Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
The GOP in Crisis: Conflict or Common Ground The GOP is at a crossroads and can choose either chaos and failure or unity and victory. Which course will you choose?by Dave Nalle
(Libertarian)
Thursday, May 1, 2008
This past week Nevada held its state Republican convention. As is likely to be the case in many other states, Ron Paul supporters were disproportionately represented among the delegates, making up close to half the convention membership rather than the 14% which he received in the state caucuses. With a strong grassroots organization, Paul supporters have dominated or taken over many district conventions nationwide, excluded delegates for other candidates, and sent large contingents to state conventions. Nevada is only the first in what may be a series of attempts to take over state conventions leading up to a similar takeover of the national Republican convention in August.
At the Nevada convention the response of the convention chairman, with the support of the state party organization, was to shut down the convention altogether as soon as it became clear that there would be an attempt at a coup by renegade delegates. They apparently plan to reconvene the convention and have the credentials committee disqualify Paul delegates to achieve the result they want.
Clearly it's not a good thing for party nominating conventions to end up with disproportionately large numbers of delegates who support a candidate who did not do all that well at the polls. Even worse when those delegates manage to take over the convention. The result is the effective disenfranchisement of the majority of primary voters who chose not to vote for that candidate and might end up with no representation at their state convention. That essentially amounts to a coup. [link edited for length] are trying to open a dialog and offer the hand of welcome to Ron Paul supporters willing to work to promote shared values and set the party on a more positive course without having to resort to tactics which will leave the party weaker and mean a victory for the socialist left in the general election. It's time to choose between chaos and defeat or unity and victory. If chaos continues and hands victory to the Democrats in November then everybody loses.
Changing the direction of a political party isn't the work of one election, but there is a lot which can be accomplished, quickly laying the groundwork for future success. The party as a whole can be moved in a more libertarian direction. A clear and unequivocal liberty-oriented platform would give the presidential nominee a decisive message of the kinds of policies he should focus on and the kind of campaign of principle which he ought to run. It would be a message which he cannot ignore and it would be a great first victory in the process of restoring the Republican party to the party which it ought to be.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 7 thumbs so far
2008 Dave Nalle, all rights reserved.
Published: Thursday, May 1, 2008
Last modified: Thursday, May 1, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Dave Nalle only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Dave Nalle 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.
I look at things rather differently than you seem to see them. Personally I couln't care less if the GOP wins the nomination or not. In all probability they are going to lose this election and if you think differently then you have your head in the sand.
Perhaps however thats exactly what needs to happen, the GOP losing that is. They need a wake up call that they cannot win without the Ron Paul supporters, and they need to learn that they can be kept out of power again and again and again until they reform the party. Once they get the message (which may take a bit of time looking at the average voter) then things can start to move forward, meanwhile the Paul supporters can work on changing the platform. Change is always painful and thats whats happening, the existing power structure doesn't like it and currently seeks to avoid it, next they will try to compromise a little, then a lot, then they will bow to the inevitable.
I have to admit that I'm a bit sceptical about some of the "realities" you are asking RP's supporters to accept. Among them:
"No matter how bad the current GOP leadership and administration are, the radical left as represented by Clinton and Obama is far more hostile to principles of individual liberty and small government than any Republican would ever be." Just how do you determine that, for example, Dick Cheney is friendlier to the principles of individual liberty than Barack Obama? How did you determine that he is friendly to those principles at all? I'd have to see some evidence before believing in this 'reality.'
"Virtually all Republicans value principles similar to those held by Ron Paul supporters. They're just more used to having to accept compromises. That doesn't mean they want to compromise those values, and given an opportunity to make those values a reality they would seize it." That one I'm having trouble even understanding. If virtually all Republicans would seize the opportunity to make their values a reality, then why, after 8 years of a Republican administration, wouldn't some have them been a reality by now? Has it been necessary to compromise on all of them?
"[Ron Paul's] ideas could still go on and become the basis for a great new Republican platform which would influence the party and all of its candidates for years to come. That's what efforts ought to be focused on." But why should that even be necessary? If virtually all Republicans hold the same values as Ron Paul, and would leap at any chance to make them a reality, why aren't those core values already reflected in the platform? Is that, too, due to the necessity of "compromises"? With whom? If virtually all Republicans share those values, who do you have to compromise with?
Where in this do you recognize that the Nevada GOP was disenfranchising its voters (who voted for Ron Paul above any but Romney, who later dropped out, and whose appearance at convention apparently was not enough to swing his delegates to McCain)? How do you possibly justify the state GOP trying to ram through a privately prepared slate of McCain delegates instead of letting delegates on the floor nominate delegates as is the typical course? If the nominating committee were to prepare a slate to offer to save time, why wouldn't that be a slate of Ron Paul delegates to begin with since of those left, Ron Paul WON Nevada?
Also, I heard a rumor that the convention was fillibustered to drag it out to the point where party leadership could claim time was up (at 5 pm!) Was the same video shown more than once, really?
I think if that is true, then there is a major disconnect between party leadership and any sense of representing Nevada Republican voters.
In my opinion, McCain is more Democrat than Republican, and I don't see why Nevada GOP would want to get behind such a candidate.
Clearly the voters and delegates of the state did not want to have McCain represent them.
If a different result comes from any reorganized convention than the overwhelming Ron Paul delegation clearly being approved at the initial convention, at this point it will look extremely fishy.
Delegates are elected to represent the people that elected them, not to fall in line behind the party bosses. How embarrassing is it for John McCain that he did not win the primary in Nevada. He didn't even place second, Dr. Paul did. One in four Republicans that bothered to vote in PA last week voted for Dr. Paul or The Huckaboo, not for John McCain. It is time for the party leadership to throw off the "braincloud" of Bush and the Neocons and return to the clarity of conservative principles upon which the party was founded. If you need a refresher, perhaps you should buy the #1 Best Selling Book on Amazon.com "The Revolution: A Manifesto" by Ron Paul.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-05-01 15:34:58
The GOP machine is a sickly, infested mongrel and deservedly needs to be put down.
I support Ron Paul but would NEVER, in a million years, support the Republican Party itself.
The two party system forces the hand of people like myself (and Ron Paul for that matter) and the idea that we should all aquiesce within a party to aid the party is what brought this two party monopoly to where we are now at...
The Democratic Party, as a party, is slightly better but not much better, and I would never vote to support the party in and of itself, though I would find some of its members palatable, especially in local politics.
Hey, if you guys are finished venting your outrage, I've put a trivia test on my home site to test your knowledge of the history of the Constitution. The first three to get the answers right will win a stylish "Unite or Die" T-shirt.
You can find the contest at http://www.republicofdave.com
I responded to this comment once already but the verification system somehow managed to delete it even from the browser's history without posting it. So pardon me if my redone responses are a bit brief. I hate going over the same material twice.
Just how do you determine that, for example, Dick Cheney is friendlier to the principles of individual liberty than Barack Obama?
Well, you could look at their relative voting records and public statements and political interest group ratings. Cheney does have a track record from when he was a legislator, you know. Since Obama has about the worst ratings of any Senator ever from NTU and CAGW and every other group favoring small government or individual liberty. I can't imagine Cheney or any other Republican being rated lower.
But what does Cheney have to do with anything? He's gone in a few months.
How did you determine that he is friendly to those principles at all? I’d have to see some evidence before believing in this ‘reality.’
I assume you're asking about McCain now? Again, look at his record. He's opposed discrimination in hiring based on sexual orientation. He's opposed affirmative action. He voted agains the federal marriage amendment. This one really isn't ambiguous. On issues of individual liberty McCain is in the top 3 or 4 in the Senate and inm the top 5% among all legislators. He has the 6th highest rating of ANY republican in house or senate from the ACLU.
That one I’m having trouble even understanding. If virtually all Republicans would seize the opportunity to make their values a reality, then why, after 8 years of a Republican administration, wouldn’t some have them been a reality by now? Has it been necessary to compromise on all of them?
The GOP has hardly compromised all of its values. They just happen to have made compromises on a few you find particularly offensive. And keep in mind that the party is heavily influenced by certain small voting blocks like the religious right, a tiny minority which has far too large a role in setting policy and which otherwise reasonable people have to go along with to get elected.
And even Bush has tried to pursue a more liberty-oriented agenda. He did try like hell to reform social security and privatize it. He's pushed for school vouchers and he did cut taxes substantially. He hasn't been terribly successful, but in a number of areas he has at least tried - more than any democrat would have done.
Seriously. What do you think your chances of seeing school choice, tax reform or social security privatization would be with Obama or Clinton?
But why should that even be necessary? If virtually all Republicans hold the same values as Paul, and would leap at any chance to make them a reality, why aren’t those core values already reflected in the platform? Is that, too, due to the necessity of “compromises”? With whom? If virtually all Republicans share those values, who do you have to compromise with?
Check the 2006 platform sometime. It has a lot of libertarian values in it. And again, the problem is the religious right. They change the focus of the agenda to their issues rather than a more liberty-oriented agenda. As a result many issues you'd probably like to see in a platform are just passed over so that space can be wasted on religious issues.
Most Republicans have good intentions but are relatively disorganized and powerless. They tend to get led in various directions by small, highly-motivated groups. In recent years that's been the religious right.
What I'd like to see is the Ron Paul supporters who are another small but highly motivated group, come in and replace the religious right as the influential minority. The rest of the party will gladly go along.
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 Dave Nalle, all rights reserved.