In general the LA Times article is very poorly written and is very biased against Ron Paul. That said, I find it interesting that this has tickled someone's sensors. That some conservatives might be considering attempting to influence the Republican Convention and make it something other than a coronation.

 

A little revolt is a good thing if its done right.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

Ron Paul revolt?  Count me in!  Where do I go to sign up?  Bob Barr for Prez?  Outstanding!  He was about the most conservative representative in Congress during his terms--next to Paul himself, of course.

 

I always wonder about the feelings of self-importance of people who want to run for President when they know they have no possible chance to win. It's impossible to believe either Paul or Barr are so delusional they dream of victoy. When Barr was asked if he was afraid of taking votes from McCain and consequently facilitating an Obama's win, Barr responded by essentially saying don't blame me if McCain is not good enough to beat Obama with me in the race. Let's call it the Nader Syndrome and having it should automatically disqualify such a person from any office of responsibility.

Unfortunately one must be practical, a vote for Barr or Paul is a vote for Obama. If you want to "Punish" the Republicans well......ok, vote for Barr/Paul; but then as a voter one must assume the responsibility for the consequences we suffer because of that act and those who act so, have their names inscribed on the list of fools. 

No, one must not be pragmatic.  Pragmatism is among the most contemptable of human motivations.  It's not about trying to punish the Republican Party, it's about trying to educate it.  When those political prostitutes stop abandoning principal for political expediency and supposed political gain, they can gain the votes of independents like me who actually believe the Constitution--and not some "living, breathing" sick caricature of it--is worth something.  Furthermore I have no desire to share responsibility for the consequences we suffer because of the act of voting for McCain, either.  I'd much rather (and gladly) be thought a fool for voting for a far better candidate than thought a fool for merely voting against the worst candidate.  I suggest any of you Republicans who also happen to be conservatives should do likewise. 

 

I would suggest the time and place to educate Republicans are the primarys and the years leading up to them. Paul was unable to make his case and Barr chose not to compete. So now they will work against the better of the only two candidates who could possibly be elected and delude themselves they are doing it for the good of the US, the Constitution etc, etc.  Their actions are what is contemptible.

Just because RP didn't get a significant number of delegates does not mean his cause within the party does not have the makings of a revolt. RP's positions are only a few degrees of seperation off of most of the truely "conservative" of the party. There are many who might use his candidacy to highlight the differences between the conservatives and the ruling "moderates" as represented by McCain.

 

I will be attending an district Republican Caucus this very weekend here in Colorado.

 

Incendentially, I don't disagree with either position being debated above on this thread. Both are right.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

Ron Paul's 10 delegates will be lucky if convention security gives them a waiver for the minimum teeth requirement.

 

Bob Barr as LP candidate. Hmmm. Now that's tempting. Is Barr more Ayn Rand on national security, or a Raothbard retard like Paul?

 

 

Fabulous! Meanwhile there may be up to 3 available seats open on the supreme court during the next administration. Now do I necessarily believe that 2 to 3 percent loser vote may sway the outcome? Possible, yet not probable. What I am more concerned with is the seeming tantrum some are comfortable throwing because their are no longer worthy conservatives left in the race. Ummm...there hasn't been since 1984, I would argue.

 

You'll pardon if I can't get behind the silly notion of voting purposefully for not only losers, but actively advancing the cause of what one claims to be against.

 

When speaking about my beloved country and what possible directions said worse guy intends to take us, absolutetly! And it has far more reaching implications than just wanting to send Arabic speakers to Afghanistan... So the election cycle produced lemmons, time to make some lemmonade. It happens.

 

Let Mickey Mouse run. But if voting for him helps get in the guy with far worse credentials, beliefs, and competence; then what is it exactly that constitutes a benefit here? I don't mean to call you out specifically, I respect your knowledge and even intentions. I just cannot help but conclude that this course of action results in a net loss. In fact, we all know this to be the case.

 

And I am not convinced that the two Party system is inferior to multiple, several (many?) Party system. Mathematically, it certainly leaves a clearer indication that represents the mood and direction of what is the republic. Essential for setting/having policy mandates.

 

It seems to me, that what is not ideal, is to educate a Party while punishing the country. Is this not the real issue when applying ideology of governance? I believe it is much easier to educate within than sending a message by going a third Party option. There are many more idealogical conservative individuals inside the Republican Party than outside. Like it or not, your allies will be found there in greater numbers.

 

Forgive the soapbox...

The Republicratic Party stranglehold on politics can not be broken until third party candidates are elected.  A Third Party candidate can not win unless people vote for him.  If not you, who; if not now, when?

 

I became politically "aware" in 1985.  I literally have heard the Supreme Court nomination rationale pushed in every presidential campaign since then (I suspect it has been used since long before then, probably pretty much back to 1800, but I don't know).  Winning America back to political conservatism is not anything that can be done in one election cycle, and the overall slide into the abyss merely goes a bit faster or a bit slower when you pick between Tweedledee and Tweedledum from the Republicratic Party mainstream (by which I mean most Republicans and all Democrats), but we still keep sliding either way.  I don't want to slide even just a little, I want to climb back up.  Voting in some liberal Republican will not accomplish that goal, and sliding a little farther or not quite so much doesn't make any difference in winning the war overall, i.e., we're still sliding off the cliff either way.  I'm going to do the *only* thing that can actually score a win, and that's vote for people who actually will try to reverse the slide.  I'm not interested in trying to lose less ground, or even hold ground, I am interested in gaining ground.  Voting for a liberal Republican can not and will never accomplish that.  Even if the entire Congress and the president were all liberal Republicans we would still lose ground, because the problem is liberalism, not Democrat-ism.  That's all I can do:  educate myself and others, and act on my knowledge.  When enough other Americans wake up and do likewise, only then will we climb away from defeat.  Carry on.

 

 

You will find few people on these pages more supportive of conservativism and the Republican Party than myself. I am in fact working within the GOP to elect State and National candidates. I have never voted for aDemocrat. Not once. My bonifides being laid out, lets ask ourselves what we are getting with candidate JohnMcCain. I mentioned above that there are very few degrees of seperation between the conservative wing of the Republican Party and Ron Paul, there are demonstrably fewer degrees of seperation between JohnMcCain and what would pass for the Democrat Party platform and by extension, the candidates BarrackHussien Obama & Hillary Rodham Clinton.

 

Lets review: 1. Taxes- he voted against the Bush Admin. tax cuts with great enthusiasm and only came to his"religion" on this subject when his Presidential Candidacy was on the line. I don't trust him any further than I can throw him, I think I can throw him about 6 feet, 2. Immigration, He supports open borders/amnesty and worked vigorously with Ted Kennedy to keep open borders with no immigration enforcement and noconsequences to employers to hiring and retaining criminal aliens who are routinely stealing legitimate citizen's SSN's. That is a federal felony. I say again FELONY. His position is a minority position among US citizens (of both political parties) and he does not give a damn about that, 3. Second Amendment, he has supportedrestrictions on gun ownership (assault weapons bans) and I would expect him to continue that despite his "religious" conversion in the campaign, 4. Global Warming, Like Bush he finds it politcally expedient to ignore science and buy into the ban wagon mentality here and will likely not push for greater oil exploration anddrilling. Instead he will support our using food & water for energy while ignoring common sense and history on this subject,

5. Judges, This man wrote McCain-Fiengold, the greatest restriction on free speech since the revolution in 1776. What in the world makes anyone think he will appoint a Constitutionalist Judge that will overturn that abortion?, 6. Speaking of Abortions...........  You get the point here I shouldn't have to go on with this line of reasoning.

 

Tell me again why I am supposed to vote for John McCain?

 

Check Six

 

Rocky