Saturday, April 19, 2008

Ron Paul supporters left bitter in CD3.

Much like they did at the CD6 convention, the Ron Paul supporters tried to flood the delegation at CD3 convention Saturday afternoon.





However, their plans were thwarted by the rules of the CD3 nominating committee.

The potential nominees were immediately disqualified from consideration unless they met with the committee prior to the convention. That doesn’t seem too much to ask, especially when you consider the tremendous commitment of a National Delegate (For starters, it’s a $1,000 just to go to the convention in September). Nevertheless, there were attempts to amend this rule and allow the no-shows to remain nominees, an amendment that was promptly shot down. This sent the “Ronulans” into a tizzy, to the point where one Paul supporter hyperbolically equated the nominating process to a “Russian Democracy.”

As I left the convention I chatted with a guy in my BPOU named Scott, whom also attends the same church as I. He was ranting and raving about how the GOP just changes the rules in the middle of the game. ”Oh, you must be a Paul-bot”, I said. He indeed was. And because I became a McCain supporter after Fred Thompson left the race, Scott proceeded to get in my face and accuse me of "putting security over liberty.” I was quite puzzled by such a remark, given the fact it’s rather difficult to attain liberty if your country is under constant threats of terrorism.

But I digress.

To Scott and the rest of the “Ronulans”, this one’s for you:




------------------------------------------

13 comments:

Joe said...

I don't think Ben Franklin found it too hard to attain liberty during the threat of invasion by Great Britain. He was the one your friend was quoting.

Unless you seem to think a handful of crazy terrorists are more dangerous than 48647 men in the regular British Army.

Brad Carlson said...

Unless you seem to think a handful of crazy terrorists are more dangerous than 48647 men in the regular British Army.

Did the British Army use airplanes as weapons?

Anonymous said...

So I guess what you're saying then is that you support socialism and big brother watching you and that you don't give a crap about your freedoms and liberties that you take for granted. Do you love the
Federal Reserve manipulating your money making it worth less and less every day? I don't get it...

Brad Carlson said...

So I guess what you're saying then is that you support socialism and big brother watching you

Question: At Ron Paul rallies do you use your own tin foil to make your hats or does the Paul campaign supply it?

you don't give a crap about your freedoms and liberties that you take for granted

I actually do give a crap which is why I'm supporting candidates who are aggressive against those who look to take our freedoms.

Mike said...

I actually do give a crap which is why I'm supporting candidates who are aggressive against those who look to take our freedoms.

It is those you support who are taking our freedoms. And we are supporting candidates who will be aggressive against them.

Brad Carlson said...

It is those you support who are taking our freedoms.

Doggone it!!! Mike got me with the old I know you are but what am I defense. How does one answer such an intellectual retort?

Anonymous said...

Brad,

Why not let people be nominated from the floor? You don't have to vote for them if you prefer secret committees to determine the election results for you instead of allowing the people voting to decide. I'm sure the Politburo liked to "reward" loyal party members with various positions, too.

If you're a "hard core conservative" as you claim in your bio, you shouldn't want anything to do with McCain as long as there is a more conservative alternative available (even if the Politburo nominating committee doesn't want you to consider it). If you value freedom, individual responsibility, and the old right conservative platform, you should not be afraid of Ron Paul and dismiss him so quickly.

Now, if you want to put the interests of other countries ahead of our own because you're a NeoCon/Zionist and you value blind support and wars for Israel over a no-amnesty immigration policy, lower taxes, sound currency, small Federal government, and the Constitution, then I think you've found your man in McCain. I guess reckless spending is OK as long as it benefits Israel.

I do like that you're a loyal party supporter, but I just wish that people would be more observant and realize that the party has been hijacked by people who are anything but conservative on many issues. It's full of people more interested in power, influence, and their own agenda than the platform. That's how you end up with former hippy Democrats running for MN Senate (Coleman) and people that hang around with Democrats (Kennedy, Feingold, Lieberman, etc.) as our "only" Republican choice for president months before the nomination process is even complete.

Brad Carlson said...

Why not let people be nominated from the floor?

CD3 did allow that. However, if I'm understanding it right, those who were nominated before the convention but did not show up to meet with the committee were disqualified from being re-nominated. But that did not exclude anyone else from being nominated from the floor.

you should not be afraid of Ron Paul and dismiss him so quickly.

I'm not at all afraid of Paul. It's some of his whacko, tin-foil-hat-wearing supporters who give me the creeps. I believe Paul has some very good ideas but they were rejected in all the caucuses and primaries. If you guys would have put this much effort into winning at the ballot box as you do disrupting conventions, then you might be in a stronger position. No sense whining about it now.

I do like that you're a loyal party supporter, but I just wish that people would be more observant and realize that the party has been hijacked by people who are anything but conservative on many issues. It's full of people more interested in power, influence, and their own agenda than the platform.

Sadly, you're right. Which is why McCain seems to be making more of an effort to make nice with conservatives. In fact, don't be surprised if he selects a conservative as his running mate.

The Lady Logician said...

The WHOLE purpose of a nominations committee is to meet with ANY AND ALL people who are running for elected office....whatever the elected office. The reason that they do that is to make sure that those who the body electes to represents them actually represents the VALUES of the organization. It is a STANDING committee - meaning that it is a permanent thing....there was no "changing of the rules" from the floor.

That is where the Paul folks lose me. They make these wild allegations that have no basis in fact....fact that can be easily discovered if they would just ask (as opposed to accusing).

LL

Anonymous said...

There was a lot of effort at the grassroots level for Ron Paul, but the media decided early on to ignore him and his ideas were rarely, if ever, given a "fair shake" in the mainstream media. Online, of course, they were/are extremely popular, but for now there are still too many people (especially the older people who come out in large numbers to vote in primaries/caucuses) who rely exclusively on TV and newspapers for their information.

But, yes, besides the "true conservatives" and such, there are a few wackos who also gravitated to Paul and allowed the "foil hat" stereotype to form. Of course, sometimes they're full of it, but sometimes they're right on (NSA spying on tons of people w/o a warrant, questionable intelligence/motivation for rushing into Iraq, etc.). You can agree or disagree with the actions, but the way it is (or isn't) presented to the people was/is rather shady.

Brad Carlson said...

NSA spying on tons of people w/o a warrant


So does that mean you believe in the "Al-Qaeda bill of rights"? The fact of the matter is that the Terrorist Surveillance Program had been effective. That is until the NY Times prioritized their hatred for President Bush over this country's safety.

By the way, anyone is welcome to comment here anytime. However, I am going to start deleting "anonymous" comments. If you're so convicted in your beliefs at least have the guts to attach your name to your opinions.

Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Actually, all the Ron Paul Republicans who were running for national delegate went before the nominating committee. There were others there who wanted to open nominations from the floor, but it wasn't to get the Ron Paul people in.

And the motion did not pass. All those who were nominated from the floor HAD gone before the nominating committee. Oddly, the NomCom had only found three candidates "qualified," coincidentally, their slate.

It was Ron Carey's speech denouncing the Ron Paul Republicans for organizing and running a slate, then his orders that everyone vote for HIS slate or go find another party that left a lot of people bitter.

Several non-Paul GOPers have called me to apologize for Carey's antics. What an embarrassment for my party!

Fortress of Intestines said...

My point wasn't for or against the NSA's warrantless domestic spying, it was an example of something that "conspiracy nuts" were talking about for years that turned out to be proven to be true (vs. stuff that they talk about that is true and still unproven, stuff they talk about that may or may not be true, and stuff they talk about that's untrue yet they insist on talking about anyway).

Of course, the real question shouldn't be "how do we deal with endless threats of terrorism?" Though that is a very important problem right now, the real question should be "WHY do the terrorists want to come across great distances and give their lives to harm us?" What if the answer to "why they hate us" has to do with our government's actions? I'm not blaming the American people first, I'm blaming our government's actions after it has allowed itself to be manipulated for decades by unelected lobbyists and so-called experts in DC "think tanks."

What if the solution to the problem of "why they hate us" would save billions if not trillions of tax dollars, make Americans more secure, and remove the motivation and sympathy for terrorists like Al Queda?