are not inclined to rub the majority of the rank-and-file the wrong way. They tend to shift with the wind, McConnell is a prime example.

[Matt Collins]

The big difference in MN (where I do most of my politicking at college) is that the RNC Committee members are not elected by the general convention. Instead, a smaller body, State Central, chose the RNC Committeeman and RNC Committeewoman. One of the committeemen, Jeff Johnson, was re-elected easily. He defeated former gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer for that spot previously, and while Emmer was friendly with us, Johnson has been fair as well.

In the Committeewoman race, we had somebody who privately supported Ron Paul and everyone knew it, Pat Anderson. She was one of the three who really dug up the party's financial scandal, but with Paulites swamping the delegate vote and getting Kurt Bills the Senate nod, she kind of became collateral damage. State Central was full of more traditional GOP activists, many who were either denied delegate spots at state or had friends and other longtime activists who were. Anderson was something of collateral damage. Her replacement, Janet Beihoffer, has not been a bad Committeewoman and started as a grassroots activist herself, but like Johnson she wasn't a Paulite.

So basically even though Paul supporters are in a good position, they couldn't take over everything. And while the state party officers have all been willing to oppose the national rules changes that we have been upset about, challenging Priebus is different. I assume they saw no reason to oppose Priebus himself when it didn't look like he could lose.

Our candidate for US Senate, Kurt Bills, had a record defeat at the hands of Senator Amy Klobuchar. The race was unwinnable. The state party did not have the means to provide support that it had traditionally provided in the past (due to financial issues), Kurt's campaign team made some mistakes with direct voter contact, some establishment folks switched to other races, and some of the more radical Paulites abandoned Kurt as having sold about to Romney right before the RNC. Pile on the fact that both the national party and your big pacs (CFG, LFA, FreedomWorks) stayed out b/c Senator Klobuchar was a very strong incumbent who ran ads targeting Republicans and independents, and you had a blowout on your hands. However, the fallout from that race means Paulites get a lot of blame. The current leadership is more balancing between rival factions and trying to get the party back in the black. From that perspective, it wouldn't make sense to throw in completely with the Paulites by challenging Priebus and angering the rest of their MNGOP folks.




I don't think that is fair. Smack arguably was not just helping himself, but also creating bridges in Nevada to try to help our credibility there. So while we can criticize him for making the move, others will then criticize those people for wasting opportunities to help us in the future. To put it simply, both paths have tradeoffs that are worth considering and are legitimate.
Very intelligent and well written write-up of the MN situation.

[Matt Collins]

I feel you, brother. Here's the problem, though. There IS NO political solution to restoring freedom. Liberty cannot be achieved by political means. Politics* is the antithesis of true liberty.

Nevertheless, politics is a very useful (indeed, a critically important) locus for establishing and promoting the "social credibility" of certain critical socio-economic ideas & principles.

This is why the political system must be engaged - not to achieve liberty by "taking over the government" (that is not possible) but to give our principles & beliefs significantly more "currency" than they would otherwise have.

Some of the best examples of the liberty movement's success in this regard is the increased (and increasing) awareness of issues such as central banking & sound money, nullification, and non-interventionism.

* where politics is defined as the process of making rules to be imposed upon a society by an institution that asserts monopoly privelege in the use & application of force.



Politics is the adjudication of power. Power is of course the ability to get other people to do what you want them to do. Humans always want to dominate other humans, and politics is how humans decide who gets to do that. Politics is human nature and is inseparable from human relations.

That said, wherever more than 1 human exists politics also exists and that is the world in which we live. Every solution is political.

[Matt Collins]

America has had about 237 years of the long-term strategy. Should I expect to enjoy my freedom within the next 1,000 years? Or am I rushing it?Yes, and the statist's long term strategies have been more fruitful because they are patient and willing to do the work necessary to bring about our agenda. Not to mention it's the nature of government to expand over time.

[Occam's Banana]

Politics is the adjudication of power. Power is of course the ability to get other people to do what you want them to do. Humans always want to dominate other humans, and politics is how humans decide who gets to do that. Politics is human nature and is inseparable from human relations.

This is an equivocation on the meaning of politics. Any relationship based upon or involving power of some kind can be referred to as "political" (such as "family" politics, or "office" politics, or what-have-you).

Involving such conceptions of politics in the current context is obfuscatory, however, and resolves nothing. We are specifically discussing "politics" as it is traditionally and typically understood.

That is, we are specifically addressing "state" politics - the forcible monopolization of socio-economic rule-making and rule-imposing processes.

Noting that there is a broader sense (or other venues) in which the term "politics" might be employed is irrelevant - we are not talking about that broader sense (or those other venues).

The fact that parents exercise power over their children (for just one of many possible examples) and that this relationship can in some sense be described as "political" has nothing to do with anything being discussed here.


That said, wherever more than 1 human exists politics also exists and that is the world in which we live. Every solution is political.

That is a vast over-generalization. The subject matter of politics, when defined in this way, is so greatly attenuated and all-encompassing that it becomes essentially useless.

"That which explains everything explains nothing."

[Matt Collins]

This is an equivocation on the meaning of politics. Any relationship based upon or involving power of some kind can be referred to as "political" (such as "family" politics, or "office" politics, or what-have-you).

Involving such conceptions of politics in the current context is obfuscatory, however, and resolves nothing. We are specifically discussing "politics" as it is traditionally and typically understood.

That is, we are specifically addressing "state" politics - the forcible monopolization of socio-economic rule-making and rule-imposing processes.

Noting that there is a broader sense (or other venues) in which the term "politics" might be employed is irrelevant - we are not talking about that broader sense (or those other venues).

The fact that parents exercise power over their children (for just one of many possible examples) and that this relationship can in some sense be described as "political" has nothing to do with anything being discussed here.There is no difference between the types of political power that you describe, except that the government (whose policies are the result of politics) happens at the end of a gun. But that is just a result, not the cause.

[FSP-Rebel]

If we disengage from the GOP and the GOP collapses, we'll have missed an historic opportunity.
Sage advice. It's the many doom and gloom margin outliers that are the ones that don't want a part of this strategy. Go figure

[acptulsa]

Preibus had nothing to do with any of those shenanigans, unless you have proof otherwise? :rolleyes:

So, being the figurehead at the podium ignoring valid objections and motions from the membership and reading the teleprompter regardless of the outcomes of the voice votes 'had nothing to do' with the rules violations and the disenfranchisement of people at the RNC? Collins, use your head. Priebus is the one and only person we can specifically pin this on. If he didn't have something to do with it, it didn't happen. And we all saw it happen.


That being said, the quickest way to create mortal enemies and lose one's high ground is to openly backstab people. Romney did it at the Convention and lost the election because of it. Professional political operatives typically don't make backroom deals and then not follow up, really bad things tend to happen as a result.

Priebus stabbed every delegate at the convention by making their very presence meaningless. And he didn't stick the knife in their backs, either. Who are these people you're so worried about Priebus stabbing in the back when the people he already stabbed in the back are us?


Let me pose this question to you -

Do you think it better or worse that going into 2016 the Iowa and Nevada Republican Parties are filled with Ron Paul supporters from 2012?


Let me answer that question with a question:

Do you think they were going to chase these people out of their county and state conventions with sticks and tasers?

'Let us have business as usual and we won't kick your state's people out of your state's party' isn't exactly the deal of the century, Matt. What part of 'these parties are presumed to be made up of the citizens of the Republic' do you not understand? The Iowa and Nevada state GOP organizations aren't open to the public by Dispensation of the King. They're open to the public because this is allegedly a Republic.

If you can't grasp this simple fact, what are you doing playing at politics, and what are you thinking trying to comment on it here?


Yes, and the statist's long term strategies have been more fruitful because they are patient and willing to do the work necessary to bring about our agenda. Not to mention it's the nature of government to expand over time.

'Our'? 'Our' agenda?

A stunning admission, Collins. And long overdue.

[Matt Collins]

So, being the figurehead at the podium ignoring valid objections and motions from the membership and reading the teleprompter regardless of the outcomes of the voice votes 'had nothing to do' with the rules violations and the disenfranchisement of people at the RNC? Collins, use your head. Priebus is the one and only person we can specifically pin this on. If he didn't have something to do with it, it didn't happen. And we all saw it happen.You fail to understand intraparty politics.

[Occam's Banana]

There is no difference between the types of political power that you describe, except that the government (whose policies are the result of politics) happens at the end of a gun. But that is just a result, not the cause.

Of course there is a difference. In fact, there are LOTS of differences, and those differences are vast. And the significance of those differences are profound in their implications.

State power is wholly predicated on the initiation of force (it always "happens at the end of a gun" as you noted). All by itself, THAT is a difference of major significance. "Government is force" - and you can't force people to be free. It's a contradiction in terms. This is why "state" politics is antithetical to liberty. This is why freedom cannot ever be achieved by political means (with "political" in this context meaning "state" politics specifically - NOT some vague, diversionary hand-waving about how all human relationships are "political" in some sense).

But there are other major differences. To name just a few off the top of my head:
State power is imposed on thousands, millions or even billions of people simultaneously.
State power is exercised on behalf of an elite few for their enrichment (at the expense of nearly everyone else in society, directly or indirectly).
State power is highly corrosive of other more efficient & effective means of distributing & managing power relationships.
State power is extremely attractive to sociopaths & parasites (while strongly tending to be repulsive to peaceful, productive people).
Etc., etc. etc.

[acptulsa]

You fail to understand intraparty politics.

I understand intraparty politics. You fail to understand the true nature of a genuine, functional republic. And seem to like it that way.

But you said yourself you were a statist--or, at least, invested in the statist agenda. So, of course you'll come off with the age-old standby, 'If you want to make a difference, you have to give up on making a difference, and if you don't believe that it's because you don't understand politics.'

[Matt Collins]

But you said yourself you were a statist--or, at least, invested in the statist agenda. So, of course you'll come off with the age-old standby, 'If you want to make a difference, you have to give up on making a difference, and if you don't believe that it's because you don't understand politics.'Not at all, and now you're putting words in my mouth.

[acptulsa]

Ok, if you can't beat them, then get whatever you can out of them which is what happened.


I am wiling to bet (I have no insider info) that AJ Spiker is now less concerned about losing control of the Iowa GOP because Prebius is more favorable to him. Same for the NVGOP. This will be important come 2016 when Rand runs for President.

Again, long term strategy> short term victories. Win the war, don't kill ourselves for every battle, especially when the battle is a guaranteed loss.

On the previous page I quoted you explicitly saying the former. Here we have you essentially saying the latter.

Now, Matt, what words exactly did I 'put in your mouth'?

[Matt Collins]

Of course there is a difference. In fact, there are LOTS of differences, and those differences are vast. And the significance of those differences are profound in their implications.

State power is wholly predicated on the initiation of force (it always "happens at the end of a gun" as you noted). All by itself, THAT is a difference of major significance. "Government is force" - and you can't force people to be free. It's a contradiction in terms. This is why "state" politics is antithetical to liberty. This is why freedom cannot ever be achieved by political means (with "political" in this context meaning "state" politics specifically - NOT some vague, diversionary hand-waving about how all human relationships are "political" in some sense).

But there are other major differences. To name just a few off the top of my head:
State power is imposed on thousands, millions or even billions of people simultaneously.
State power is exercised on behalf of an elite few for their enrichment (at the expense of nearly everyone else in society, directly or indirectly).
State power is highly corrosive of other more efficient & effective means of distributing & managing power relationships.
State power is extremely attractive to sociopaths & parasites (while strongly tending to be repulsive to peaceful, productive people).
Etc., etc. etc.You're right about all of the above, however that doesn't differentiate that raw power in the hands of the state, or the church, or your school, or social club on its most basic and fundamental level is essentially the same thing: getting others to do what you want them to do.

With the government, yes they use guns to enforce their power, but so does the mob. The point being, the basics of power is still power, whether voluntary or coerced.

[Occam's Banana]

You're right about all of the above, however that doesn't differentiate that raw power in the hands of the state, or the church, or your school, or social club on its most basic and fundamental level is essentially the same thing: getting others to do what you want them to do.

With the government, yes they use guns to enforce their power, but so does the mob. The point being, the basics of power is still power, whether voluntary or coerced.

And again, these observations (however true they might be), are so general as to be useless when it comes to the particular topic at hand - which is "state" politics (not "church" politics, nor "social" politics, nor "family" politics, nor "office" politics, nor "whatever" politics ...).

Suppose we were treading water somewhere out in the middle of the ocean.

I say to you, "Matt, we should get our shark repellent ready in case any sharks come by."

Then you say, "In that case, we should also get our tiger-repellent ready in case any tigers come by."

Then I ask, "Matt, what the hell are you talking about? We're in the middle of the ocean!"

Then you answer, "Well, sharks are man-eating animals. We are on the lookout for sharks. Therfore, we are on the lookout for man-eating animals."

You go on to say, "Tigers are man-eating animals. Since we are on the lookout for man-eating animals, we should also be on the lookout for tigers."

The above is the equivalent of what you are doing in our discussion in this thread. You are vastly over-generalizing.

Sharks and tigers are indeed both man-eating animals. But they have many, many differences - and when you're treading water in the middle of an ocean, those differences are critically important and profoundly significant.

In your previous post (quoted above) you said: "[...] that doesn't differentiate [sic] that raw power in the hands of the state, or the church, or your school, or social club on its most basic and fundamental level is essentially the same thing: getting others to do what you want them to do." This amounts to saying: "[...] that doesn't differentiate [sic] that sharks and tigers at the most basic and fundamental level are essentially the same thing: they are man-eating animals." This is true - but so what? We're not talking about high-order abstractions at "the most basic and fundamental level". We are talking about State-engendered politics, not about "raw power" (in all its myriad manisfestations) or "getting others to do what you want them to do" (in any general sense).

We are talking on the level of differentia, not genera. IOW: We are talking about sharks, not about man-eating animals.

[Czolgosz]

Politics may buy some "liberties," but you won't acheive freedom without blood.

[Matt Collins]

We are talking on the level of differentia, not genera. IOW: We are talking about sharks, not about man-eating animals.Brilliant post although I disagree with it. You're claiming that I'm purporting a logical fallacy based on one thing being a subset of another. I say there is no difference in the fundamental existence of power regardless of where or how it's used, except that governmental power is different because it's backed by (legal) force.

[acptulsa]

Brilliant post although I disagree with it. You're claiming that I'm purporting a logical fallacy based on one thing being a subset of another. I say there is no difference in the fundamental existence of power regardless of where or how it's used, except that governmental power is different because it's backed by (legal) force.

You claim I don't understand intraparty politics. But you don't understand intraparty politics yourself. You say there is no difference in the fundamental existence of power regardless of where or how it's used. I say power in the hands of the people and used to responsibly live their own lives is something completely different from power centralized, in a gun if you like, and exerted over others. You act like intraparty politics is some kind of grand game, like a student council writ large, when in fact it's being used as the screening process those in power use to keep 'disruptive elements' (read that 'people who disagree') from having a say. This is power. It's power over who gets to man 'the back end of that gun'. And what Priebus did in Tampa has nothing to do with republican governance.

The Republican Party? Unfortunately, yes. Republican governance? No.

You're like the running back who gets so involved with the yard lines and staying off the sidelines and running his route that he sometimes forgets all about the goal line. There is a goal line, Matt. And a reason we want to get there. If you can't keep sight of it, you'll never be entrusted to be more than a lineman (and a pretty offensive lineman at that). Or water boy, maybe.