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.

Watching CSPAN With the AC On

I’ve avoided it until now.  In spite of having a number of days in the high 80s or even low 90s this spring, I’ve refused to turn on the air conditioning.  But the humidity has just made it too miserable to keep the windows open and the fans running, so I closed all the windows in the house up, and turned on the air conditioning.  And tomorrow, it’s going to be in the 70s again .

CSPAN is currently covering the Libertarian Party convention.  I turned on just at the tail end of Gary Johnson’s speech, and the convention is currently balloting on their presidential ticket.  Much different than the GOP or Democrat conventions.

I’m still steeped in GOP politics here in the state.  A group of us are trying to do some work at getting more young liberty-folks involved in the GOP…but the GOP doesn’t seem to appreciate our efforts…  We haven’t seen outright hostility yet, just hints of disgust for us.  Strange, isn’t it, that the Republican Party wouldn’t want to welcome young folks into the fold—regardless of who they supported for President, Senate, or Mayor?

Speaking of Senate, we’ve got an interesting Senate race here in Nebraska.  The current Attorney General, Jon Bruing; State Senator Deb Fischer; Former Attorney General and current State Treasurer Don Stenberg; and businessman Pat Flynn are all vying for the nomination.  Three against one seem to be the odds, as Flynn was left out of the last debate, and has been left out of major press coverage, in the last couple of weeks.

Flynn is resonating somewhat with Paul supporters in the state, and a number of them are volunteering for his campaign.  Our primary is on May 15th

My next two weeks promise to be exceptionally busy.  I really, really hope that things will slow down soon—although I’m not holding my breath on that—I seem to replace any found gaps in my schedule with new commitments…

LLE

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

Guest Post: Geezers for Paul!

Occasional commenter here, Ed Stevens, submitted this to me a bit ago.  It’s been submitted to local newspapers, as well, but it may be too long for them.  But this is good, and every word of it deserves to be read.  LE

I am 71 years old. I have voted in every election since the Johnson administration, usually, but not always, opting for Republican candidates. In 2008 I became so disgusted/frustrated with the entire electoral process that I changed my voter registration to “Non-partisan” and more or less withdrew from the morass that our politics had become. It is now 2012, and it has, perhaps unsurprisingly, gotten worse - much worse. As voters we are daily witnesses to a vile barrage of name-calling, cheating, stealing, lying and a hundred other forms of political skullduggery that defy classification. Industrial strength hypocrisy abounds, abetted by a national media that has completely abandoned any pretense of impartial journalism in favor of supporting their favorite candidate and/or raising their ratings/circulation a point or two.

Politicians, in office and out, Republican or Democrat, Mugwump or Know-Nothing, are daily caught with their hands in a variety of cookie jars, or with their pants down (or off), or brazenly pandering to whatever interest group they happen to be in front of that day – or some combination of all of the above. Moreover, they do so secure in the knowledge that little if anything will be done about their reprehensible behavior. Being a politician seems to imply a bizarre variety of something approaching diplomatic immunity.

Henry David Thoreau noted years ago that the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation; these times seem to demand exactly that. I can do that; at best I have another decade or so - I can stand on my head for that long. But I have children and grandchildren, and likely great-grandchildren one of these days. They deserve better than “lives of quiet desperation” - all of the next generation, and the one after that, deserve better. Where will that “better” come from? … certainly not from the current crop of charlatans, knaves and fools.

I said all that to say this: there is one out there who offers “better”. His name is Ron Paul. Yeah, yeah … I know. He is a jug-eared little gnome with a squeaky voice and all the charisma of a cantaloupe gone bad, but here’s the thing - he’s right.

You think he’s an isolationist (he’s not - he just thinks foreign aid is billions of dollars wasted that could be better spent at home).You think he hates the military (he doesn’t - more military personnel, former and active, support Ron Paul than any other candidate - by a large margin). You’ve heard that he has radical economic ideas (only if you think earning your own money, paying your bills and balancing your checkbook is radical). You’ve heard he wants to abolish the Federal Reserve (he does, and good riddance) and return to the gold standard (ubetcha!). You’ve heard that he wants to abolish the government (not all of it - just the parts we don’t need). You’ve heard he is in favor of legalizing drugs (untrue; he just thinks the ‘War on Drugs’ is ineffective and horribly expensive - which it is).You may also have heard he has a deep and unwavering respect for the United States Constitution (bingo).

If you believe nothing else I’ve said, believe this – if you are as concerned as I am about the future of this republic, then you owe it to yourself and to your descendants to educate yourself about Ron Paul and his ideas - and do it quickly; our Nebraska state primary is just around the corner and Dr. Paul must be on the November ticket. It isn’t easy to find current and accurate information; what Sarah Palin calls the lame-stream media has done a thorough job of disguising /misrepresenting Paul’s ideas and record. Even that beacon of “fair and balanced” reportage known as Fox News dumps regularly on Paul - they are at least as far into Romney’s pocket as MSNBC is into Obama’s. But the truth is out there – find it and digest it. Ignore the conventional “wisdom” - make up your own mind. Once you do, I believe you will join me in supporting Ron Paul.

Oh … I changed my party affiliation back to “Republican” last week - because it was the only way I could vote for the one real statesman in either party - Ron Paul.

Ed Stevens

Founder, Director (and only member) of “Geezers For Paul”

 

Santorum Supporter Moves to Paul?

You’ll have to read the whole of this story to find the answer to this question.  But here are a few pieces:

Having lost my preferred choice for a presidential candidate on Tuesday, I determined that after a suitable period of mourning and reflection the only viable option was to shake it off and begin the search anew, the presumptive, media-anointed frontrunner not being desirable or acceptable.

Last night, as part of this Quixote-like quest, I ventured into the
heretofore unexplored dimension of a Ron Paul rally and was witness to something that can only be described as all parts exhilarating, befuddling, encouraging, depressing, moving, maddening and, ultimately, inspiring. More on all that later.

Over the years I have been to more political rallies, events, forums, roundtables, discussion groups, debates and whatever than I care to remember. While a whole range of adjectives from boring to thrilling could be used to describe these events, I have never before been moved to use contradictory metaphors for the same event. Attending a Ron Paul campaign rally is a singularly unique experience. I have never seen anything like it before. Perhaps phenomenal is the word that comes closest in accuracy, not in the ordinary “awesome” sense, but in the other-worldly, spatiotemporal sense.

Give the whole thing a read. 

The Power of an Idea

One of the finest “ads” I’ve seen:

Will the be the year of an idea whose time has come?

The Anti-Bernanke

During a lecture entitled “The Fed Unspun: The Other Side of the Story”, Peter Schiff responds to Bernake’s recent four-part college lecture series.

 

Bubama Advancing

Image credit.

 

It is ironic but perhaps sadly appropriate that Attorney General Eric Holder would choose a law school, Northwestern University, to deliver a speech earlier this month in which he demolished what was left of the rule of law in America.

In what history likely will record as a turning point, Attorney General Holder bluntly explained that this administration believes it has the authority to use lethal force against Americans if the President determines them to be a threat to the nation. He tells us that this is not a violation of the due process requirements of our Constitution because the President himself embodies “due process” as he unilaterally determines who is to be targeted. As Holder said, “a careful and thorough executive branch review of the facts in a case amounts to ‘due process.’” That means that the administration believes it is the President himself who is to be the judge, jury, and executioner.

As George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley wrote of the Holder speech:

“All the Administration has said is that they closely and faithfully follow their own guidelines — even if their decisions are not subject to judicial review. The fact that they say those guidelines are based on notions of due process is meaningless. They are not a constitutional process of review.”

It is particularly bizarre to hear the logic of the administration claiming the right to target its citizens according to some secret selection process, when we justified our attacks against Iraq and Libya because their leaders supposedly were targeting their own citizens! We also now plan a covert war against Syria for the same reason.

I should make it perfectly clear that I believe any individual who is engaging in violence against this country or its citizens should be brought to justice. But as Attorney General Holder himself points out in the same speech, our civilian courts have a very good track record of trying and convicting individuals involved with terrorism against the United States. Our civilian court system, with the guarantee of real due process, judicial review, and a fair trial, is our strength, not a weakness. It is not an impediment to be sidestepped in the push for convictions or assassinations, but rather a process that guarantees that fundamental right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

I am encouraged, however that there appears to be the beginning of a backlash against the administration’s authoritarian claims. Just recently I did an interview with conservative radio talk show host Laura Ingraham who expressed grave concern over using these sorts of tactics against Americans using the supposed war on terror as justification. Sadly, many conservative leaders were silent when Republican President George W. Bush laid the groundwork for this administration’s lawlessness with the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention without trial, and other violations. Similarly, as Professor Turley points out, “Democrats previously demanded the ‘torture memos’ of the Bush administration that revealed poor legal analysis by Judge Jay Bybee and Professor John Yoo to justify torture. Now, however, Democrats are largely silent in the face of a president claiming the right to unilaterally kill citizens.” The misuse of and disregard for our Constitution for partisan political gain is likely one reason the American public holds Congress in such low esteem. Now the stakes are much higher. Congress and the people should finally wake up!

Delegate Math

I dislike Bill Kristol more and more all the time.

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.