I am proud of all the hard work that was done yesterday in Missouri, and for many months past across the country to promote freedom and liberty through the campaign of Dr. Ron Paul. Let the creeps on this board and elsewhere ridicule us and build straw men of us that they can tear down - it doesn’t really matter because we are going to the caucuses, electing patriots, and taking the party back from fascism. We are not breaking rules or hijacking anything - the media has portrayed us as that, but the truth is that we are people of all stripes that recognize the importance of our Constitution in protecting the freedom and liberty of Americans. Many are simply angry that they are no longer getting their way. This is how revolutions are, with hard work and determination. I am excited to watch the same things happen in remaining states, like in North Carolina where I live.

Marcelo - I was the guy who organized the takeover of the St. Charles county caucus in 1996, for Pat Buchanan. I’m sure there are a few Buchanan people who stuck around and got involved, but I sure don’t know any of them. Had they done so, the Missouri Republican Party would be a very different organization than it is today. As a supporter of libertarian Republicanism, I hope you’re right, and that the Paul people will stick around. But I’m not holding my breath.

You are right when you say that 2/3 of Missouri voters voter for someone other than McCain. But you fail to mention that 95% of Missouri Republican voters voted for somebody other than Ron Paul. So obviously, we have a long way to go in educating the public about what we believe. Aside from welfare clients and the far left, our beliefs should have great appeal to people, once they understand it and can identify those who espouse it. I believe that a politically aware electorate WOULD vote for Ron Paul, and candidates of his ilk.

The problem is, Missouri didn’t. And what Paul supporters have done in these caucuses, though not an insignificant achievement from an organizational perspective, will be portrayed as disenfranchising Republican primary voters. I don’t think the portrayal is an unfair one. And I think if Paul had won a plurality in the primary, and the party regulars had used these tactics to take away Paul’s delegates, the same people who are applauding today would be screaming bloody murder.

Nick, those are not my words, I just posted them from another forum - which i guess makes them mine……

Anyhow, I agree with your analysis. However, Ron Paul supporters did get Louisianed and basically were disenfranchised by the GOP there so I don’t feel so bad.

The question I have is why have an expensive primary if delegates can change the rules? The system worked for RP supporters this time around and has worked for the neocons for a while, they are just finding this a problem now that they didn’t get their people in.

Anyhow, the problem is the system, in MO and elsewhere - so let’s change the system. RP are in a very disadvantaged position given the media bias, etc. The only weapon we have against the Goliaths is a slingshot, and we intend to use it.

Nick - You are correct in some areas of what you have said, however the disenfranchising you speak of is really just people who were willing to work hard rallied together and got involved in their local caucuses - and won in many cases. Everyone else was sleeping but they were there to stand up and fight for what was right. It is invigorating to see people standing for for a true conservative platform. The only ones disenfranchised are the old party heads and those who have truly hijacked the party for fascism. I really think as more and more people hear the message through this, quite the opposite will be true. There are millions who have been disenfranchised by the lies of President Bush, the liberalism of McCain, Romney, et. al. who will be revived through the Paul candidacy. I believe you are wrong in your assessment and hopefully you will see that if you don’t stand for something, as these Paul supporters did, you will fall for anything.

Andrew - Paul delegates would be disenfranchising those who voted in the Missouri Republican primary, not just “old party heads and those who have truly hijacked the party.” If libertarian Republicans flooded the party, the old party heads would be sitting at home watching television. But the time to do that was a couple of years ago, not yesterday. My personal preference would be that Missouri go back to being a caucus state, in which case Paul forces would have won a true victory yesterday. But that’s a legislative matter, not a party rule.

Marcelo, please tell me why the RP supporters waited until the caucuses to make this dead end power play. In the end your candidate loses, Missouri looks like easy pickings for the Dems, and you have alienated the party regulars. I say party regulars because they are the folks I see attending meetings, going door to door, phone banking, donating and performing all the other tasks month after month, year after year in the Republican party. They deserve more respect than the RP folks gave them.

If 95% of those who voted in Missouri did not support Ron Paul, you certainly have your work cut out for you. If your goal is to recruit us misguided Republicans through education, the only education we got at the St. Louis City caucus is that Ron Paul supporters want to show up late in the process and ignore all the rules. Plain and simple, that’s no way to win us over.

The dailypaul blog characterizes me as a McCain supporter. What I am is a Republican who, given the options of McCain, Obama and Clinton, will absolutely support McCain. Ron Paul may have many issues that I agree with, but he simply is not realistically one of the choices this time around, and I am willing to support someone I am not totally thrilled with in order to prevent the damage that Obama or Clinton would do to this country.

If you believe so passionately in Ron Paul and his cause, work within the party for change or start your own party. We were willing to work with you, but you chose to railroad the St. Louis City Republicans and many others like us across the state. In the end, we all lose.

Nick: Of course I understand what you also mean. There are some important factors though the others have not touched on.

According to estimates 1/3 in the GOP is against the war in Iraq, and 70% of Americans against it
According to polling after NH and later, McCain received the majority delegates/votes by 2/3 of anti-war Republicans and Independents. Most Independents in the US are AGAINST the war.
McCain also received the majority of GOP voters who are very critical of Bush. (See Matt Welch interview and articles at reason dot com Welch has also written a book about McCain).

I have read myself about people that support McCain as they say he is against the war, which is of course dead wrong. He is the biggest war- monger in actual fact and in 2000 he was the favorite of the neoconservatives actually. Also: his recent reception with the Bush endorsement AND also call upon Bush to campaign with him, he practically endorsed Bush, was a big mistake and testifies to his Bush-like idea, McBush and he will indeed be a Bush 3.

DO you think, given these realities, these delegates/voters will really vote for him (McCain) at the convention once whey have found out some probably already found out) that McCain is NOT the guy they thought they were voting for and Ron paul actually perfectly symbolizes the ideals they were voting for?

Also: McCain has publicly stated that should the situation in Iraq worsens in the months to come, it would probably cost him (or any pro-Iraq war candidate for that matter) the election. Plus he is very weak on economy and in debates. He won many votes because of his smile and jokes, but when people find out about his temper etc… The Iraq situation as well as the economy could may force the GOP to rethink their strategy if they really want to win the election. Consider also issues like the Real ID act etc. These are (also) issues that could well justify the GOP going for Paul (with a “slingshot”). Also: the loss of the Dennis Hastert seat to the Democrats last week I think, shows that there is no enthusiasm and strong financial support for the current GOP and many conservatives (not only those that voted for Ron Paul) simply do not vote for a McCain lead GOP. Consider also public remarks by Dr. James Dobson that he will never vote for McCain. The John Hagee endorsement of McCain has cost McCain a lot of potential voters with Catholics, who constitute a strong election base. Karl Rove has contributed the 2004 win of Bush over Kerry (where the Iraq war issue etc. was favoring Kerry) to the support of staunchly pro-life Catholics for Bush. So without the majority Catholic support (note: I am a Protestant) the GOP is doomed to failure. Bob Nowak has said at the beginning of the primaries he has heard from influential GOP insiders that they have (reluctantly) decided to go for McCain as maverick nominee, as he can has an appeal to Independents and soem Democrats people like Romney or Huckabee do NOT have. So, the GOP has a fighting chance with another maverick that has proven support from Independents as well as some Democrats as well, apart from Republican supporters: Ron Paul. The purple states are decisive in the election and with an enthusiastic grassroot support, strong and proven fund-raising ability and a philosophy and platform that offers everyone something , e.g. not an “ideological approach”, Ron Paul will just be see at the GOP’s best choice.

Hey Corolla,

I’m glad to hear you are not a McCain supporter, but i’m not surprised since hardly anybody supports him - is this the nominee we want to send to represent our party?

Now, I completely understand how you feel. Really, I do. Ron Paul supporters come in many different flavors but they basically represent the country and are republicans in the conservative tradition and not RINOs. We got blindsided and railroaded in the Louisiana Caucus process - the state GOP basically unilaterally extended the delegate registration process by two days when they realized most of those attending where Ron Paul supporters in order to rally the troops against us and build competing slates. Not only that, they kept many former independents and others who had switched to the republican party from voting. There is a lawsuit filed against the GOP of LA for this. They also pulled some “dirty tricks” and pooled the slates of other candidates together in order to keep RP delegates out. Mind you that at this point many of those in attendance were either new republicans that were attracted by Dr. Paul’s conservative message to the party or long term republicans that were enthused enough to become more active. I was incensed at how “dirty” the process was and how powerless we were to do anything about it. RP supporters resolved to play within the system (that from our point of view is stacked against us) to get our movement’s ideas across.

Also remember that loyalty works both ways - candidates towards the party and the party towards the candidates. Where was the National GOP when Fox news refused to invite Dr. Paul to the NH debate? Was this fair? Where was the GOP outrage when Dr. Paul was mostly silenced in the debates and when he was asked questions, they were not substantive or about policy, but rather of the sort of “are you koo koo?”.

So you see, we are working completely within the system to get our message out. We haven’t closed doors early to keep non-RP supporters out, or left door open late to ensure more RP supporters get in. Even Jared Craighead is apparently feeding misinformation by stating that Dr. Paul is a “former candidate” and making other claims.

So, we learned the system and prepared to compete. We organized and showed up and didn’t make any back room deals or phone calls or rewarded party “lstalwarts” with promises of trips to the state convention. We simply voted our conscience and played by the rules everyone played by.

How then is it possible that a movement that garnished such a small percentage of the vote in the primary obtain such results in the caucus? It is the message - who is against liberty? freedom? prosperity? peace? the constitution? Not Ron Paul supporters. The answer to this “enigma” lies in the power of the message - those that awaken and are actually able to hear the message support it feverishly. Since the election is not until November, there’s plenty of time to get the message out.

Peace

Marcelo - If what you say is true about the Louisiana caucuses, I agree with you 100%. And I can’t say that it would surprise me - party insiders often resort to “dirty tricks” if they think they can’t win honestly, and I’d bet that is more often true in Louisiana than most places.

Furthermore, I completely support the right of Paul supporters to attend the caucuses, present their own slates, elect their own delegates to the state and national conventions. Ron Paul’s political doctrine is, with a few exceptions, in complete harmony with my own. I part company with the Paul forces on only one matter: I believe it is unethical to seek to change party rules and unbind the delegates at this point in the process. I will not be any part of an effort to disenfranchise the Republican primary voters of this state, nor do I have any words of encouragement for those who seek to do so, no matter how much I agree with their ends.

Now, since a lot of you have posted “statistics” here with no source, let me post some REAL survey statistics. For those of you who care, links to sources follow.

* In head-to-head elections, McCain beats Clinton by 3, Obama by 4, according to Rassmussen.
* McCain ties Clinton, beats Obama by 3, according to Gallup.

And the better news for Republicans is, every Clinton v. Obama poll give an edge to Obama. So it looks like Democrats may walk the plank like they did with McGovern.

And as far as public opinion on the Iraqi war, the story isn’t a simple as you have made it out to be:

* First, Americans do overwhelmingly believe that the initial decision on Iraq was a bad one.
* Americans also overwhelmingly believe Bush has done a lousy job of managing the war.

But then, things get muddy. In a February USA Today/Gallup poll:

* 60% say we should stick to a withdrawal timetable, while only 35% say we should stay until things get better.
* 65% say we have an obligation to establish a reasonable level of stability and security before we withdraw.

And in the same poll:

* 67% believe Iraq will be better off because we took action there, only 26% say it will be worse.

And in a February Pew poll, 53% believe we will “probably” or “definitely” succeed in Iraq.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Marcelo, as long as part of the message is the elimination of Social Security, Ron Paul cannot win. Those of us at or near retirement age will make sure of it.

Hope you all enjoy the convention.