RedStateEclectic

Ron Paul's concession of nomination to Mitt Romney a signal to the GOP

The Ron Paul campaigns suspends spending money on primaries it cannot win:

In an email to supporters, Paul urged his libertarian-leaning backers to remain involved in politics and champion his causes despite the apparent end of his presidential aspirations. Paul has found success in wrecking the selection process for delegates to the party's late-summer nominating convention in Tampa, Fla., and trumpeted that he has delayed Romney's expected nomination.

"Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted," Paul said in his statement. "Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have. I encourage all supporters of liberty to make sure you get to the polls and make your voices heard, particularly in the local, state and congressional elections, where so many defenders of freedom are fighting and need your support."

What does this mean for the movement Ron Paul inspired?

Before we start, we need to make the distinction between the official Ron Paul campaign (led by Jesse Benton and others close to Ron Paul) and the grassroots organizations that are currently causing trouble in state conventions around the country in Oklahoma, Idaho, Nevada, and other states.

 If the GOP establishment thinks that this announcement makes it easier for the Mitt Romney campaign, they ought to think again. Ron Paul's concession of the nomination to Mitt Romney just means that this primary race and the delegate selection process are now free-for-alls. The announcement effectively unbinds the grassroots supporters from the official Paul campaign. Whatever happens between now and Tampa is now out of the official Paul campaign's hands and entirely the fault of the infamously enthusiastic Ron Paul Revolution. The Paul campaign is signaling to the GOP that if chaos does occur in Tampa that it is not their doing.

So, why would the Paul campaign do such a thing? Some possibilities:

1. In order to control the agenda, the Paul campaign needs to continue its delegate accrual unopposed. We already saw the Republican National Committee meddling in Nevada, threatening to unseat delegates for being disproportionately Paul supporters. By conceding the nomination to Romney, the RNC and the Romney campaign will not be spooked by Paul takeover of state conventions.
2. Fast-forward to Tampa and the impending chaos. The Paul campaign probably realizes that anything can happen in Tampa (the aforemention "unforeseen" events), including the Paul faction "stealing" the nomination from Mitt Romney. By washing their hands of what the grassroots does, they can be made blameless. This protects Ron Paul, his staffers, and someone else.
3. It is also a restatement of what has always been true from the very start, all the way in 2007: the official campaign has never been able to control the grassroots Ron Paul Revolution.

It is a very cold and calculated move on the part of Jesse Benton and others in the official campaign. All of it to signal to the GOP establishment that the Ron Paul campaign are team players and ultimately to protect Rand Paul.

Is it no holds barred in Tampa? Probably and this seems to me that the Paul campaign is expecting it.

Rand Paul: Critiquing the Sausage-Makers

”Republicans have been correct in criticizing the president for trying to pick the winners and losers in energy production. Yet now, a majority of republicans are poised to vote for their own set of taxpayer-subsidized loans to the export-import bank. … The American people know hypocrisy when they see it. The American people know corporate welfare when they see it.”

Rand Paul: Polite Policy Questions

Notice how it is not the head of the department that is at fault, but the collective “we” and their processes which occur beneath him. They, who or whatever ‘they’ are, provide cover for all that is wrong. The singular in politics exists for promotion only.

I am compelled to quote Tolstoy once again:

“From the day when the first members of councils placed exterior authority higher than interior, that is to say, recognized the decisions of men united in councils as more important and more sacred than reason and conscience; on that day began lies that caused the loss of millions of human beings and which continue their unhappy work to the present day.”

Would YOU Support Ron Paul….

…with your vote, your time, and your dollars?

It seems that one of the beefs against Ron Paul supporters in the larger Republican Party—and to be fair, with many Paul supporters, it is a legitimate beef if you look at it from the perspective of the Party—is that if/when Ron Paul loses the race, those supporters will bolt for somewhere else (Gary Johnson), not vote at all, and will not even be helpful to other Republican candidates.

I get the concern of the Party regulars in that regard, and indeed, I’ve encouraged Paul supporters in Nebraska to find other candidates who they could support--locally or at the state level—and get involved.  A willingness to get involved beyond the very visible Presidential race might give party regulars at least some pause in writing them off as one trick ponies.

I tell friends that it’s best to avoid the public “No one but Ron Paul” attitude.  In our own minds, we may or may not take that position—but to publicly state it sends a very visible message to the larger GOP—people who many of us are still going to need to at least nominally win over if we want to move through the convention systems—it sends the message that we’re not a team player.

But when we’re asked whether we will support the ultimate nominee of the Party, perhaps we ought to turn that question around, and ask: Would YOU support Ron Paul if he’s the nominee of the Party?    What result will we get from hard core Romney supporters (there’ve got to be a few of them around, right? )?  I suspect that question will throw them back on their heels, and we’d get an answer like “I intend to support the nominee of the Party.” 

In reality, many of those people would only nominally (if that) support Paul for President.  They wouldn’t give to his campaign, and they wouldn’t actively work for him, but they also (probably) wouldn’t openly criticize him, and they’d probably leave the presidential box empty, or vote for him as the somewhat-lesser-than two evils.

The thing that distinguishes Ron Paul supporters from the supporters of every other Republican that’s been in the race (besides enthusiasm for their candidate) is the open willingness to say “Paul or no one”.  One has to admire that level of commitment by supporters, but can still be critical of that somewhat petulant attitude.

We can argue about whether Ron Paul’s been “shut out” by media blackout (I would argue that compared to 2008, he’s been very visible); and we can fight over whether the Party has it “in” for him and his supporters (indeed, anecdotal evidence would suggest that much of Party establishment “does”).  But, while many Republicans probably wouldn’t like a Ron Paul nomination, most of them probably wouldn’t be out there visibly fighting against him once he won—because ultimately, they like the Democrats even less than they like Paul.

I’m not suggesting that Paul supporters flock to Mitt Romney if he wins the nomination (which, at this moment, it looks like he will).  What I am suggesting is a more measured approach.  In terms of long-term influence in the Party, saying nothing might be more effective.  And regardless of whose name you check off in the voting booth, loudly proclaiming an intention not to vote for the Republican nominee does little other than peg YOU as one that the Party regulars shouldn’t trust.

We have a *secret ballot*, after all.  Vote for who you will.  The Party folks—if there are significant votes for a third party, will figure it out—they’ll understand why their nominee didn’t do as well as he should have.  But they won’t be able to pin a vote to any individual, and then you won’t have further damaged your own reputation in the Party. 

Regardless of what happens this year, chances are, there will be other elections. In 2014, there will be local, state and federal elections.  The whole political world is infinitely bigger than just Ron Paul, and we would be well served by remembering that.  Change will not come solely from the top—it’ll come when we start electing (and holding accountable) state legislators, House members, Senators like Rand Paul and Mike Lee, and even lower position like City Council members. 

So support our candidate enthusiastically, but don’t imply that you’re going to take your ball and leave if he doesn’t win; if you’re going to leave, just leave quietly.  And then get to work for the future.

LLE

How One Man Has (Almost) Ended the Indefinite Detention of Americans (NDAA)

On December 15, 2011 Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which contained a provision giving the President of the United States the authority to indefinitely detain Americans who were classified by the President as terrorists or provided material support for terrorists or terrorist organizations. This is the story of how one man (and his office staff) helped expose this dangerous provision and has nearly killed it.

The NDAA is an annual bill that works its way through the Armed Services Committee and includes all the mundane funding and provisions outlining military spending, personnel strengths, and procedures for the country's national defense. The act works its way through the Senate and House committees and then goes to the floor of each chamber for passage and is signed by the president. It is not unusual for there to be arguments about funding issues and discussions about how the military operations/wars are being conducted, but there is usually very rarely Constitutional 'controversial' material that ever comes to light. [It is worth noting that Don't Ask Don't Tell came through these committees but I don't find that a Constitutional question but I recognize that it was very controversial]

Last year, that all changed. 

The NDAA had worked its way through the appropriate committees in the Senate and House with little resistance.It moved through the House committee chaired by Rep. Buck McKeon (R) on a 60-1 vote and became HR 1540. The bill then passed the House on May 25 on a vote of 322-96 (only 6 dissenting Republicans).  It passed through committee on November 15th in the Senate chaired by Sen. Carl Levin (D) on a 26-0 vote and became SB 1867. 

Freshman Congressman Justin Amash (R-MI3) has made it a habit of reading all the legislation that he votes on and posting all of his votes and reasoning on Facebook. He began this process when he served in the Michigan State House of Representatives and has continued it now in Congress. He and his office in reviewing the NDAA recognized that Sections 1021-1024 of the NDAA of 2012 contained new 'clarification' of what the President's new powers were to be. As a lawyer, Amash quickly recognized the vagueness of the wording within the new provision and saw that it could be construed as giving the President broad new detention privileges while denying the defendant any legal recourse.

Now before we go any further it is important to point out that Amash is a freshman legislator in Congress. This is in a chamber where seniority rules decisively and completely. Rarely are freshmen allowed to introduce legislation. They serve on the lowliest committees and are expected to follow along and not cause trouble. The new Congressmen also know virtually no one in the chamber except maybe fellow members from their home state so their ability to find the 'go-to' guy or gal is almost zero. Finally, since they have barely been serving (in Amash's case in this example May of 2011 he'd been in Washington only 4 months) they certainly don't know anyone in the Senate either.

In May this NDAA of 2012 which includes the provision in Sections 1021-1023 for indefinite dentention passes the House with minimal resistance - especially from Republicans. Rep. Amash recognizes the danger of the law and also opposed Section 1034 which gives the President sweeping ability to conduct extended military operations. With the military operations in Libya hot on the minds of Americans this was probably seen as a good way to get some public opposition to the NDAA.

Over the next few months Amash begins to meet more of his colleagues and develops a friendship with Senator Rand Paul (a clear ally politically both on governing principles and he is the son of Rep. Ron Paul who endorsed Amash in the August 2010 Republican primary). Amash describes the potential risk for the new provision and Paul convinces a few Repbulicans and Democrats in the Senate to oppose the law. 

By this point, Amash is recognizing that the indefinite detention rule is a nonpartisan issue that people from all over the political spectrum should rightly oppose. He then goes on the offensive both on Facebook and (allegedly) during the House Republican strategy conference where he actively opposes House Armed Services Chair and long time member Buck McKeon.

Imagine the scene if you will. In December, before most of the Republican delegation of Congress (Boehner, Cantor, McCarthy, etc.) Amash rises and addresses the group to explain how the NDAA Section 1021-23 provides for the power of indefinite detention of American citizens. He cites the specific language and tries to convince people who probably have little knowledge of him that the nearly 20 year veteran and chair of the powerful Armed Services Committee is mistaken. McKeon counters that Amash is flat out wrong.

The battle then leaves the room and heads to the ethernet.

McKeon writes a rebuttal to all of the 'misinformation' about the provision and has it posted at Redstate.com. Amash counters with this post rebutting the rebuttal. Amash manages to sway a few more Republicans including Representatives Huizenga and Walberg who are also new members from Michigan.

Amash starts hitting the ether hard on Facebook calling all of his 'followers' to call their representatives knowing that many are not his constituents. Still, he only has 18,000 followers or so in a nation of 310 million people to put the heat on Congress.

In fact, on the vote in December to adopt the Senate version (which was basically the same as HR 1540) Amash succeeds in getting 43 Republican defections instead of the previous 6.The bill still easily passes the House and becomes law after President Obama signs it a few weeks later. If this were the end of the story, it could almost be viewed as a Don Quixote mission where we might give the Congressman an "atta boy, thanks for trying, keep your chin up."

But the story was only beginning.

Through those 18-20,000 followers there was intense outrage. They did call their Representatives. And told their friends. And those friends told their friends. And... well you get the picture. 

Suddenly, at town halls Congressmen were getting questioned about their NDAA vote and pilloried if they voted for it or praised for voting against. The NDAA issue was showing up in the presidential campaign as Ron Paul would use it to point out the growing power in Washington and it even came up at a presidential debate where all the candidates except Huntsman and Paul said they would have signed it (as Obama did).

Stories about the NDAA and its detention provisions are no longer just contained on ACLU and InfoWars websites but it's also appearing in the Washington Post and International Business Times. There is a definite possibility that the Armed Forces Committees in both chambers will have to revise or potentially remove the provisions entirely from the NDAA 2013 bill!

The indefinite detention provision is close to dead. I believe we have reached critical mass and one man has maintained just a little bit of our liberty. It is very important to recognize that even one person can have a profound impact if they are tenacious and don't settle on 'just voting' or just speaking out once or twice. I am proud to say that Justin Amash is my personal Congressman but hope that you see he is defending the liberties of not just my district in West Michigan but those of all Americans.

Keep up the heat until the indefinite provision is killed. Call your Senators and Representatives today and tell them to axe this un-Constitutional provision from this year's NDAA and beyond. Here is the Congressional Switchboard #1-866-220-0044 and here is a little 'how-to' when calling Washington D.C.

Don't forget to wish Rep. Amash Happy Birthday on April 18th on Facebook. You might even want to send him your two cents (maximum donations up to $2500 I'm sure would be accepted as well.)

Too Far Right

Bemoans a writer at TruthDig:

A brief look at history suggests how far to the right both the Republican Party and contemporary conservatism have moved. Today’s conservatives almost never invoke one of our most successful Republican presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who gave us, among other things, federally guaranteed student loans and championed the interstate highway system.

Even more revealing is what Robert A. Taft, the leader of the conservative forces who opposed Eisenhower’s nomination in 1952, had to say about government’s role in American life. “If the free enterprise system does not do its best to prevent hardship and poverty,” the Ohio Republican senator said in a 1946 speech, “it will find itself superseded by a less progressive system which does.” He urged Congress to “undertake to put a floor under essential things, to give all a minimum standard of decent living, and to all children a fair opportunity to get a start in life.”

Who can doubt that today’s right would declare his day’s Mr. Republican and Mr. Conservative a socialist redistributionist?

If our nation’s voters want to move government policy far to the right, they are entirely free to do so. But those who regard themselves as centrist have a moral obligation to make clear what the stakes are in the current debate. If supposed moderates refuse to call out the new conservatism for the radical creed it has become, their timidity will make them complicit in an intellectual coup they could have prevented.

Full Article

See? Good conservatives always allow a modicum of socialism because it’s the right thing to do. Of course, back then, they didn’t have trillions in debt and a burgeoning nanny/police state but, what the heck, a good program is worth that risk.

For those who fear the radicalism of power in this country, all I can say is you shouldn’t have advocated its growth in the first place… for ANY reason.

The Ron Paul-Mitt Romney Alliance: It's Romney's ideology, or lack thereof

TRMII asks: This is not some kind of 'gotcha'--but what do you make of Naked Capitalism's Paul-Romney alliance expose?

It is out-of-character for Ron Paul to do anything remotely resembling political maneuvering. However, one thing he has done in the past is create coalitions even with groups who are diametrically opposed to his brand of small government libertarian-conservatism.

For example, Paul has closely worked with fellow legislator Dennis Kucinich on numerous occasions. And in the 2008 presidential elections, supported the candidacies of Cynthia McKinney, Chuck Baldwin, and Ralph Nader.

What is going on between Mitt Romney and Paul? It could possibly be the fact that unlike the other jokers currently running for the Republican nomination, Romney has—as Paul puts it—been “diplomatic.” The Romney campaign has been respectful towards Paul’s people and supporters. Romney would be a fool to think he can capture Paul’s followers, but he does not go out of his way to alienate them. Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and others have rejected the new blood and fervor the Ron Paul Revolution is injecting into dying Republican Party—a mistake which will cause them dearly in the unlikely chance that either secures the nomination.

However, I find it more likely that the reason Paul and Romney seem to get along—ignoring, of course, their relationship with each other and their wives’ friendship with each other—boils down simply to ideology. Or rather, Romney’s seemingly lack thereof. Gingrich and Santorum are unashamedly right-wing progressives (also known as neoconservatives), whereas Romney has been the very essence of a flip-flopping compromising politician: the moderate.

Gingrich and Santorum have never known a bill that expands the State that they did not like. In the case of Santorum, even his rabid anti-abortion rhetoric did not stop him from funding Planned Parenthood. As long as it expands the State, as long as it further encroaches into our private lives, Santorum was there demanding more expansion of the government. Gingrich was merely corrupt; a political hog who enriched himself on the government trough.

Romney—as grossly out-of-touch as he is—is neither corrupt nor a hypocrite. And he is definitely not a neoconservative. If anything, it is precisely his seemingly lack of any ideology and willingness to listen to “what is popular” makes him a more likely ally to Paul. It is worth noting that he was a governor of a liberal state. If Paul is right and that “freedom is popular,” it would make sense for Romney to support causes and legislation that are both freedom-maximizing and popular. Or freedom-reducing and popular, but you get the idea.

This is a contrast to a possible Gingrich and Santorum presidencies. Both are ideologues. They would push for laws that are deeply unpopular because they give not a whit to the American electorate. Which is why Paul probably despises them. In the scheme of things, who would you oppose more? The guy who would say anything popular to get elected and while in office compromise on his principles because an issue happens to be popular? Or the guy who consistently supported aggressive expansion of the State in every aspect of our lives despite it being unpopular and would say the most incendiary things to get elected? The former has been Romney, while the latter describes Newt “Food Stamp President/Invented People” Gingrich and Rick “I Hate Muslims and Gays” Santorum. Paul has more of a chance of affecting the future of the Republican Party through Romney; Gingrich and Santorum represent the death throes of right-wing progressivism (aka neoconservatism).

Shorter: Paul gets along with Romney because he is not a neoconservative. In fact, Romney is not really anything, but a politician who would support anything popular to get elected.

The People Who Like Gary Johnson

Image credit.

Of course, I know Ron Paul (´s credentials and philosophy) a lot better than Gary Johnson ('s). If I faced an either-or-decision, I would support Ron Paul over anyone else - but this does not mean that I am adverse to Johnson.

In fact, there is much to be said for Johnson, not least that he attracts support from people (a) I admire and (b) personally like - (a) and (b) holding true with respect to Laura, (a) applying to the Coyote, who has this to say in his blog, today:

I decided today to volunteer for Gary Johnson’s independent libertarian run for President.  I have always been a Johnson supporter, and was disappointed that he did not get more attention in the debates and nomination process.

Yes, I know folks will be saying that if Gary Johnson does well, it will just be guaranteeing an Obama victory.  You know what?  Given the choices, I don’t care.  My other choices seem to be the guy who pilot-tested Obamacare and Rick Santorum, perhaps the only person the Republicans could have found with a deeper authoritarian streak than Obama.  You know those 2×2 matrices where one leg is “government intervention in social issues” and the other is “government intervention in economic issues?”  Where libertarians are low-low and Republicans and Democrats are each in one of the low-high boxes?  Did you ever wonder who was in the high-high box?  Well, Obama has moved pretty strongly into that space.  But Santorum staked it out years ago.   He is right out of the John McCain, I-am-nominally-for-small-governemnt-but-support-authoritarian-solutions-for-a-range-of-random-issues school.

In fact, I might argue that freedom and small government would be better served by an Obama second term that the yahoos likely to gain the Republic nomination.  First, there is nothing worse than having statism and crony capitalism sold by someone who is nominally pro-market (see either of the Bushes as an example).  Second, Republicans are much feistier about limiting spending and regulation in Congress when in opposition.  They tend to roll over for expansions of state power when they have a fellow Republican in the White House — just compare spending of the Republican Congress under Clinton vs. Bush.  Medicare Part D, anyone?

The source.

While the cold is giving way to thaw here, people in Amsterdam are skating the frozen canals - enjoy, and nite, nite:

 

US Royalists

Here is a remarkably insightful article on the Democartic and Republican royalists of America.

During the Bush years, Guantanamo was the core symbol of right-wing radicalism and what was back then referred to as the “assault on American values and the shredding of our Constitution”: so much so then when Barack Obama ran for President, he featured these issues not as a secondary but as a central plank in his campaign. But now that there is a Democrat in office presiding over Guantanamo and these other polices — rather than a big, bad, scary Republican — all of that has changed [...]

Repulsive liberal hypocrisy extends far beyond the issue of Guantanamo. A core plank in the Democratic critique of the Bush/Cheney civil liberties assault was the notion that the President could do whatever he wants, in secret and with no checks, to anyone he accuses without trial of being a Terrorist – even including eavesdropping on their communications or detaining them without due process. But President Obama has not only done the same thing, but has gone much farther than mere eavesdropping or detention: he has asserted the power even to kill citizens without due process. As Bush’s own CIA and NSA chief Michael Hayden said this week about the Awlaki assassination: “We needed a court order to eavesdrop on him but we didn’t need a court order to kill him. Isn’t that something?” That is indeed “something,” as is the fact that Bush’s mere due-process-free eavesdropping on and detention of American citizens caused such liberal outrage, while Obama’s due-process-free execution of them has not.

Beyond that, Obama has used drones to kill Muslim children and innocent adults by the hundreds. He has refused to disclose his legal arguments for why he can do this or to justify the attacks in any way. He has even had rescuers and funeral mourners deliberately targeted. As Hayden said: ”Right now, there isn’t a government on the planet that agrees with our legal rationale for these operations, except for Afghanistan and maybe Israel.” But that is all perfectly fine with most American liberals now that their Party’s Leader is doing it [...]

Make sure to read the entire article.

See also The Authoritarian Nature of American 'Liberalism', and Obama: We Must Put Boots on The Ground.

Why Can’t Republicans be More Like Libertarians?

Eric’s good senator talks with Reason.TV about a wide range of issues, including the importance of Republicans coming to terms with libertarians.

Reminds me a little bit of…