Paul faction silenced at RNC.

"a three or four day paid commercial for the nominee." It's a 3 or 4 day FREE commercial for both partys, Chris. It's 99% BS. The "Big Tent" has turned into a PUP tent, however the GOP has never really toletated any PUBLIC dissent. They're organized, & settle differences behind closed doors.

Really strange, it just doesn't seem smart from their point of view, unless the number was much larger than expected?

Republican leadership is not even trying to get our votes, beyond some worthless fluff.

Matthew, in recent weeks, Ron Paul followers have been as bad or worse than Obama worshipers. I've been really disappointed in some folks and how they've acted and reacted.

Republican leadership is not even trying to get our votes, beyond some worthless fluff.

That should tell you something about the Republican party.

Marilyn, I'd be interested in more details sometime.

True David, what do you think it says about the GOP?

what do you think it says about the GOP?

That the GOP considers him a nutjob pain in the keister but put up with him because they desperately need the votes he could bring. So they are rolling their eyes, giving him some lip service, put his kid on the podium, and will gladly take his voters and then turn their backs on him.

And I suspect you see the same thing.

Pretty much, but their unnecessary snubs and insults don't seem like a strategy for winning votes. It's not like Romney was ever in danger of loosing the nomination to Paul, yet these tactics have continued. I suppose it's because some individuals involved dislike the Paul wing so much they don't care if they lose votes. Not to mention they want to pretend everyone is united behind Romney.

"Pretty much, but their unnecessary snubs and insults don't seem like a strategy for winning votes."

I suspect that to some degree, they expect to get most of those votes anyway. Or at least not to lose them to Obama.

How many Ron Paul Republicans will be willing to accept a short-term loss (potentially helping Pres. Obama win a second term) for the chance at a long-term win (more influence within the Republican party)?

After talking to lots of them Wil, I just think that they feel it is only honest to vote for him for President since they really feel is the only one that has the correct ideas and plans for the country.

Yep, you're right, we will miss their votes :)

"Yep, you're right, we will miss their votes :)"

I guess we'll have to wait and see, Glome. Wait to see how many of the Ron Paul Republicans refuse to vote for Romney, and whether or not their votes will be missed enough that the Republican party does more to court their vote in future elections.

It's not an issue that I'm overly familiar with, but I heard a person explain how withholding votes/support had worked for the NRA/"pro-gun" lobby and the anti-choice/"pro-life" lobby, and I think that the Ron Paul crowd either needs to adopt a similar strategy, or else give up on being a meaningful part of (never mind controlling) the Republican party.

On one hand, I think the way the Republicans have treated the Ron Paul campaign is pretty despicable. They've done just about everything they can think of to make it clear that the only thing they want from Ron Paul supporters is a vote for Mitt Romney.

On the other hand, I can't get too worked up over the delegate-binding rule changes. The Paul supporters tried to game the system and rack up delegates despite Paul's poor performance in terms of the popular vote.

A grassroots effort to take over (or at least subvert) the political party machinery is one thing. But a true grassroots effort needs popular support to be successful. Ron Paul received almost 11% of the popular vote. Nearly 9 out of 10 Republican primary voters voted for somebody who was not Ron Paul. They didn't want him to be their candidate, and they didn't want him to be POTUS.

Now those Ron Paul voters need to decide if they want Mitt Romney to be POTUS and whether they want it bad enough that they'll actually vote for him.

Now those Ron Paul voters need to decide if they want Mitt Romney to be POTUS and whether they want it bad enough that they'll actually vote for him.

Given how he has been treated by the party, it would seem to be hypocritical to vote for Romney now. So the question that begs to be answered is, are Ron Paul supporters hypocrites?

That's something I've been thinking about recently, David. And I think at least part of it comes down to the Paul supporters' reasons behind their delegate strategy. If they were hoping that somehow, despite receiving such a small percentage of the popular vote, that they'd manage to win the Republican nomination for Ron Paul, then I think they're hypocrites.

If they expected Republican voters, the vast majority of whom had already made it clear that they didn't support Ron Paul, to vote for him either out of loyalty to the party (because he was the guy with the R next to his name), or because he was the ABO (Anybody But Obama) candidate, then they're hypocrites if they won't vote for Romney for the same reasons.

How would that be hypocrisy? Wow, you gossipy old ladies aren't thinking straight :) You vote certain ways for different reasons. Some may be praying and just hoping beyond hope that a miracle will happen. OR, they may just have a need to vote 'right' even if it is a useless act. I don't think we need to make something evil out of the different ways someone votes. Or just because they are Republicans :)

By the way, I really love Mitt Romney now. I never, ever thought I would. I just love him and his wife and their 5 sons.

I like Ron Paul. I do think he is very open and honest. I'm just not ready to change our policy on protecting Israel.

"How would that be hypocrisy?"

It would be hypocrisy if they expected the vast majority of Republican voters who rejected Ron Paul to vote for him if he somehow managed to win the Republican nomination, if they won't vote for Romney after he's won the nomination. I didn't say anything about it being evil, Glome. I said it would be hypocritical.

Having said that, I don't know that the strategy behind the delegate grab was really about somehow manipulating the process to get Paul the nomination. But that's the feeling I've gotten after speaking with and reading comments by a number of Ron Paul supporters.

I like Ron Paul. I do think he is very open and honest. I'm just not ready to change our policy on protecting Israel.

From what I understand, that's a common concern among many evangelical Christian Republican voters, Glome.

If Republicans will do such things to each other just imagine what they'll do to independents or others not Republicans. The odor of totalitarian., Big Brother government is strong at the Republican Convention.

If democrats had a Ron Paul I think they would treat him the same way.

Matthew,

The Democrats are far more diverse and therefore have to be more tolerant. Remember they are the party that experienced the "Dixiecrats" back when Civil Rights was the big issue. The Republican Party is far more "pure" and uniform in its ideology and membership. So in my opinion the Democrats would be more tolerant of the Ron Paul ideology among a Democrat group.

On the other hand, the history of the Democratic Party shows that it is quite willing to cheat, lie, steal, and otherwise gull the public every bit as much as the Republican Party.

Diverse in which way?

Matthew,

How many ways are there? The Democrats base is ethnically, racially, religiously, and regionally diverse. They appeal to liberals, moderates, and socialists. They support a wide variety of opinions on things like drugs, guns, abortion, the death penalty, and so forth. In other words, every group that the Republican platform and policies scapegoat (like illegal immigrants) is likely to get at least some acceptance from the Democrats. The Republicans have a very strict party line. Only one point of view on most issues is permitted. Big difference.

Extremely well said, Larry. [August 30, 8:30am EDT]

Perhaps they are more diverse in some ways as you mention Larry, but democrats don’t really have a Ron Paul right now, that is, someone who stands up to the establishment, stands against at least some of the philosophical pillars the party holds dear, etc. So we can only guess how they would treat such a person and his supporters, and I can’t think of any reason why it wouldn’t be similar to the GOP’s treatment of Paul.

Matthew,

The Democrats in DC are the establishment. They hold the Presidency and the Administration. They are the majority in the Senate. They also have (or had, I don't keep that close track) Lieberman who stood up to them in support of the Republicans several times. He's no Ron Paul but was a thorn.

Remember there are few essential differences between major political parties. The differences change over time. So I have every reason to believe that anyone challenging the power structure of the Democrats would be treated very much the same way Paul is being treated by the Republicans. That's what power structures do.

The problem is that the Republican Party these days is entering one of those dangerous conditions that lead to strong man rule and despotism. They are by no means there yet. But the emphasis on purity and on the terrible threat of "others" and the unwillingness to compromise on issues is making a tool that can one day be seized by those who would rule rather than govern. We need the Republican Party to also be diverse, to attract people of all kinds, not just the few. We can already see the consequences of this "us against the world" attitude in the voter identification laws in many states. These are blatant attempts to restrict the voting right to only insiders. There is simply no justification for denying a sizable percentage of the adult population the opportunity to vote. This is also another "camel's nose under the tent" situation because its success will encourage still further restrictions until only "party members" are allowed to vote. It's the "pole tax" and "literacy requirements" technique in new clothes.

My time and my vote were wasted in Oregon. The head of the party held a private party and chose his friends and relatives to go, completely disrespecting the people who ran under the rules. He broke the rules for his own personal benefit. This happened in other states as well. It is quite well documented with phone video.

Polls have frequently shown that the people want fiscal responsibility and social freedom.

Now the establishment Republicans are trying to get the L line off the ballot in a number of states.

This is only part of their attempt to disenfranchise people. This is a short-term behavior that may have unpredictable results even in the short term.

I think it's elitism, which has pretty much become a universal mantra throughout both major Parties and the mass media . . the idea that high-ups ought to decide everything, because the little people are just not qualified to have a say in much of anything. We little folks are to be spied on, searched, abducted, imprisoned, tortured and even killed, with no real restrictions or accountability, as the elites see fit. The Repubs don't want to have to pay lip service to the Constitution or our Constitutional rights anymore, so of course they are treating the last real defender we have left in that Party like crap . .

There was an amendment to the recent NDAA voted on in the House, , which would have prohibited the government from indefinitely detaining U.S. citizens without trial, and all of 19 Republicans supported it . . Now, freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose, it seems. We're free to do what we're told now, free to pick one or the other elitist facemen offered on the ballot . . . and get the purple finger ; )

John, "We little folks are to be spied on, searched, abducted, imprisoned, tortured and even killed, with no real restrictions or accountability, as the elites see fit. The Repubs don't want to have to pay lip service to the Constitution or our Constitutional rights anymore, so of course they are treating the last real defender we have left in that Party like crap . .

Me. John, I don't think we're that bad yet. I assumed all the conservatives were really ticked with the flagrant rules being broken by President Obama and his unconstitutional freedoms he's allowing himself to enjoy invading everybody's privacy.

However I am shocked that the 19 Republicans supported it. I had forgotten about that but remember when I first heard it thinking there must be more than was written there. I just didn't think conservatives would do that. We must be harboring liberal Republicans in the party. Wow!!
That better be brought up and changed if we get in.

Yes, Glome, I meant the official Party leadership, not the run of the mill members . . the little people ; )


"We must be harboring liberal Republicans in the party. Wow!!"

Well, remember please, the term liberal once meant those like our Founders, who favored the rule of law, and not men . . and the natural rights of . . the little people ; )

In terms of the new meaning, which seems to be almost diametrically opposed to "classic liberalism", I must agree; "That better be brought up and changed if we get in." We've got to get back to the Constitution, I say, while we still can. The rule of Law and not men.

"However I am shocked that the 19 Republicans supported it."

Actually, all but 22 Republicans voted for it. 16 Republicans in the House of Representatives, and 6 Republicans in the Senate.

There are 241 Republicans in the House of Representatives, which means that 225 of them voted for this bill. And there are 47 Republicans in the Senate, which means that 41 of them voted for this bill.

And that includes 62 of the 76 members of the Republican Tea Party Caucus, who voted for the bill.