RNC Chair Candidates Show Ron Paul Some Love
He was the candidate that the other candidates avoided, not just the candidates, but the media and the Republican establishment too. And his supporters? Wow, they were ostracized, escorted out of State conventions when delegates were being chosen and caused the establishment to literally shutdown conventions to avoid the “Ron Paul supporters” from taking over.
Well yesterday at the debate between the 6 candidates for Chairman of the Republican Party, Ron Paul and Ron Paul supporters were shown some love AND respect when asked about the grassroots support Paul received:
“Ron Paul certainly brought a whole new generation of voters and I think it’s important going forward that we recognize the strengths and the attributes of these individuals who are out there actively building the party and building a movement, a consensus if you will, on certain issues. We can’t look that in the eye and say ‘No, we don’t want that,’” said former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, adding that the RNC needs to find “creative ways” to work with candidates supported by Paul and his followers, and to work with Paul directly to that end. I think, at this stage at this party, everyone who can help us should be brought into the room to help us,” Steele said.
South Carolina Republican Party Chairman Katon Dawson recalled memories of Paul’s supporters campaigning during his state’s early primary. “I witnessed early on the Ron Paul army in South Carolina,” Dawson said, stressing the importance of building new coalitions. “I want people involved in my party that will hang off bridges and paint on their cars and make up t-shirts. There was a passion that I saw of those people for him and his ideas. Do we agree with all of them? No, but we are a party that has to embrace differences.”
Saul Anuzis, Michigan Republican Party Chairman, touted his outreach to Paul supporters, attending campaign functions and talking to supporters. “I think you treat [Paul supporters] like everybody else—if they want to be part of the Republican Party, if they want to participate, we have to welcome them in.”
Former Mike Huckabee campaign manager Chip Saltsman recalled seeing the passion behind Paul’s operation on the ground while the two former rival campaigns shared office space in Iowa. (Saltsman also identified Paul, an obstetrician, as “Dr. Paul”—a key distinction among his supporters.) “Dr. Paul…he is a wonderful man with wonderful ideas,” Saltsman said, “Do we agree with him all the time? Absolutely not.”
Incumbent RNC Chairman Mike Duncan agreed the GOP has to broaden their appeal, and noted that he has met with Paul on two occasions. The key, Duncan said, was respect. “I personally have treated leaders of his campaign with respect, I’ve met with them. I personally treated his foot soldiers with respect whether it was at our convention in Kentucky or whether it was the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, St. Paul,” he said.
Only Ken Blackwell did not praise Paul by name, although he agreed with the overall sentiment of broadening the party’s base. “We are a federation that invites differences,” he said, “The RNC can no longer be a social club, it must be the flagship Republican organization in this nation.”
What a difference a few months make, or was it realizing that no one tried to engage the Paul supporters over to McCain after the primary, who instead voted third party, or stayed home totally.
Let’s not forget that Ron Paul wasn’t even invited to speak at the GOP National Convention, obviously Paul’s economic expertise and prediction of the mess we are in now wasn’t needed by the McCain campaign.
Ken Blackwell and Michael Duncan MUST be prevented from winning ANY position in the federal echelons of the authorities of the GOP. They participated in the drafting of the disastrous 2008 Republican platform and in otherwise paving the way for the GOP’s humiliation last November. They are therefore co-responsible (along with many other people) for the defeat of the GOP and therefore must be prevented from winning. The future of the GOP and the USA hangs in the balance.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:40 am“Wow, they were ostracized, escorted out of State conventions when delegates were being chosen and caused the establishment to literally shutdown conventions to avoid the “Ron Paul supporters” from taking over.
Ron Paul supporters “ostracized” themselves by a being of bunch of unruly, boorish, conspiratorial lunatics that not only made complete fools of themselves, but in turn, made a fool of Ron Paul himself with their disruptive and absurd behavior.
Obama was going to win whether the Paultards voted for McCain or not. They were not, and are not important. They are merely an embarassment.
January 7th, 2009 at 8:41 amDino:
From attending the CWA straw poll last year, you hit it dead on with your first premise.
January 7th, 2009 at 10:25 amZM,
What was “disastrous” about the platform?
January 7th, 2009 at 11:27 amDM – quite a lot of things. All of them can be summed up with the word “liberal”. The 2008 GOP platform was one of (if not THE) most liberal platform ever adopted by the GOP. I read it myself from the beginning to the end, and it sounded more like the Dems’ 1972, 1976, 1980, 2000 and 2008 platform than Reagan’s 1980 platform or Ike’s 1952 and 1956 platforms.
The 2008 platform of the GOP should be consigned to the rubbish bin.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:03 pmI read it too and frankly do not see much that could be considered liberal. I will freely admit that I have not read all of the platforms you sited.
An article in Human Events agrees that the platforms is conservative. See: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28295#continueA
Can you site examples of liberalism contained in it?
January 7th, 2009 at 12:33 pmYes, I can. Time is short, so only 4 now:
1) The extension of a friendly hand to Commie China – a hand that was bitten. Nixon should’ve NEVER recognized Commie China. Yet the platform says that America “welcomes the rise of a prosperous and peaceful China” despite the fact that China is NOT peaceful. This is a liberal policy.
2) The platform supports the limitation and the elimination of nuclear weapons (i.e. treason). This would weaken the US military and is a liberal policy copied from Obama’s platform.
3) The platform says that the GOP would offer illegal immigrants “a pathway to citizenship” (i.e. amnesty). This is a liberal policy.
4) The platform recognizes anthropogenic global warming (which is a blatant lie). This is a liberal policy.
HE is wrong (as is almost always the case). The 2008 Republican platform was THE most liberal platform ever adopted by the GOP. And it’s hardly a surprise, given that it was written to suit McLame – the most traiterous, most liberal, worst candidate ever nominated by the GOP.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:58 amI see where the first two points come from however, there are additional statements in the platform which offset to some degree the liberalism of these two statements. As for 3 & 4, I cannot find them in the platform.
Under the heading, Immigration, National Security, and the Rule of Law, it states:
“We oppose amnesty. The rule of law suffers if government policies encourage or reward illegal activity. The American people’s rejection of en masse legalizations is especially appropriate given the federal government’s past failures to enforce the law.”
With regards to global warming, the platform states:
“Republicans caution against the doomsday climate change scenarios peddled by the aficionados of centralized command-and-control government. We can – and should– address the risk of climate change based on sound science without succumbing to the no-growth radicalism that treats climate questions as dogma rather than as situations to be managed responsibly.”
Are you sure you are not confusing McCain’s platform with that adopted by the RNC?
The 2008 RNC Platform can be found at http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/
January 8th, 2009 at 5:59 amDM,
As for #1-2, liberalism, whether mild or strident, is liberalism. Wrong policies, whether only mildly wrong or very wrong, are wrong. These offsets that you talked about aren’t good enough.
As for immigration, the small fragment of the platform that you’ve cited rings hollow (just like Merkel’s assurance that Germany supports Georgia’s NATO bid) because the GOP’s 2008 presidential candidate, McCain, was the leading proponent of amnesty.
As for global warming, thanks for proving my claim on that issue right. “We can – and should– address the risk of climate change based on sound science” – that’s what the platform says. But there is absolutely no risk of climate change (in fact, there’s a risk of global cooling, which can and should be allayed by increasing CO2 emissions). And the global warming theory is based on junk science, not “sound science”.
No, I am not confusing McCain’s platform with the one adopted by the RNC. However, although they’re 2 separate docs, the 2008 RNC platform mirrored (more or less) McCain’s 2008 platform – as is, as far as I know, usually the case in American elections – that is, the party’s platform usually mirrors that of its presidential candidate.
A few more examples of liberalism in the RNC’s platform:
January 8th, 2009 at 8:00 am1) The platform says that entitlement programs should be revived. That may be the right policy, but it’s not conservative. A truly conservative platform would advocate limiting them or terminating them altogether. This is conservative for a lot of reasons, incl. the reason that REAL conservatives oppose entitlement programs because of what they are – ENTITLEMENT programs. Real conservatives believe that no person is “entitled” to another person’s money, unless it is given voluntarily.
2) The platform proposes adding a second tax code (as if one tax code wasn’t enough) and forcing Americans to choose between them; none of the 2 tax codes would offer a true flat tax (i.e. one rate for all taxpayers), and declares the RNC’s opposition (disguised) to the Fair Tax. Is this policy (which was designed to suit McCain and his lobbyist pals, on whom he doesn’t want to turn his back) right? Maybe, but it’s certainly not conservative.
Where are you getting some of your information? While the RNC platform frequently adheres to that of the candidate for President, the 2008 platform was one that did not. Here is the section from the platform that covers entitlement programs:
Entitlement Reform
The job of modernizing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid calls for bipartisanship, not political posturing. Through the last four presidential terms, we have sought that cooperation, but it has not been forthcoming. The public demands constructive action, and we will provide it.
Social Security
We are committed to putting Social Security on a sound fiscal basis. Our society faces a profound demographic shift over the next twenty-five years, from today’s ratio of 3.3 workers for every retiree to only 2.1 workers by 2034. Under the current system, younger workers will not be able to depend on Social Security as part of their retirement plan. We believe the solution should give workers control over, and a fair return on, their contributions. No changes in the system should adversely affect any current or near-retiree. Comprehensive reform should include the opportunity to freely choose to create your own personal investment accounts which are distinct from and supplemental to the overall Social Security system.
Medicare and Medicaid
As discussed in the health care section of this document, we commit to revive Medicare by rewarding quality care, promoting competition, eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, and giving patients and providers control over treatment options. We envision a new Medicaid partnership with the states, improving public health through flexibility and innovation.
As for tax policy, the two tax system choice is a good idea. It allows people to determine if they want certain deductions or a lower tax rate. As for the Fair Tax….I am a supporter of the the Flat Tax system similar to that purposed by Steve Forbes. I will save arguing the merits of the Flat Tax over the Fair Tax for another day.
January 8th, 2009 at 9:45 amDM,
I have read the 2008 platform. Have you?
The 2008 platform DID adhere to McLame’s policies and in some chapters it even copied McLame’s policy statements word for word.
As for entitlements, what you’ve quoted has proven my claims about entitlements correct. The GOP only proposed to “modernize” and “reform” these programs. That is a liberal policy, not a conservative one. Real conservatives would advocate a huge reduction (or even abolition) of them.
As for tax policy, that proposal to create a second tax bode is both liberal and wrong. It would force taxpayers to choose between two gigantic tax codes that pick winners and losers. What McCain has proposed is a gimmick, and one of the reason that the Beltway establishment has failed to deliver appropriate results is that it often offers gimmicks instead of solutions. McLame’s lobbyist pals have already managed to create one gigantic tax code; there’s no need for a second tax code. Put up or shut up.
As for the Fair Tax versus the Flat Tax debate, it’s good that you’ve decided to save that debate for another day, because it’s not relevant to the subject at hand. Rejecting the Fair Tax may be the right policy, but it’s NOT conservative. Besides, the 2008 platform offered neither the Flat Tax nor the Fair Tax.
Also, there is a way to reconcile the supporters of the flat tax and the Fair Tax. They aren’t irreconcilable. The second group would postpone its plan and agree to help the first group institute the flat tax. As soon as that goal would be achieved, flat tax proponents would support the drive towards the Fair Tax and the repeal of the 16th Amendment. If that drive fails, America would still have the flat tax law.
I personally support the flat tax as an interim solution and as a Plan B.
January 8th, 2009 at 10:57 am[...] blog Conservatives with Attitude as a terrific, yet short post regarding the “Ron Paul Question,” noting: What a difference a few [...]
January 15th, 2009 at 3:48 pmexcellent work, thanks
September 8th, 2009 at 3:58 amyour site is very great!!!
September 11th, 2009 at 4:40 amgood site, good work, thanks!!!
September 14th, 2009 at 6:08 amGreat site, thanks
September 19th, 2009 at 11:39 am