Topic: Ron Paul
Ron Paul Supporters Do We Stay or Do We Go? The debate is raging across the blogosphere. Ron Paul supporters, the revolutionists brought together by his message, are trying to decide if the movement should stay affiliated with the Republican Party or move allegiance to a third party or none at all. Here’s my take on the question which can be filed in the ‘for what it’s worth’ file...by Gary Wood
(Conservative Libertarian)
Thursday, February 7, 2008
As the Super Tuesday results came in the commentary surrounding this issue seemed to escalate beyond the murmur it had been. More are realizing there really is a very slim hope of obtaining the Republican nomination. Still, a large majority are realizing this campaign is more about the message than the nomination. The revolutionary movement to restore the United States seems bent on moving forward. There's a lot of good strategies being discussed and acted upon. However, one of those strategies (finding like-minded candidates to run for office) is helping to fuel the debate on what party affiliation the revolutionists should unite under or if there should be any party affiliation at all. Let's take a quick look at some of the main parties being discussed as possible homes for those supporting Dr. Paul's message.
Republican Party (GOP): Clearly the elite of the GOP doesn't embrace the very core written beliefs appearing on county party sites across the country (see Why Am I a Ron Paul Republican). There are many angry supporters fed up with the treatment received by the party throughout the campaign. It appears to be on a course toward destruction but should it be allowed to implode and fade away? Some feel if Ron Paul supporters maintain membership with the GOP, within the Republican Liberty Caucus, the group will be best position to take over the party as it implodes. Labeled a major' party the current usurped structure of Congress and prejudiced Presidential Primary process (say that three times fast) favors capturing the party as the first major prize of the new revolution.
Libertarian Party (LP): Due to the fact Dr. Paul was the 1988 LP Presidential candidate many, from the MSM to his rivals and supporters, assume he's libertarian. Looking at his entire voting record and stances on policy issues it becomes apparent he's not a purist. Many LP members say they won't vote for him due to his stance on immigration as an example. A number of revolutionists backed him due to the nature of a more conservative leaning libertarian philosophy. There may be enough of a shared platform to attract many to the LP party yet many will not join. Also, unless the LP has matured, there is too much in-fighting for "power" positions within the party to ever grow to the size it should have reached by now. There is a great deal in common regarding many platform issues however.
Constitution Party (CP): By name alone this sounds like the perfect marriage. Ron Paul is the defender of the Constitution. Revolutionists want to restore the U.S. to its Federalist Republic roots as outlined in the Constitution. On the surface a better match can not be found. However, there are enough revolutionists that would be hesitant to join a party whose preamble clearly defines the Creator as Jesus Christ. Everywhere Creator is used in their platform issues they mean Jesus Christ. Although it is true the Constitutional Convention had its share of Christians among the 55 enlightened men many were also Deist while still other faiths or beliefs were represented. There was never a definition of the Creator in the Declaration of Independence as the definition differed among the framers of the Declaration as well as it differed among the Constitutional Convention representatives. Is that enough to keep many revolutionists from joining this otherwise closely aligned party?
Revolutionist Party: This is a fictitious third party as I write this, although there is The Revolution' party. Actually, there are roughly 53 recognized political parties, the two major parties and 51 so called third parties. There are calls to completely break from all party affiliation and develop a new third party in the United States, joining the ranks of these many others. Most calling for this action may or may not be aware of the complexities of developing a truly serious third party. With the many free thinkers attracted to the campaign for liberty it may prove quite an extensive process simply to agree on a well worded platform let alone develop party hierarchy across the country.
No Party at All: As a gelled group of Independents there is a chance to vote with the candidate of closest alignment to the needs of the revolution. This has some inherent challenges largely due to the nature of election laws set by each state party. There is no clear acceptance from state to state regarding open primary voting. In a national election Independent voters are able to cast their vote for the candidate of their choice, the one they want the state electors to vote for. As an Independent organization each revolutionist would be free to choose whomever they wanted to support which could appeal to a wider base and cause less splintering of the group since it requires no party.
I'm hoping this brief article will spark some good debate while helping us quickly decide what direction we are going to go as an organized group. The wrong thing to do is splinter apart since the revolution so vital to the restoration of our FederalistRepublic will weaken. For that reason alone I'll share my opinion on whether we stay or go. What I think we should choose is any option individuals want for voting while seriously considering forming a Political Action Committee (PAC). Call it the "Revolutionists Against Constitutional Erosion" if we want to play a whole new RACE card. Call it whatever the group decides.
PACs are relatively easy to form and can wield a lot of influence. By definition a PAC is nothing more than a private group organized to elect or defeat government officials and/or promote legislation. We need to do both in order to restore the United States. Another advantage to organizing a PAC is it will allow members of the organization to choose any party affiliation they desire. If you want to be in the GOP, LP, CP, or Independent that is each member's personal choice. There's no risk or worry about splintering the organization over a debate of party affiliation. We can focus on the important aspects of two core needs; education and involvement. Should we care what party a candidate is with as long as they share the beliefs of the PAC? How about having every candidate coming to us to convince us they are the one we should endorse and why?! As a Congressional candidate I remember making the rounds to several PAC committees who grilled me relentlessly to see if I was going to be their candidate or not. We can hold our 'Moment of Truth' with the folks wanting to represent we the people!
In conclusion I simply state whether we stay or whether we go we should definitely PAC!
----------------------------------- Recent Articles by Gary ----------------------------------------
If you enjoyed this article give it a thumbs up, bookmark it to your favorite site from the drop-down menu and suggest it to a friend. Thanks for taking the time to visit Nolan Chart, do come back often for the latest from all political views.
2008 by Gary Wood - Permission to copy with attribution granted.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 39 thumbs so far
2008 Gary Wood, all rights reserved.
Published: Thursday, February 7, 2008
Last modified: Thursday, February 7, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Gary Wood only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Gary Wood is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
This race has a huge chance to run as a brokered convention. If anyone sees anything wrong with these let me know so I could change them.
Look below at the current results. It would take Mccain 25 wins to be nominated at 50% or above. There are 18 states left for caucuses I believe although I am missing today's results.
-Mccain has 13 wins. 1 in Louisiana is still debatable. -Romney has 11 wins. -Huckabee has 5 wins. -Ron Paul possibly has 1 win in Louisiana but that is debatable.
So, Mccain would need to win at least 12 more states out of 18 left in order for him to win. I think there is a strong possibility of Huckabee winning a few states and Paul could win an upset in one; maybe even Texas.
Let's pretend that Huckabee wins 3, Romney wins 6 and Mccain wins 9 which sounds realistic. Guess what it's a brokered convention!
So, we can win guys don't be discouraged! If this boils to delegates the power of our grassroots can outbeat them!
Alaska - Romney California - mccain Nevada - Romney Idaho - Romney Utah - Romney Arizona - Mccain New Mexico - Mccain Colorado - Romney Wyoming - Romney North Dakota - Romney Kansas - Romney Oklahoma - Mccain Minnesota - Romney Iowa - Huckabee Missouri - Mccain Arkansas - Huckabee Michigan - Romney Tennessee - Huckabee Florida - Mccain Georgia - Huckabee South Carolina - Mccain West Virginia - Huckabee Delaware - Mccain New Jersey - Mccain Connecticut - Mccain Massachussetts - Romney New Hampshire - Mccain Maine - Romney New York - Mccain Oregon Washington Montana South Dakota Nebraska Texas Hawaii Missouri Louisiana - Mccain / Possible win for Ron Paul North Carolina Kentucky Indiana Ohio Wiskonsin Virginia Pennsylvania Vermont Maryland Rhode Island
----------------
11 Romney 13 Mccain / 12 Louisiana is still debatable! 5 Huckabee
I think the worst thing that could happen is Paul supporters splinter into small, ineffective groups.
Paul supporters have worked very hard and have a lot of momentum going. We should capitalize on that.
One unified group would have more political power than several small groups or individuals.
So, at first glance, I really like the idea of forming a political action committee rather than starting a new political party. By doing this we could focus our energy on the issues and backing candidates (or finding our own candidates to run) that share the same political philosophy--or at a minimum, the issues we determine to have high priority.
In my opinion one of the most important of these issues would at least include reinstating civil liberties in the constitution. Without civil liberties ensured, dissenters are not safe from political persecution.
Dr. Paul already has submitted a bill to congress to do just that:
I think the worst thing that could happen is Paul supporters splinter into small, ineffective groups.
Paul supporters have worked very hard and have a lot of momentum going. We should capitalize on that.
One unified group would have more political power than several small groups or individuals.
So, at first glance, I really like the idea of forming a political action committee rather than starting a new political party. By doing this we could focus our energy on the issues and backing candidates (or finding our own candidates to run) that share the same political philosophy--or at a minimum, the issues we determine to have high priority.
In my opinion one of the most important of these issues would at least include reinstating civil liberties in the constitution. Without civil liberties ensured, dissenters are not safe from political persecution.
Dr. Paul already has submitted a bill to congress to do just that:
Here's another not So Super Wednesday suggestion expanded from those here: http://www.nolanchart.com/article2507.html
Vote on alternatives to the "Ron Paul rEVOLution" slogan. When it goes into our mind we hear REVOLUTION, not evolution.
My offer: "Constitutional RESTORATION" Drive the MSM 'Controllers' NUTS by pointing out their conflicting interests, such as wanting to retain the "Biggest losers' in office! Why else do they conceal evidence and debate of how majority rule is subverted?
Just who is ultimately polled is another matter but it wouldn't be too hard to use the 'Thumb' with separate articles proposing other slogans &/or group/party names.
I like Constitutional Restoration. Or Federalist Republic Restoration. It more clearly defines the goal which is not change but restoring the form of government the founders entrusted us with. Besides, I love anything that drives the MSM nuts. Remember 'nuts' spelled backward is 'STUN' and we can definitley stun them constantly!
The PAC idea is not bad. Let's face it, the Republican Party is brain dead. It is essentially an amalgam of grey-beards who are reliving WWII and acting too comfy-cozy in the nest egg they have built. The Libertarian Party seems fractured and slow to react. The Constitution Party, likewise, has had its chance and has not made a dent.
I'm thinking new party, new people, younger people, with a more inclusive message. Let's create a party with less ideology and less cerebral fixations. I must admit, I wince every time I hear discussions on Austrian economics. Maybe 1% of the American public can digest that. Perhaps, we should be thinking of an American Party that values American sovereignty, culture, and so forth. Look around, and you'll see nationalistic leaders making big successes (Putin, for one). And let's forget about the religious bent--that is simply turning people off. Let the evangelical soul-savers and the globalist world-builders, go somewhere else.
Actually, open borders are not that bad, if immigration is legal and controlled. States' rights are good, if a few things are left to the Fed and many things are left to the States. Health care isn't bad, if it's deregulated but also controlled to a level where people can afford it, and medicines are available from anywhere (consumer choice).
But enough with the philosophical arguments and platforms. I can barely get the correct order at a restaurant. Find a platform that means something to ordinary Americans, and a politician who can sell it; then, change might not be so difficult.
A lot of good input Scott. You are on the money with the need for an easier to digest presentation of key issues. I'm still very reluctant to get involved in forming another party however. A PAC can accomplish everything you outlined without the need to worry about party affiliation and without the great amount of effort required to get a political party national.
I remember trying to help build the Veteran's Party. Goodness, what a chore. Also, if the entire group doesn't agree with a new party we begin to splinter. The whole party hangup just makes me nervous about losing solidarity. Hmmm...
Hijack an acronym-- Constitutional Federalists' Restoration -- CFR.
Anyway, I'll stop spamming comments after this, but I agree with Robert above. Take Texas and it's 140 delegates, and you've got instant brokered nomination. Then worry about the Congressional 2010 elections.
Posted By: mike montagne
Date: 2008-02-07 01:48:19
The problem with any existing party, and particularly the Republican Party, is we will be fighting with entrenched founders who have a differing agenda, or they would have adopted the Paul Revolution.
I say we start a new party, and keep it simple. Instead of dedicating it to a legacy of dogma, unleash with the lightest load of guiding principle.
We already have a candidate. The Democrats have never represented me. Neither have the Republicans. The only reason I'd be caught dead as a member of the Republican Party was to vote Ron Paul in my state's primary. As I have said all along, if the Constitution (Ron Paul) isn't nominated, then I condemn that corrupt party to the dust bin forever.
What do we have to agree upon?
1. A name.
2. Officers.
3. Bylaws.
4. A platform.
The first and second are trivial, at least for now, given that our candidate's campaign is the principal important political body.
The third should be standard procedure, especially if we keep it simple.
The fourth -- a platform -- is the only stumbling block, unless like the founders, we can agree on a way to agree.
Let me first say that I'm all for this, because all our lives are going to go by the wayside if we don't rout out the corruption which has usurped our country.
I'm sure for all of you that how we agree on a platform, and what platform we agree upon are critical. They certainly are for me. Probably all of us have certain points we are unwilling to compromise on; and probably that is because we already hold certain principles dear -- the principles which thus must form the core of our party.
I would like to make a few suggestions.
I would be glad to host the debate in our new forum. I say we first take suggestions for *issues* that our present/immediate platform must address. We determine how we are to vote on these to promote them to adoption.
We subject adoption to a time limit, leaving open the possibility that we might see fit to add heavily supported further issues as support predicates. Online polls can handle all of this; and we can build them in minutes.
When we have our issues, we then debate the platform position on each. If we are wise, we can trust that we can develop the platform which represents us as we intend. A diversity of argument is good, if it can be tested and refined by wisdom of the flavor from which our country sprang forth.
As a first guiding principle, I believe it is vital that we observe in all cases the need to represent all citizens. This together with strict abidance by the Constitution, is certainly one of the most important principles of a republic; and its debasing is certainly one of the greatest sources of the present division and disintegration.
I'm ready to start right away. But I'll tell you straight away that I'll want no part of a political movement which will not run on a platform of mathematically perfected economy. I trust however that I can argue the merits of that proposition to the satisfaction of reasonable people. I regret that I haven't been able to sit with Ron Paul, because I believe MPE would have been the cornerstone of a successful campaign, which could already have drawn the vast breadth of our contry to the RP Movement.
To find if this initiative can/will draw support, if a few people will visit our pages at perfecteconomy.com and use the mailing forms in the right-hand column to contact me, I will set up special forum categories for our initial discussion.
Actually, I just took care of that. You can join and post at
I'm a traditional Republican who supported RP in my state. I plan on following what Ron Paul does. If he starts a new party, then I'll follow. I agree with nearly all of his positions, but not the immigration positions for example, of the LP. Times change and his approachs to the issues are right on. Basically I'm holding out to see what the Dr. says we do as I trust him fully.
I've been hoping he starts a new party before he retires, naming it the American Party. It sounds so loaded... "I'm a member of the AMERICAN PARTY" :)
We are staying and fighting on. What is our option to give up when we have so much momentum. We need to stick together and fight we are millions out there. Let's get the supporters to march on a specific day. Let's get out there and walk for Paul.
The problem is not that the LP is fractured it's that the LP has taken so long to get their message across that the LP as a brand (forgive me) is marginalized. A new party is the only way to restore constitutional rights. How? Well for one. Begin by marketing ("informing" because that is what it boils down to) the general populace that our republic has been so watered down that it's principles of liberty and self responsiblility have been hijacked by religious and/or socialist nuts and that the ideas it represents have been (again) so watered down that the average U.S. citizen has been duped into believing that you have to either vote for security and safety or security and safety. And that there really is no fence to fall on either side of. Libertarian notions of free will and all that is inclusive of that is not a new notion (not by any means) but not all that is new is gold. Human right's are not new ideals but are still seen as a sign of progress in most industrialized nations. Individual liberty is the greatest right of all and the government's job is a sacred one by guaranteeing those rights. No matter how morally deplorable they may be (as long as they don't infringe on another's right) to specific individuals/entities. This is why our ideals stand a chance. They are simple. "Do unto others as you would have done unto you". That may not be an exact quote but it sums it up as far as I can tell. I forsee a day and I'm sure the forefathers did as well, when these principles are absolute. When the vote for president or any other office for that matter is decided on seemingly trivial matters. I have no problem with that. Why? You may ask. Because it would mean that freedom is not something to squabble over. It's obvious. Who would want to pass legislation banning one idea or personal act in favor of a broad "community responsibility". This notion is to me and in my opinion; should be to others absurd. I pray for the day that evangelical christians and god forsaken (for lack of a better term) athiests vote for the same candidate. Not because they share that candidates/party's social ideals but because they understand that regulating morality and regulating the economy is not and should not be the governments job in society. There will always be debate. This is good and again, should be obvious. I'm not a conspiracy theorist (the caveat for many libertarians I know) but I am an absolutist when it comes to the constitution. I may be going out on a limb here for some but if you feel the supreme law of the land is utterly wrong then amend it or change it within the guidelines of the republic. Don't sidestep and whitewash it to fit your own needs. Why is this even an issue? This is my point. We need a revolution. I am in no sense condoning or denouncing violence but this is what we need nonetheless. Peace is a gift we must embrace but not a requirement of freedom. As of now this is not common knowledge but must be, for our nation to progress and in many way's degress to a more perfect union. That being said I don't/will not live in the past. Too many failures and dissapointments to count. I will however stress the need that our ideals do not die with this election nor with Ron Paul as they did not die within our forefathers hearts when their fathers, son's, sister's and mothers gave everything for the cause. We must go forward. We must create a new party. I almost hate to suggest a name for that party but in the context of this discussion I assume I must. The Libertarian Party. Yes that's what I said. It is new. If you disagree, here are the stats in simple form. Democrats/Rebulican parties: circa 1820's. Libertarian Party 1970's. That is not to say that libertarian ideas have not been around that long. The opposite is true. Our ideals have been around since the age of enlightenement. Not to say they have been outdated. To the contrary. They have been the buttress against tyranny since the day's of our founding and have been the bedrock of a society that unfortunately has lost it's way. I believe in the Libertarian party. It is the only hope we have against the coming swarm. I will vote republican. If only for the sake of Ron Paul. He can win, but if he doesn't we must pour our sweat and tears into the LP and bleed totalitarianism disguised in compassion (for the time being) dry. It is the only way. Please understand, I am not being contradictory. We do need a new party. The issue at hand is that this party already exists. If Dr. Paul does not come out on top then I will bleed Libertarian (a genuinely new party that has finally after 30 years begun to find it's voice) which is to say, I will bleed Freedom. Either way I will bleed and I will do so with honor.
By being a member of any party, you end up sacrificing part of your soul to get the support of the machinery of party. It's an uphill fight to get on the ballot as an independent. Ross Perot might have gotten it done, if he had stayed in the race. He had the cash and mostly the right ideas on the economy.
We're stuck with two parties. Hold you nose and pick one!
My wife, my kiddos and me are in it till the end, there is no other choice. If Ron Pual can't support any of the others, neither can we. I'll follow Ron Paul's lead. My re-education would not have it any other way. I'll not support the GOP again after their dispicable treatment of this good man and our campaign. Republicans/Democrats = Same Crap, different piles.
Apparently there is already an American Party. Any other suggestions? Freedom Party? Liberty Party? Freeliberty Party? A Party where we give away free liberty?
I would like to be part of developing a PAC and think that's the way to go. To this end I am working on a movement called "Reform2008.com" that is focused on the 2008 election and seek to unite voters in all camps to fix broken government.
It is new and I can use any help I can get. The goal is to identify and promote candidates in all races that will commit to real reforms. Possibly have them sign a pledge or contract addressing 4 or 5 key issues.
This should be carried on beyond the 2008 election and can be done so by creating a PAC that wields power.
There are issues that transcend party affiliation and most people understand and agree that major reforms are needed. People are attracted to Dr. Paul (like I am) because of his stance on the issues... but there are a substantial number of voters in the big 2 parties that won't leave but still want reforms.
Please contact me at info@reform2008.com to discuss this and get more info on the concept of Reform2008.
Well based on the replies we have a lot of great information and ideas. Still too many of the replies are focused on party politics. I really am not interested in playing party politics and believe members of the revolution should be left to decide whatever they want when it comes to the party affiliation question. By forming a PAC all members are free to do that and we can accomplish all the goals of promoting the make sense initiatives we all believe in. Chris, when I get a chance later today I'll check out the website you list. Also, I'll contact the campaign and see if there is any interest from Dr. Paul in the idea of unifying the great people of this movement under a PAC. I'll keep all the Nolan Chart faithful updated on what I find out from them. Thanks for all the input and keep it coming!
We should wait till after the GOP convention to see if Ron Paul can't talk some sense into the Republican party at the national convention.
If they don't listen to him we can always organize a march on that day. It would be a great moment in U.S. politics if 10-100k of Ron Paul supporters dress up as revolutionary soldiers for it!
The key to the Ron Paul Revolution has been The Message. Ron's candidacy provided a platform for The Message. Many of you joined the revolution because you heard the message.
You don't need a political party get out the message.
But organization and leadership do help.
That has been the mission of The John Birch Society for the past five decades. It was the JBS who brought the NAU to the surface. The JBS supports no candidates, but its members are political activists. They do things like clunk down over $5,000 to provide a hall for the post Reagan Library debate.
The hardcore anti-illegal immigration legislation in Oklahoma. Yes, that was the work of Birchers.
Oh, and that filmstrip about The Fed narrated by Ed Griffin - yes, that was an early JBS production. Us Birchers have been Birching for decades.
I think the worst thing that could happen is Paul supporters splinter into small, ineffective groups.
Paul supporters have worked very hard and have a lot of momentum going. We should capitalize on that.
One unified group would have more political power than several small groups or individuals.
So, at first glance, I really like the idea of forming a political action committee rather than starting a new political party. By doing this we could focus our energy on the issues and backing candidates (or finding our own candidates to run) that share the same political philosophy--or at a minimum, the issues we determine to have high priority.
In my opinion one of the most important of these issues would be reinstating civil liberties in the constitution. Without civil liberties ensured, dissenters and political activits are not safe from political persecution.
Dr. Paul already has submitted a bill to congress to do just that:
The American Freedom Agenda Act Of 2007, Bill Hr 3835
First, Bit2Right, you Birchers are a real pain in the tale feathers and...that's a good thing!! Keep stirring it up and keeping the honest thieves honest and the dishonest ones on the run and mad. Thanks for that!
BT , and everyone else, thank to Mike Foster's response I learned today Ron Paul has already established the Liberty PAC. There isn't much at the website yet. I fired off an email to their contact address and I am waiting for a reply from either that or the one I sent to the campaign.
I'm going to put out a short article exposing the Liberty PAC to all the readers here. Dr. Paul is quite savvy, he's the honorary chairman of the Liberty PAC, and its the perfect vehicle to rally the entire revolution to. No worry about your party, party where you want...we just say PACd together...keep the ideas flowing and look for my Libery PAC article soon.
Thanks revolutionists, together eveyone achieves more! (TEAM)
and it looks like they have the same idea we have here about a policitcal action group. They are just getting set up--probably a good time for us to get involved and join up.
I will be interested in their response to Gary's email.
Bit2Right, Congress is the key. However, I've looked carefully at the link and the other sites linking to it. These are very suspicious looking. Quite different from Ron Paul's. Liberty PAC, the contribute button works however. The bottom of the first page says this;
" This web site created voluntarily at home on personal equipment.Not authorized by any candidate nor his or her authorized committee."
If you click Liberty League PAC is has three small pages exactly the same, one page listing Dr. Paul and Forsythe and a donate button. The Liberty War Chest is a bravenet created page designed to collect money.
There's is no official record of the Liberty League PAC. It looks like a three site scam to swindle donations. I'm not saying it is, I'll need to investigate deeper, but these three sites are very suspicious.
I'll let you know what I find out but if anyone finds anything else out on the folks behind these web pages please let me know. Thanks!
I chose NOT to donate at PaulCongress. I have donated directly to some of the campaigns - in particular Murray, because I have read his stuff over the years.
But PaulCongress can get one headed in the right direction - especially if they click on the button CHANGE THE TIDE!
The best button I've found on any of the sites is the Change the Tide button...it leads to a great article on Nolan Chart's, The 5th of November...2008, have you read it? ;0)
Seriously, I spent hours investigating 8 sites linked within the ring. Two are legitimate and one of them has no return links while the other has two but question whether they are good and ask for feedback on what is discovered by any user.
I'm going to do up a quick article on the investigation so far.
Stay in the Republican party. Keep the faith. Keep spreading the message. Work within the PAC framework (let us know when Ron Paul talks about this from his own mouth). Keep using the Ron Paul and R3volution brand. Keep building the numbers. And simply wait... Our time will come.
McCain winning the nomination could very well be the silver bullet to kill the neo-con influence in the Republican party and send them back to the Democrats where they belong. My feeling is that the conservatives within the party are growing sick of them, and letting McCain flunk would be a great way for their message to be disgraced in the party.
Start working on your precincts, start thinking about whether you want to try for congress, and keep the faith. We have little time, so please don't drop out of the process, we need everyone to stick with it.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Gary Wood, all rights reserved.