Paul captures 20 of 24 Minnesota delegates in CD conventions

posted at 9:21 am on April 24, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

It’s tough these days to be a Republican in Minnesota.  While the party managed to take control of both chambers of the state legislature in 2010 for the first time in decades, the organization is deeply in debt, thanks to mismanagement under previous leadership, and seems at times in total disarray.  A sex scandal in the state Senate leader’s office that forced then-majority leader Amy Koch to give up her position didn’t help either.  The latest stumble has national implications, however:

Minnesota will send 40 delegates to the Republican National Convention. Twenty of the 24 delegates based on congressional districts were awarded to Texas Rep. Ron Paul in selection processes that concluded this weekend.

Thirteen Minnesota delegates will be allocated based on the results of a statewide convention in May, according to Paul campaign senior adviser Doug Wead.

Wead wrote on his blog that GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney is an a “panic” after the Paul landslide. Similar efforts to bolster the Texas congressman’s delegate count are underway in Iowa, Colorado, Maine and other states.

“[A] number of Romney Hawks are now deeply concerned that Ron Paul has already laid the groundwork for similar success in six more caucus states,” Wead wrote.

In Minnesota, delegates get chosen in congressional-district conventions, and they are not bound to any candidate.  I ran for one of these positions in CD-02 on Saturday as part of a “unity slate” backed by GOP candidates for leadership positions in the organization.  None of us even came close to winning; we later found out that the closest anyone else came to winning those slots was more than 100 votes behind the second and third place finishers, who tied.  The same tie occurred when electing alternates.

So what happened?  Paul supporters organized at the local level and got themselves elected as delegates to CD conventions.  They then showed up to the conventions — unlike some others — and played by the rules.  At our convention, there were no disruptions, no demonstrations, no attempts to hijack the proceedings.  The Paul supporters just organized effectively and outboxed the party establishment.  My radio partner Mitch Berg reported that the same thing happened in CD-04, but worries more about what comes next:

Some of their leadership was motivated by fairly palpable anger over the “way they were treated in 2008″, when quite a few GOP activists gamed the system to keep the first wave of Paul supporters out of power.  To their political credit, they spent their four years organizing, and did a good job of it.

Less to their credit?  While anger is a good motivator, “anger at the inner workings of a political party” has, I’m going to guess, a short shelf life.   And at least in the Fourth CD, the anger was manifested by ballot.  The twitter stream during the convention indicated that at other districts, Paul supporters booed Dan Severson and Pete Hegseth, whose main transgression was “not being Kurt Bills”, the Paul crowd’s candidate for Senate, or refusing to stand to support John Kline at the 2nd District convention when he was re-endorsed. …

While the crowd of Paul supporters at the convention Saturday carefully replaced their “Ron Paul” posters and stickers with “Kurt Bills” goodies, and voted to endorse Tony Hernandez by a 190-5-5 margin (after running a skillful campaign to win support from most of the establishment and Paul crowds), I have yet to hear a lot of support for, or even especially much awareness of, races farther down ticket or, more importantly, for candidates who get endorsed even if they’re not on the Paul slate.

Now, I know that there are a lot of good, committed people among the Paul crowd who are committed to using their positions in the GOP to work for the party, not just a candidate or two.

But I get a different impression from some of their leadership.  Ronald Reagan once said that if someone agrees with you 70% of the time, it doesn’t make them 30% your enemy.

And from some of the Paul crowd’s leadership, I do get the impression that, whether motivated by single-candidate zeal or roiling anger over 2008 or one of the mind-boggling number of byzantine interpersonal pissing matches that seems to motivate so much of CD4 GOP politics no matter who the nominee or the cause celebre or what the defining issue is, the Paul crowd’s leadership, in the district and beyond, sees “70% friends” as “30% enemies”.

The Paul campaign wants to believe that they can replicate this outcome in other caucus states, and it’s certainly possible.  But in Minnesota, they had an opening left by a party in serious disarray.  How serious?  They may soon find themselves homeless:

The Minnesota Republican Party is facing eviction for nonpayment of more than $111,000 in rent at its longtime headquarters near the Capitol.

Republican Party Chairman Pat Shortridge tried to assure party faithful on Monday that he expects the party will keep its home office, but acknowledged that the party has not paid a full month’s rent for a year.

“We’re not going to be evicted,” Shortridge said, although the eviction matter is due to be heard in Ramsey County District court next Tuesday. He added that the party is “continuing to negotiate on the back payments as well as on a lease that better fits both our space needs and our budget.”

The possible eviction is the latest blow for a state Republican Party that is swamped with debt and financial problems. The party, $2 million in arrears on bills and debt related to the 2010 gubernatorial recount, is being investigated by the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board for inaccurate campaign reporting.

This isn’t the fault of Shortridge, who just recently took the party chair position to try to right the ship.  The state GOP has had to focus on rebuilding its fiscal position more than the internal and external politics of the 2012 cycle.  Without that kind of focus, the party didn’t have the resources to deal with the Paul organization, and the delegate wins are one consequence.  That’s actually a minor consequence compared to what will happen if the state GOP doesn’t recover in time to organize for its effort in November to hold their legislative advantages, to say nothing of the mission to replace Amy Klobuchar in the US Senate.

Even if the Paul organization managed to steal a march in the caucus states, it’s not likely to damage Mitt Romney, at least not directly.  Rick Santorum was winning more of the caucus states, so the delegates will mostly come from his column, not Romney’s.  The only real threat will be that Paul delegates might embarrass the party at the convention by staging some kind of organized demonstration, but Ron Paul himself would probably keep that from happening; he wants to build the organization so that his son can use it within the GOP, not to excise Rand from the GOP.  And once again, the Paul supporters in the CD-02 convention didn’t aim at disruption at all — just victory for their cause.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Libertarians aren’t anarchists, but I suspect you know that and are ignoring it to further a narrative.

El Dillo on April 24, 2012 at 12:48 PM

jimver on April 24, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Is that a tacit admission that you are a big-gov person?

iwasbornwithit on April 24, 2012 at 12:49 PM

jimver on April 24, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Oh yeah, because wanting to restrict the government to its Constitutionally-defined role is totally the same thing as wanting to abolish all government. Uh-huh.

Inkblots on April 24, 2012 at 12:49 PM

But don’t be a sore loser about it – it’s unbecoming of you.

Inkblots on April 24, 2012 at 12:39 PM

I’m sure Minnesota will think very hard about changing their system after this embarrassment. The entire caucus system is flawed and should be placed in the dustbin of history.

Still, it’s very telling that you’re positively giddy that the will of the majority of the GOP rank and file was discarded over technicalities.

My point stands – all the Ronbots claims of their Grand Poo-bah’s popularity falls flat, when you look at actual election results. If he comes in dead last in open primaries, he cannot possibly win in a general election.

Rebar on April 24, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Easy arithmetic. That is if the money we “give” to Israel would actually stay there.

Can you name another recipient of our foreign aid monies that generates/keeps US jobs?

riddick on April 24, 2012 at 12:43 PM

easy arithmetic you say, you overestimate a paulbot intelligence…by a lot…

jimver on April 24, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Geez none of this matters. Ron Paul will never be President…period. Come on, even his supporters have to know that, you’re as bad as Nader supporters. He and his supporters will have no influence on anything, nevr have, never will. You may dream about it but it won’t happen. It’s a waste of time and money, end of discussion.

Deanna on April 24, 2012 at 12:50 PM

El Dillo said:

Amazing how members of the party that’s SUPPOSED to be for maximum liberty, minimal government intrusion, responsible spending, and the like are spewing so much bile at the candidates and people who are actually espousing said beliefs.

Note to the GOP: we libertarians/conservatives are not trying to kill the Republican Party; we’re trying to make them WHAT THEY SAY THEY’VE BEEN ALL ALONG.

Principles before party.

Good point, but we need to define our terms. “Members of the party” are those Repubs. who actually become “voting members” of their local Party committee. Who then have the right to vote for the Party officers, directly or indirectly, of the local, county, state and national committees. How this all works is governed by the rules and/or bylaws of the state party committees and the state’s election code.

Some here have said the primary/caucus system needs to be changed. The ONLY way to change it is to get inside the Party.

Sure, through manipulating the caucus process in various places. He has almost no support among actual voters, though.

crosspatch on April 24, 2012 at 12:05 PM

By “manipulating the caucus process”, do you mean showing up to vote for delegates at the caucuses, just like anyone else could do? Or are you suggesting something more nefarious.

And there IS manipulation of the process occurring, but it ain’t the Paul folks doing the manipulating. Glad to see that you care about the integrity of the process though.

iwasbornwithit on April 24, 2012 at 12:09 PM

The Paul people in MN are not “manipulating” anything — they’ve read the rules, they’ve united, and they’ve organized for legitimate political action. Unlike the conservatives there. Well, maybe the conservatives have united and organized, but not in numbers sufficient to outnumber the Paul supporters.

Go to GOP.com and see if you can find a word about the fact that about half of the local Party precinct committeeman slots across the country are vacant, or that about one-third of the precincts in the country have not even one Republican PC. The “establishment” doesn’t want you to know this. Ever hear a conservative candidate tell you any of this? Every see this explained in a RNC, NRCC or NRSC mailer asking you to fill out a survey and send money? They want you to volunteer your time and money, but they do NOT want you to know how to actually change the Party from within, because if the status quo changes then they and their buddies in the Party machinery might be voted out.

Some state, county and local committees do not want the “mere” registered Republicans to find out how basic civics works in terms of participating inside the Republican Party. But where conservatives are in the majority, they often “spread the word” to try to get even more conservatives inside the Party to strengthen it.

We conservatives in AZ have had great success in electing more conservatives to the officer slots in the local, county and state Party committees. Why? Because we recruited thousands of conservatives form the tea party and other grass roots conservative groups to come into the Party as precinct committeemen. Some of them are already county committee chairmen.

Go to http://www.azgop.org and http://www.maricopagop.org, where we DO explain “how it works” and why it’s important to get inside the Party.

Thank you.

Cold Warrior on April 24, 2012 at 12:50 PM

My point stands – all the Ronbots claims of their Grand Poo-bah’s popularity falls flat, when you look at actual election results. If he comes in dead last in open primaries, he cannot possibly win in a general election.

Rebar on April 24, 2012 at 12:49 PM

And yet, he still polls better against Obama than Romney? How ominous…

Inkblots on April 24, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Well stated. Kind of ironic that RP doesn’t want to support an underdog ally, but proffers himself as such.

Christien on April 24, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Its amazing that such a large group of US public is so clueless on the subject. As the saying goes, Follow the money…

Every time I hear “We need to stop giving Israel money” I know that I am dealing with a closet anti-semite.

riddick on April 24, 2012 at 12:51 PM

FIFY

jimver on April 24, 2012 at 12:47 PM

That’s just silly, the founding fathers weren’t anarchists.

FloatingRock on April 24, 2012 at 12:51 PM

easy arithmetic you say, you overestimate a paulbot intelligence…by a lot…

jimver on April 24, 2012 at 12:50 PM

I really don’t think so, read some of my posts elsewhere.

riddick on April 24, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Ron Paul = Anti-Israel.

UODuckMan on April 24, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Incorrect, sir. Not wanting Israel to be beholden to our beck and call, and thinking instead we ought to allow them to operate as a dignified foreign nation ≠ being anti-Israel.

thirtyandseven on April 24, 2012 at 12:52 PM

This is exactly why no states should use the caucus process, especially a multi-stage one, to select their delegates. A fringe candidate with a following of, er, extremely motivated supporters can skew the results so that they do not reflect the will of the voters as a whole.

In any case, the number of states that select delegates in this fashion, and the total number of delegates that can be hijacked thusly, is relatively small. And I think most of them were assumed to be going to Santorum, not Romney, anyway.

HTL on April 24, 2012 at 12:52 PM

easy arithmetic you say, you overestimate a paulbot intelligence…by a lot…

jimver on April 24, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Republicans are stupid.

Every Democrat ever on (insert date here) at (insert time her)

Seeing a parallel?

El Dillo on April 24, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Rebar on April 24, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Yep. Even more problematic for the good doctor is his marked propensity for winning congressional term after term after term after term, rather than finding the wherewithall to work himself out of an extremely plush job.

Christien on April 24, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Its amazing that such a large group of US public is so clueless on the subject. As the saying goes, Follow the money…

riddick on April 24, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Paul wants to end ALL foreign aid. But you know that, I believe. Rather than engage with the reality that we can no longer afford to subsidize the lifestyles of foreign nations, let alone our own welfare state, it’s easier to resort to cheap smears and pretend all is well, eh?

Inkblots on April 24, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Is that a tacit admission that you are a big-gov person?

iwasbornwithit on April 24, 2012 at 12:49 PM

if by ‘big govt’ you mean normal size govt, then yes :-)…it’s called political realism and it’s better than living in an utopia like you do….

jimver on April 24, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Geez none of this matters. Ron Paul will never be President…period. Come on, even his supporters have to know that, you’re as bad as Nader supporters. He and his supporters will have no influence on anything, nevr have, never will. You may dream about it but it won’t happen. It’s a waste of time and money, end of discussion.

Deanna on April 24, 2012 at 12:50 PM

First of all, Goldwater was never POTUS either. And yet here we are, all of us, each and every one of us, children of Goldwater.

Imagine that.

Second, in what world do you live in which Ralph Nader has not had a crushing effect on our economy and our society?

JohnGalt23 on April 24, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Second, in what world do you live in which Ralph Nader has not had a crushing effect on our economy and our society?

JohnGalt23 on April 24, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Indeed. We’d all be driving much more fuel-efficient cars if it weren’t for Nader, ironically enough.

Inkblots on April 24, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Even more problematic for the good doctor is his marked propensity for winning congressional term after term after term after term, rather than finding the wherewithall to work himself out of an extremely plush job.

Christien on April 24, 2012 at 12:53 PM

$31 Billion in pork, buys a lot of votes.

It also seemed to take up all of his time, since he never, in 30 years, actually accomplished anything else but slop at the trough.

Rebar on April 24, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Paul wants to end ALL foreign aid. But you know that, I believe. Rather than engage with the reality that we can no longer afford to subsidize the lifestyles of foreign nations, let alone our own welfare state, it’s easier to resort to cheap smears and pretend all is well, eh?

Inkblots on April 24, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Read my posts above and tell me where and how did I mention Herr Doktor in my remarks. Please be specific.

I simply stated that A) we do not “give” Israel money, we get it back in spades and B) anyone who still claims this heresy is a closet anti-semite.

If you somehow tied these 2 to Ron Paul, not my point, ITS YOURS.

riddick on April 24, 2012 at 12:57 PM

“Engaging in global society” =/= nation-building or indefinite presence in third world hellholes were a pleasant Sunday is defined as picking off US troops.

The premise is simple: eff with us, and you die. No rebuilding, no ten- or fifty-year presence, nothing. You kill one of us, we end your country with malice. Absent that, protect the homeland first and foremost.

El Dillo on April 24, 2012 at 12:45 PM

This. So much this. Enough of using our best and brightest as glorified babysitters. Enough of ‘nation-building’ when the populace is a bunch of stupid goat-herders. They’ll just use the democracy we help them set up to elect ANOTHER Islamic fascist, as has already happened in recent memory.

Make craters in our cities and we make your cities into giant craters. Continue to eff with us and we render your worthless sandbox of a nation deadly to anyone not wearing a HAZMAT suit.

Uhhh… hardly a strong argument, for anything…

JohnGalt23 on April 24, 2012 at 12:46 PM

It’s like his logic – outdated and invalid.

MelonCollie on April 24, 2012 at 12:57 PM

if by ‘big govt’ you mean normal size govt, then yes :-)…it’s called political realism and it’s better than living in an utopia like you do….

jimver on April 24, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Do you have an objective definition of “normal sized” government? Maybe a document of some kind that CONSTITUTES your vision for the size of government? We do.

El Dillo on April 24, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Rebar on April 24, 2012 at 12:10 PM

The caucus system was made part of the process intentionally so that the GOP elite and the deep-pockets can’t just dictate who the nominee will be each time. Ron Paul and his supporters are working within the system. At my county caucus it was the Romney people who benefited from the monkey business, the Ron Paul people followed the rules.

FloatingRock on April 24, 2012 at 12:59 PM

It has never been independently verified that those people are actually IN the military.

Obama’s lawyer verified Obama has no involvement in the Secret Service scandal.

I guess you just accept that as well.

Washington Nearsider on April 24, 2012 at 12:30 PM

True..

every single time, it all boils down too.. the numbers AS SUPPLIED BY THE PAUL CAMPAIGN..

That’s asinine to suggest asking the guy who benefits, to verify it himself, with no independent confirmation..

No Paul fan would accept that standard of proof from Romney or Obamma.. but they swallow it whole from Paul, without question.

I guess if Paul’s campaign released that Paul can now walk on water and levitate 3 feet above the ground.. they’d accept that too. Because we all know us NEOCON warmongers can’t be trusted..

mark81150 on April 24, 2012 at 1:00 PM

riddick on April 24, 2012 at 12:57 PM

So, do you agree or disagree that we can no longer afford to subsidize foreign nations, whether or not it takes the form of a feed-through to the domestic defense industry?

Because I believe fiscal conservatives should oppose corporate welfare as well, no?

Inkblots on April 24, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Maybe a document of some kind that CONSTITUTES your vision for the size of government? We do.

El Dillo on April 24, 2012 at 12:57 PM

and where do you keep said doc? hidden well under your tin foil hat? :)…

jimver on April 24, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Do you have an objective definition of “normal sized” government? Maybe a document of some kind that CONSTITUTES your vision for the size of government? We do.

El Dillo on April 24, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Oh, well done!

Inkblots on April 24, 2012 at 1:00 PM

One can often tell who is winning the argument by looking at the level of discourse each side relies upon. ;)

Inkblots on April 24, 2012 at 12:43 PM

A bigger tell is ignoring what was posted and just declaring victory without any basis in fact. Not that I’d expect intelligent discourse from a Paul supporter. Too many brain cells destroyed by pot.

Happy Nomad on April 24, 2012 at 1:01 PM

and where do you keep said doc? hidden well under your tin foil hat? :)…

jimver on April 24, 2012 at 1:00 PM

You’re being deliberately obtuse, right? Please say yes, my faith in humanity depends on it.

On the off-chance you’re being serious, you can find it here: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Inkblots on April 24, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Its the youth vote in MN and why not? What is Romney goingto do but screw them even more. The answer is deep spending cuts not mor flaccid wasteful government. That’s what Paul brings and that’s what the smart youth want.

Lonetown on April 24, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Do you have an objective definition of “normal sized” government? Maybe a document of some kind that CONSTITUTES your vision for the size of government? We do.

El Dillo on April 24, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Since you asked for the numbers, then let’s keep it fair. Please provide the numbers in your document, should be interesting to compare them against current numbers.

riddick on April 24, 2012 at 1:02 PM

The caucus system was made part of the process intentionally so that the GOP elite and the deep-pockets can’t just dictate who the nominee will be each time. Ron Paul and his supporters are working within the system. At my county caucus it was the Romney people who benefited from the monkey business, the Ron Paul people followed the rules.

FloatingRock on April 24, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Not to intentionally burst your bubble, but I think it’s been amply demonstrated that the system is broken…

Of course, the system won’t ever work when the populace will not only accept but furiously defend whoever the elites tell them to.

MelonCollie on April 24, 2012 at 1:03 PM

The caucus system was made part of the process intentionally so that the GOP elite and the deep-pockets can’t just dictate who the nominee will be each time.

FloatingRock on April 24, 2012 at 12:59 PM

I already busted that argument.

Polls showed Santorum way ahead in MN. Ronbots manipulated the caucus to give Paul the “win”.

Who is “dictating” to whom here?

Rebar on April 24, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Man, a lot of big government statists over here today! No wonder the ideas of small government in the conservative mind has all but distinguished. “FOREIGN AID! WAR! MORALITY LEGISLATION! CORPORATE WELFARE!, if you don’t agree you are BAT$HIT CRAZY!!!” haha. And we wonder why this country is falling further left each day when even the conservatives are fighting for big government intervention domestically and overseas. Yet those who are against big government across the board and are strict constitutionalists are deemed out of the mainstream. As long as I continue to swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, I will never waver in my support of candidates who will fight for that ideal. Regardless of any chickenhawks (many whom have never served) that will want to claim myself to be “anti-military” even though I’ve spent over ten years of my life in uniform, because of my belief in the Constitution and the teachings of Christ and the Christian theory of “just war”.

RightXBrigade on April 24, 2012 at 1:04 PM

No Paul fan would accept that standard of proof from Romney or Obamma.. but they swallow it whole from Paul, without question.

mark81150 on April 24, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Which, at the end of the day, pretty much sums up my problem with Paul supporters.

They can’t see the real world for what it is, and refuse to even acknowledge data which conflicts with their mindset, all while making outrageous demands and slippery-slope arguments about everyone who doesn’t explicitly and completely agree with them on everything, all the time.

Washington Nearsider on April 24, 2012 at 1:05 PM

A bigger tell is ignoring what was posted and just declaring victory without any basis in fact. Not that I’d expect intelligent discourse from a Paul supporter. Too many brain cells destroyed by pot.

Happy Nomad on April 24, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Well, given that your “arguments” were limited to:
1.) you are a moron;
2.) nuh-uh;
3.) Paul is a whack-job;

there really isn’t too much to engage with, I’m afraid. It seems you must have smoked a lot of pot indeed. Poor decision, in my opinion, but I certainly won’t presume to tell you what you can put in your own body.

Inkblots on April 24, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Of course, the system won’t ever work when the populace will not only accept but furiously defend whoever the elites tell them to.

MelonCollie on April 24, 2012 at 1:03 PM

then go live in a forest or find your own island…ah, but you can’t afford one…

jimver on April 24, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Of course, the system won’t ever work when the populace will not only accept but furiously defend whoever the elites tell them to.

MelonCollie on April 24, 2012 at 1:03 PM

“Elites” are just a part of it. The entire GOP primary process is seriously broken when we allow states who voted for Hussein in 2008 to lead the GOP process for 2012. Either eliminate these “brainiacs” who voted for Hussein in the last round from this round entirely or have them vote at the tail end for 2012.

Actions should have consequences. Rewarding morons only breeds more moronic behavior in the future.

riddick on April 24, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Paul also has a plurality of delegates to quite a few up-coming state conventions. Stay tuned, boys and girls…

Inkblots on April 24, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Sure, through manipulating the caucus process in various places. He has almost no support among actual voters, though.

crosspatch on April 24, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Which raises the question: Will Ron Paul actually become the Establishment candidate?

Naah. Surely not……

tom on April 24, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Regardless of any chickenhawks (many whom have never served) that will want to claim myself to be “anti-military” even though I’ve spent over ten years of my life in uniform, because of my belief in the Constitution and the teachings of Christ and the Christian theory of “just war”.

RightXBrigade on April 24, 2012 at 1:04 PM

blah,blah,blah, blah…still on that soap box?

jimver on April 24, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Link

Rusty Allen on April 24, 2012 at 1:08 PM

First of all, Goldwater was never POTUS either. And yet here we are, all of us, each and every one of us, children of Goldwater.

Imagine that.

Second, in what world do you live in which Ralph Nader has not had a crushing effect on our economy and our society?

JohnGalt23 on April 24, 2012 at 12:55 PM

No we are not “children” of Goldwater. Is the Republican Party or the nation more Conservative today? Everyone thinks that Goldwaterhad a postivie effect when in actuality he also had a detrimental effect. People became more Progressive partly in response to his extremism. he helped LBJ. I worked on campaigns in that era, local and state Repubs, many of whom were very Conservative. A lot of them lost thanks to being linked to Goldwater. As for Nader, you can’t be serious…a “crushing effect” on the economy? That is so laughable as to be typical of a Paul supporter.

Deanna on April 24, 2012 at 1:09 PM

I’ve been an advocate of returning to a Federal Government that actually limits itself to it Constitutionally delegated powers for most of my active political life.

That being said, there has to be a “from here to there” transition.

We all want it to happen over night, but I believe very strongly that it is going to take years.

The first step is to transform the entire mentality of this country.

People have different views as to how best to do that…

For me, I would suggest a kind of “Fabian Conservatism” route. Slow and steady.

Paul gets the kids riled up, to be sure.

But those kids eventually grow up.

Things that make sense to a 20-something seem silly to those of us in our 30′s (or older). That’s why (again, this is just my opinion) its better to build responsible worldviews in our young folks and let those views germinate and become foundational for them.

It should be all flash: end all foreign occupation! let states legalize drugs if they want to! end the fed, like yesterday! eliminate half the government immediately!

Instead, go for the core stuff. Emphasize basic civics. Encourage an understanding about our unique form of government. Talk about the difference between opportunity and entitlement.

Those things take longer to bear fruit… but I believe it would be a more lasting change.

For the more rabid of Paul’s fans, what is your “from here to there” look like?

RightWay79 on April 24, 2012 at 1:09 PM

and where do you keep said doc? hidden well under your tin foil hat? :)…

jimver on April 24, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Since you asked for the numbers, then let’s keep it fair. Please provide the numbers in your document, should be interesting to compare them against current numbers.

riddick on April 24, 2012 at 1:02 PM

It’s a darned shame you can’t link to pictures in this forum. Humor through visuals is my stock and trade, and hoo nelly, would there be a firestorm of facepalm pictures taking up valuable bandwidth right now.

Answer: it’s called the United States Constitution. You might have heard of it.

El Dillo on April 24, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Regardless of any chickenhawks (many whom have never served) that will want to claim myself to be “anti-military” even though I’ve spent over ten years of my life in uniform, because of my belief in the Constitution and the teachings of Christ and the Christian theory of “just war”.

RightXBrigade on April 24, 2012 at 1:04 PM

I served in both theaters of the current wars. I do not support Ron Paul. What does that make me? A baby-killer? A warmonger? An imperialist?

Please be specific. Some of your fellow Paul supporters certainly have been, so I’m interested to see where you come down.

Washington Nearsider on April 24, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Man, a lot of big government statists over here today! No wonder the ideas of small government in the conservative mind has all but distinguished.

RightXBrigade on April 24, 2012 at 1:04 PM

OK, I read this a few times, still no sense. AT ALL.

You mean “EXTINGUISHED”? Please say Yes.

riddick on April 24, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Why are Mittwits so wee-wee’d up about this?

katy the mean old lady on April 24, 2012 at 1:10 PM

riddick on April 24, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Perish the thought that Americans use lawful, constitutional means to assist their own kin abroad.

Christien on April 24, 2012 at 1:11 PM

On the off-chance you’re being serious, you can find it here: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Inkblots on April 24, 2012 at 1:02 PM

yeah, I was dd serious :-), but hey, thank you for linking to the constitution, don’t know where else I could have found said doc without your linky :-)…

jimver on April 24, 2012 at 1:12 PM

dead serious that is…

jimver on April 24, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Answer: it’s called the United States Constitution. You might have heard of it.

El Dillo on April 24, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Faintly. A copy of which is sitting on my desk right now as we “speak” and try as I may I still see no numbers in it. Since I am ignorant by your definition/standards please feel free to point to a particular section which spells out the numbers, clearly. Numbers that you seem to tout and so far failed.

riddick on April 24, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Why are Mittwits so wee-wee’d up about this?

katy the mean old lady on April 24, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Katy, this level of stupidity and name-calling seems to happen whenever Paul poses even the remotest threat to the right whatsoever. The Mittwits are screaming the loudest because Romney is the ‘official’ candidate.

MelonCollie on April 24, 2012 at 1:14 PM

yeah, I was dd serious :-), but hey, thank you for linking to the constitution, don’t know where else I could have found said doc without your linky :-)…

jimver on April 24, 2012 at 1:12 PM

So have you figured out that I was referring to the Constitution as our guiding document re: the size of government, or am I still wearing a hat made of Reynolds Wrap?

El Dillo on April 24, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Since you asked for the numbers, then let’s keep it fair. Please provide the numbers in your document, should be interesting to compare them against current numbers.

riddick on April 24, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Well, I certainly don’t have time for a full run-down, but this (Current/Constitution)
Dept. of Education $79 billion/$0
Dept. of HUD $48 billion/$0
Dept. of Energy $43 billion/$0
Dept. of HHS $84 billion/$0
Medicare and Medicaid $787 billion/$0
NASA $18 billion/$0
National Science Foundation $8 billion/$0

Play along at home, if you like. It’s fun!

Inkblots on April 24, 2012 at 1:15 PM

OK, I read this a few times, still no sense. AT ALL.

You mean “EXTINGUISHED”? Please say Yes.

riddick on April 24, 2012 at 1:10 PM

looool :-) distinguished/extinguished…spoken like a true paulbot intellectual :-)

jimver on April 24, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Faintly. A copy of which is sitting on my desk right now as we “speak” and try as I may I still see no numbers in it. Since I am ignorant by your definition/standards please feel free to point to a particular section which spells out the numbers, clearly. Numbers that you seem to tout and so far failed.

riddick on April 24, 2012 at 1:13 PM

What numbers do you want? A budget number? Numbers of delegates? Congressmen?

As there isn’t a “number” per se in the Constitution about how large a budget should be, then it’s up to the legislatures and Congress to budget as they see fit. Then we get to have a numbers debate, but as of now I’m debating bureaucracy vs. representative government, executive vs. legislative power, and so on.

El Dillo on April 24, 2012 at 1:17 PM

looool :-) distinguished/extinguished…spoken like a true paulbot intellectual :-)

jimver on April 24, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Really?

Laughing Out Out Out Out Loud, indeed.

El Dillo on April 24, 2012 at 1:17 PM

So have you figured out that I was referring to the Constitution as our guiding document re: the size of government, or am I still wearing a hat made of Reynolds Wrap?

El Dillo on April 24, 2012 at 1:14 PM

NUMBERS. We want numbers, not empty words. Be specific, Article and Section. That clearly spell out SIZE of government.

riddick on April 24, 2012 at 1:18 PM

So have you figured out that I was referring to the Constitution as our guiding document re: the size of government, or am I still wearing a hat made of Reynolds Wrap?

El Dillo on April 24, 2012 at 1:14 PM

well, linking to the constitution does not preclude you from wearing your tin foil hat, does it now? they are not mutually exclusive, as far as I can tell…crazy people have been known to make reference to valid ideas and documents, that does not make them less crazy…

jimver on April 24, 2012 at 1:18 PM

The Paul campaign wants to believe that they can replicate this outcome in other caucus states, and it’s certainly possible.

Well, it’s a good thing the GOP everywhere else is in such good shape. We would never have a frontrunner that the party as a whole isn’t satisfied with.

Never.

/sarc

tom on April 24, 2012 at 1:19 PM

I served in both theaters of the current wars. I do not support Ron Paul. What does that make me? A baby-killer? A warmonger? An imperialist?

Please be specific. Some of your fellow Paul supporters certainly have been, so I’m interested to see where you come down.

Washington Nearsider on April 24, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Wow. I am actually very insulted that you would insinuate that I would even dare to think of making such accusations against my brothers-in-arms. I’ve served multiple tours in Iraq and just returned from Afghanistan in November. The men I served with and that served under me were honorable regardless of their political ideologies (which, I may add, I don’t know because we don’t talk politics where I come from in the Marine Corps).
Words like “baby-killer” and “imperialist” are old remnants of the hate and vitriol spewed at the military by the leftists and hippies of the 60s and 70s. It’s disgusting and if there are Paul supporters doing that then, although we may share the same political views about many things, they are no friends of mine. This goes to those people who call Paul supporters Paulbots, Ronulans, Bat$hit Crazy, etc. This kind of rhetoric is childish and comes from the left. It does nothing to help one’s cause. Do I think those in power in Washington are Imperialists, war mongers, even baby killers? Yes I do. Do I think those who have their boots on the ground fighting for their own lives (and make no mistake about it, we fight for OUR OWN LIVES. Not the lives of Americans back home, or Afghans, Iraqis, or anyone else that the media might say we do. When I saw friends die, not one of them helped give any more freedom to a single American by their blood.) are responsible for this insane foreign policy? NO. So short answer to your question. No.

RightXBrigade on April 24, 2012 at 1:19 PM

MelonCollie on April 24, 2012 at 1:14 PM

I get kind of a kick out of it. Day after day it’s “electable” “landslide !” Someone gets 20 delegates and they go apechit.
You don’t think they are having (shudder) doubts. do you?

katy the mean old lady on April 24, 2012 at 1:20 PM

OK, I read this a few times, still no sense. AT ALL.

You mean “EXTINGUISHED”? Please say Yes.

riddick on April 24, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Damn IPhone.

RightXBrigade on April 24, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Answer: it’s called the United States Constitution. You might have heard of it.

El Dillo on April 24, 2012 at 1:09 PM

idiot, it’s called sarcasm :-)….

jimver on April 24, 2012 at 1:20 PM

You don’t think they are having (shudder) doubts. do you?

katy the mean old lady on April 24, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Perish the thought!

Inkblots on April 24, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Someone gets 20 delegates and they go apechit.
You don’t think they are having (shudder) doubts. do you?

katy the mean old lady on April 24, 2012 at 1:20 PM

I know we all do it… try to denigrate someone who disagrees with us by accusing them of flipping their lid.

But, its generally not true (unless we are acussing angryed of going bat-poop crazy…. in that case, it is most definitely true).

But, to be fair, I really don’t see anyone going nuts here about this delegate mess.

Most of the people the Paul-folks are arguing with are not even big fans of Romney (and that’s putting it lightly).

RightWay79 on April 24, 2012 at 1:24 PM

You don’t think they are having (shudder) doubts. do you?

katy the mean old lady on April 24, 2012 at 1:20 PM

In an primary vote, MN delegates would have gone to Santorum.

This “mittbots” stuff is simply a dodge, the fact is the caucus was deliberately monkeywrenched to give Paul a “victory” he simply didn’t deserve.

Rebar on April 24, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Deanna on April 24, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Yes, I forgot how, prior to Goldwater, the GOP was producing such paragons of conservative thought and values as Dwight Eisenhower and Dick Nixon.

Please. Spare us. You can follow the the trail, right through the tax revolts and the Reagan rev0lut1on, right back to Goldwater.

JohnGalt23 on April 24, 2012 at 1:26 PM

NUMBERS. We want numbers, not empty words. Be specific, Article and Section. That clearly spell out SIZE of government.

riddick on April 24, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Fair enough. I’ll start here:

Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The above dovetails nicely into AMENDMENT X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Or, another one that’s been violated repeatedly, Article I, Section 7, Clause 1:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

El Dillo on April 24, 2012 at 1:26 PM

So… “acussing” should be “accusing” and “putting it lightly” should be “putting it mildly”.

Can’t blame my iphone. I’ll just blame it being at work and having to sneak in a few comments here and there. ;-)

RightWay79 on April 24, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Well, I certainly don’t have time for a full run-down, but this (Current/Constitution)
Dept. of Education $79 billion/$0
Dept. of HUD $48 billion/$0
Dept. of Energy $43 billion/$0
Dept. of HHS $84 billion/$0
Medicare and Medicaid $787 billion/$0
NASA $18 billion/$0
National Science Foundation $8 billion/$0

Play along at home, if you like. It’s fun!

Inkblots on April 24, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Its s start. So, same inquiry as before. Please point out where in the Constitution its says we cannot have, say, Dept Of Ed.

Again, be specific, Article/Section number.

You know, for a group that tries so hard to prove it is smarter than the rest of us it is amazing that even when asked you cannot provide anything specific as your “proof”.

The only thing Constitution says about federal government is that there is one. That’s where it stops, the only thing mentioned is that each state appoint reps based on population size. I cannot find any other numbers and if I missed any please point me to them instead of making wild claims as you guys do.

Numbers wise, you guys are sadly mistaken to claim that conservatives somehow do not want small government, nothing can be further from the truth. Have no idea why you think that conservatives don’t want to eliminate a number of federal departments, or state depts/size as well.

riddick on April 24, 2012 at 1:28 PM

RightXBrigade on April 24, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Please don’t be insulted. All I have to go on is my experience with Paul supporters here. Overwhelmingly, they use those precise terms. That’s why I asked.

I realize it’s a ‘chicken or the egg’ argument, but I’d be willing to wager that the attitude of many vocal Paul supporters here CAUSED the moniker “Ronulan” or “Paulbot” to be added to the mix.

You and I will disagree strongly over whether or not DC is full of warmongering baby killers, but that’s American. We get to disagree here.

As to your brothers left behind, I empathize with you, but do not agree that they accomplished nothing for civilians at home. Any time anyone gives their life in the pursuit of something greater than themselves, there is something gained. In this case, I think the image of America may change – even if it is slow, painful and one life at a time.

For every shitbird who opens up on a house full of noncombatants, there are dozens who would push a girl out from in front of an MRAP, giving their own life in her place. You’ll never tell me that Marine didn’t advance the idea or image of the United States.

Washington Nearsider on April 24, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Numbers wise, you guys are sadly mistaken to claim that conservatives somehow do not want small government, nothing can be further from the truth. Have no idea why you think that conservatives don’t want to eliminate a number of federal departments, or state depts/size as well.

riddick on April 24, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Oh, conservatives do. No doubt about it. Republicans, however, do not. And therein lies the problem.

El Dillo on April 24, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Damn IPhone.

RightXBrigade on April 24, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Good to know your i-phone is as dyslexic as mine. How can I program in an “I’m not stoopid” disclaimer? .

katy the mean old lady on April 24, 2012 at 1:34 PM

El Dillo on April 24, 2012 at 1:26 PM

NUMBERS! We want NUMBERS since you are the one who claimed you have them in a “document” and we do not.

I can read better than you do, I can assure you, in a number of languages. I still can’t find NUMBERS in the Constitution that spell out the size of the government save for numbers for Congress.

For example, and I am playing devil’s advocate here if you still do not understand that, but for the rest of us you call uneducated idiots on this site per your standards, PLEASE CITE WHICH ARTICLE/SECTION SAYS WE CANNOT HAVE DEPT of EDUCATION. Or some other depts.

Can I make the inquiry any easier/simpler? NUMBERS.

riddick on April 24, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Oh, conservatives do. No doubt about it. Republicans, however, do not. And therein lies the problem.

El Dillo on April 24, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Funny. You somehow think you are arguing with republicans?

riddick on April 24, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Rusty Allen on April 24, 2012 at 1:08 PM

johngalt23 has expressed that view more than once. It’s why I’ve have him on permanent ignore.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 24, 2012 at 1:47 PM

This is the great advertisement for why the caucus system should be done away with. The party people in charge of such things might not care about things like disenfranchising Ed because he was out of the state for the couple designated hours the thing ran, but if a small group of committed activists can efficiently manipulate the process like this for the benefit of a candidate who hasn’t won anything anywhere then that system needs to die.

alchemist19 on April 24, 2012 at 1:47 PM

katy the mean old lady on April 24, 2012 at 1:20 PM

You really don’t get it.
Ron Paul is a Jew-hating isolationist.
If it were a sane world-he wouldn’t be getting ANY delegates.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 24, 2012 at 1:49 PM

NUMBERS! We want NUMBERS since you are the one who claimed you have them in a “document” and we do not.

I can read better than you do, I can assure you, in a number of languages. I still can’t find NUMBERS in the Constitution that spell out the size of the government save for numbers for Congress.

For example, and I am playing devil’s advocate here if you still do not understand that, but for the rest of us you call uneducated idiots on this site per your standards, PLEASE CITE WHICH ARTICLE/SECTION SAYS WE CANNOT HAVE DEPT of EDUCATION. Or some other depts.

Can I make the inquiry any easier/simpler? NUMBERS.

riddick on April 24, 2012 at 1:35 PM

I said we have a document that outlines our VISION for the size of government. I never claimed the Constitution breaks it down numerically. It doesn’t. Is that what you wanted me to say? Also, I never called anyone here an “uneducated idiot,” and I thank you in the future to not put words in my mouth like that.

As for the Department of Education specifically, there is no mention of education being a matter for the federal government. Therefore, as per the Tenth Amendment, it is left to the states or the people.

Oh, conservatives do. No doubt about it. Republicans, however, do not. And therein lies the problem.

El Dillo on April 24, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Funny. You somehow think you are arguing with republicans?

Maybe not you personally, but isn’t that what this whole article and argument is about? The Republican Party is peeved that the Paul supporters are gaining influence and getting delegates elected following the caucus rules.

El Dillo on April 24, 2012 at 1:51 PM

You really don’t get it.
Ron Paul is a Jew-hating isolationist.
If it were a sane world-he wouldn’t be getting ANY delegates.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 24, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Don’t jump on my chit. Go work for your candidate.

katy the mean old lady on April 24, 2012 at 1:58 PM

This is one of the best Ron Paul videos I’ve seen since the last debate because Ron Paul is challenged on his views, including by somebody who supports the fed. Ron Paul supporters and others who like some of his views may find it worthwhile.

It starts out with politics but then get’s into the issues for most of the rest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG2uDf2F3cA

FloatingRock on April 24, 2012 at 1:59 PM

The Republican Party is peeved that the Paul supporters are gaining influence and getting delegates elected following the caucus rules.

El Dillo on April 24, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Let me ask you something specific, again.

If Herr Doktor is so against what GOP stands for, as his supporters also seem to be and at east claim so, why is it he is running on a GOP ticket?

riddick on April 24, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Please. Spare us. You can follow the the trail, right through the tax revolts and the Reagan rev0lut1on, right back to Goldwater.

JohnGalt23 on April 24, 2012 at 1:26 PM

So you’re saying there were no Conservative leaders or Presidents prior to Goldwater? Oh come on, you know better than that. Don’t bother to reply, I’m done here for the day, I have work to do. I also have a bet going, I’ll see how that pans out. LOL

Deanna on April 24, 2012 at 2:05 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on April 24, 2012 at 1:47 PM
Noted.

Rusty Allen on April 24, 2012 at 2:06 PM

It’s why I’ve have him on permanent ignore.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 24, 2012 at 1:47 PM

You sure have a lot of problems getting along with people.

FloatingRock on April 24, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Use a magic wand and go back in time 60 years, zapping Ron Paul out of existence. Then come back to the modern day…

How are things different with Ron Paul never having been in office?

Well, any laws which cut spending, limited government, reformed welfare, saved businesses, etc., all would have passed without Ron Paul’s vote. So his voting record is irrelevant.

Furthermore, Ron Paul has led no movement which has had any impact… And, aside from his running interference for the liberal Romney, Paul will have had no impact on this current election cycle.

shinty on April 24, 2012 at 2:09 PM

In my highly rigorous and academic study of the matter, I have concluded that 78% of all arguments against Ron Paul involve some combination of a small pool of ad hominems, and 98% will inevitably devolve into the branding of the Paul supporter as a pothead, regardless of whether the original issue at contention involved mar!juana or not (thirtyandseven 2012).

thirtyandseven on April 24, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Let me ask you something specific, again.

If Herr Doktor is so against what GOP stands for, as his supporters also seem to be and at east claim so, why is it he is running on a GOP ticket?

riddick on April 24, 2012 at 2:03 PM

In my honest opinion, the answer is because the GOP has lost its way, and is basically Democrat-lite on fiscal and liberty issues. Paul supporters and like-minded people who may not necessarily support Ron Paul for President are trying to get the party to live up to their rhetoric and underlying principles.

He could definitely run as a Libertarian Party candidate, but the $10,000 question for libertarians is: are we more effective as a wing of the Republican Party, or as a party unto ourselves? Paul seems to believe the former.

El Dillo on April 24, 2012 at 2:12 PM

How are things different with Ron Paul never having been in office?

shinty on April 24, 2012 at 2:09 PM

The only difference would be, $31 Billion in pork wouldn’t have been lavished on the special interests in his district.

Pretty sad, that after a 30 year career in congress, and that’s your only legacy.

Even sadder, that some folks think that qualifies you to be president.

Rebar on April 24, 2012 at 2:13 PM

In my honest opinion, the answer is because the GOP has lost its way, and is basically Democrat-lite on fiscal and liberty issues. Paul supporters and like-minded people who may not necessarily support Ron Paul for President are trying to get the party to live up to their rhetoric and underlying principles.

He could definitely run as a Libertarian Party candidate, but the $10,000 question for libertarians is: are we more effective as a wing of the Republican Party, or as a party unto ourselves? Paul seems to believe the former.

El Dillo on April 24, 2012 at 2:12 PM

On the first point we agree, GOP lately is nothing more than liberal lite (Boehner is prime example and it all goes downhill from there).

On second point, it only proves Herr Doktor has no principles. You stand for what you believe, if you do not agree with GOP, then do not run as their candidate.

Please remind me, my memory may be foggy at this point, but during GOP debates with 2 Texans participating, only one of the Texans clearly said he would cut entire federal departments if elected. Do you recall who said that?

riddick on April 24, 2012 at 2:19 PM

On the first point we agree, GOP lately is nothing more than liberal lite (Boehner is prime example and it all goes downhill from there).

On second point, it only proves Herr Doktor has no principles. You stand for what you believe, if you do not agree with GOP, then do not run as their candidate.

Please remind me, my memory may be foggy at this point, but during GOP debates with 2 Texans participating, only one of the Texans clearly said he would cut entire federal departments if elected. Do you recall who said that?

riddick on April 24, 2012 at 2:19 PM

You’re referring to Rick Perry, but didn’t Paul say he’d eliminate five departments to Perry’s three? Wasn’t that the debate where Perry completely tripped over his response to the question?

(not bashing Perry, just trying to remember the timeline.)

El Dillo on April 24, 2012 at 2:26 PM

The only difference would be, $31 Billion in pork wouldn’t have been lavished on the special interests in his district.

Rebar on April 24, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Do as I say, not as I do.

riddick on April 24, 2012 at 2:27 PM

FloatingRock on April 24, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Only a few Palinistas and Most Ronbots.
No great loss in either case.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 24, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Furthermore, Ron Paul has led no movement which has had any impact…

shinty on April 24, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Define “impact” in your view of the current political landscape?

Libertarianism vs conservatism is foten hotly debated here and in other places around the internet and in our political scene. And over the last few years, many conservatives and libertarians have begun discussing the extent to which the elected GOP leadership talks about small government and then goes to Washington and continually votes for the expansion of government and the budget.

I don’t think that’s entirely Ron Paul’s doing, but he ahs had a significant hand in bringing that discussion to the forefront. I would call the mere fact that we now hotly debate those topics as an “impact”.

gravityman on April 24, 2012 at 2:29 PM

You’re referring to Rick Perry, but didn’t Paul say he’d eliminate five departments to Perry’s three? Wasn’t that the debate where Perry completely tripped over his response to the question?

(not bashing Perry, just trying to remember the timeline.)

El Dillo on April 24, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Like I said, my memory may be foggy. Actually? Not.

Herr Doktor was only proposing to eliminate 5 depts AFTER the debates and AFTER Perry proposed that. And not in a debate.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/ron-pauls-economic-plan-eliminates-department-of-education-and-5-others/

riddick on April 24, 2012 at 2:31 PM

You’re referring to Rick Perry, but didn’t Paul say he’d eliminate five departments to Perry’s three? Wasn’t that the debate where Perry completely tripped over his response to the question?

(not bashing Perry, just trying to remember the timeline.)

El Dillo on April 24, 2012 at 2:26 PM

To point out clearly, Herr Doktor co-opted others’ ideas and clearly outlined plans. Same as Romney has done. Between the two, not even one original idea and both are running on others’ thinking.

riddick on April 24, 2012 at 2:34 PM

katy the mean old lady on April 24, 2012 at 1:58 PM
MY candidate was Rick Perry.

It’s quite obvious that you’ve jumped the shark.
Sorry for you.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 24, 2012 at 2:35 PM

…foten…

Hmm… no idea what I was trying to type there… keyboard fail by me.

gravityman on April 24, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5