Disappointing State Convention

[steined]

Full disclosure… I am a Ron Paul supporter. I can say that I was deeply disappointed with the way today's convention went down.

I'll give you a breakdown of what I observed. I am no expert and new to the process so take my observation for what it is worth. This is sort of off the cuff..

Step 1.) Ask that alternates are seated to vacant delegate positions with a point of inquiry or order or whatever was appropriate. That went well, the chair agreed, credentials committee agreed.

Step 2.) Credentials committee read allocated delegate totals for the county and number of present delegates, alternates, and total votes for each county in the convention.

Step 3.) Several counties had under represented numbers and were challenged. Here is where things started breaking down.
1. It was hot
2. The rules stated you had to raise issues at a microphone, they had 2 for 600 people and neither worked, they were NOT centrally located.
3. No one could hear anything and the chair seemed to be losing control since no one could hear the challenges or statements and he wasn't repeating them

So a short break or whatever you want to call it was called and the credentials committee looked into the challenges and amended the report. The report was passed on standing Yea Nay vote.

Rules Committee report. Here is where all hell broke loose. One of the temporary rules stated that any request for allocated or by the number voting (whatever the term is) had to be seconded by TWO county chairmen from each district. So the point was raised to amend this to allow for two delegates from each district instead of two chairman. The reading took a while, the first Microphone didn't work. He had to move to another mic, then re-read the amendment and he was being challenged as he was talking by the chair and others in the room (all clearly out of order). The chair then stated that the time was up for Rules Committee and asked for a vote on the temporary rules as was. From this point on, EVERY SINGLE point of inquiry, question, order, whatever was ignored, sergeants at arms were called to escort people away (they never escorted anyone out) but they did take the microphone making it impossible to raise points without shouting.

It was an out and out blatant affront to the rules. Here is the irony. They could have obeyed the rules, called for votes, and WON everything they wanted. They had the numbers. But instead they chose to ram-rod everything through. There was absolutely no civility to the way the chair ran the meeting. It was probably the most blatantly arrogant display of "power" I've ever seen in my life.

During the resolutions part of the convention, after all was lost and delegates were voted on, yet another attempt was made at parliamentary procedure and a motion was made to vote on a resolution on its own. Not only was the one chosen silly, it was simply silly to even insist on a separate vote at this point because we saw that no debate was going to be allowed and we didn't have near the numbers to vote any down. It just made us look silly.

Now I will say that I think people went overboard protesting things. One comment was something along the lines of "I thought this was the Republican Party not the Nazi party". It really started to deteriorate and, perhaps as planned, it made the Ron Paul supporters look like crazy idiots.

Don't get me wrong. I was PISSED about what just went down, but my only outburst was when the chair started talking about the rules during a back and forth on raising points of order and I asked "What about rule # 3?" (Recognizing delegates). I shut up and didn't say another word after that.

There was a delegate from my District that asked in a snotty tone to me afterwards "What were you all are trying to accomplish with this display?" to which I basically pointed out I wasn't part of "the display" and that I was there to learn about the Republican process and that I was new" After a few back and forth volleys of non-sense from him and reason from me he said "Well trying to learn things from this is like starting out in a masters course when you should be in a 101 course." I didn't want to get into a back and forth of who was more educated (I bet you it was me with an Engineering degree and an MBA), but the point he tried to make, though ineffectively, was that you can't expect to come in to a convention and just spring stuff on people and expect it to go smoothly, that you have to start at the county level, then district and then state level. That it would take too much time to do that at a state convention (Approximately 1 hour of time was devoted to business at hand and 2 to 3 hours were speeches by incumbent or hopeful Republican elected officials. So his argument about time was another one of the several straw-man arguments he made. But I do think his point is valid. We shouldn't lose hope from this failure at the State level. We need to replace the people that don't want to listen to delegates with people that will. And that is grassroots, hard work, put in your time work.

 

[patrickdsg]

Very good write up. I was there as well and you seem to have written an accurate assesment. Thanks!

 

[tuckessee]

Yeah, that rowdy crowd among the RP supporters was really something.

Passionate about freedom and upset at being party to a Soviet style sham parlimentary process.

It's only their nation and liberty that's at stake.

Imagine them trying to assert their rights and privileges as paid delegates.

What nerve! What were they thinking?

Don't they know they should just shut up until a time way off in the future when party elders finally deem them worthy of actually participating?

What part of "parlimentary procedure, protocol & rules are meaningless if we say so" didn't they understand?

They should've just sat there, meek & glassy eyed, and given sanction to the entire fraud process.

Maybe they should've clapped when the Sgts. at Arms tried to eject the polite, rule abiding young lady from Hardin county.

That would endear them to the "snotty" statists who run the Kentucky GOP.

 

[steined]

Clearly you are upset, as am I. I just think that things got a little out of hand when it was clear that they weren't following the rules and then someone tried to get a resolution on Lincoln voted on separately. I mean there were plenty of less obscure things to ammend or vote on separately that wouldn't have had the casual observer there scratching their head saying "What's wrong with lincoln?". I mean it is a nuanced argument that would have had to have been made. When it was clear we weren't being allowed to speak and this particular item was singled out, it did nothing to further our cause.

Don't get me wrong. I'm pissed. Beyond Pissed. But all the whining in the world will do nothing to fix it. We just need to take the damn party over instead of relying on a bunch of snobs to follow rules. That's my point. At some point you have to realize that they aren't playing by the rules and that you are going to have to pick another battle at another time. Picking the Lincoln resolution was, at best, antagonizing to those there without hearing any debate. It sounds like you were there, was there ANY debate allowed at ANY time? No. So why did they think it would be allowed then?

I give the people credit who stood up. I just think we added our own insult to our injury when we singled that out near the end.

Was the chair out of order? As I saw it, clearly. Did they follow the rules? As I saw it, clearly no. Does whining about it make it any better? No. We need to take the party over. This much has become clear. The establishment doesn't want debate, new ideas, or new people in the party. They want sheeple to vote yes on their proposals and go on their merry way. They saw yesterday the beginning of the Revolution. They lauged this time... They won't laugh next time...

 

[DCdawg]

While I understand the frustation from yesterday we are failing to recognize what really happened at the convention.

First of all, the agenda was approved by the convention immediately after it was called to order. If you looked at it, it contained specific time limitations to the debate on committee reports. And whether we like it, or not, the chair was correct in ending debate when we were trying to change the way seconds are handled for roll call votes.

Second, not many of you know that Robertson actually reached out to some our leaders and asked to meet with us the morning of the convention. Did you know that? His request was denied.

And if you paid attention to the proceedings you should at least recognize that the chair did take time to respond to our questions when they arose. As a few of our leaders kept persisting on some points he then politely, but firmly, issued a warning about several of these points seeming "dilatory."

And then it happened. He was pushed to the brink and declared everything we wanted to do out of order.

The problem here is that we are demanding a seat at the table and when he reached out to give us one he was denied. THAT absolutely set the tone for what happened yesterday.

And you have to consider some of nuances of yesterday's meeting.

At any point were any of our delegates disputed by the credentials committee? No.

Was there an effort to prohibit us from going to this convention? No.

In fact, did you all notice that the people running the convention actually gave the entire room advance copies of all the resolutions? When's the last time that's happened. They placed everything right in our hands from the beginning.

Were you in the front of the convention hall when the chairman told us we could hang up Ron Paul signs when others were telling us we couldn't? I was.

Did you notice that on any given standing vote that about a quarter of our own supporters did not stand with us? That's because they disagreed with the approach of our actions.

If we really want to become part of this party we need to figure out how to reach out and talk to others who want to talk to us. We can't just come and behave as a few of our folks chose to.

 

[DCdawg]

step back and think about it

While I understand the frustation from yesterday we are failing to recognize what really happened at the convention.

First of all, the agenda was approved by the convention immediately after it was called to order. If you looked at it, it contained specific time limitations to the debate on committee reports. And whether we like it, or not, the chair was correct in ending debate when we were trying to change the way seconds are handled for roll call votes.

Second, not many of you know that Robertson actually reached out to some our leaders and asked to meet with us the morning of the convention. Did you know that? His request was denied.

And if you paid attention to the proceedings you should at least recognize that the chair did take time to respond to our questions when they arose. As a few of our leaders kept persisting on some points he then politely, but firmly, issued a warning about several of these points seeming "dilatory."

And then it happened. He was pushed to the brink and declared everything we wanted to do out of order.

The problem here is that we are demanding a seat at the table and when he reached out to give us one he was denied. THAT absolutely set the tone for what happened yesterday.

And you have to consider some of nuances of yesterday's meeting.

At any point were any of our delegates disputed by the credentials committee? No.

Was there an effort to prohibit us from going to this convention? No.

In fact, did you all notice that the people running the convention actually gave the entire room advance copies of all the resolutions? When's the last time that's happened. They placed everything right in our hands from the beginning.

Were you in the front of the convention hall when the chairman told us we could hang up Ron Paul signs when others were telling us we couldn't? I was.

Did you notice that on any given standing vote that about a quarter of our own supporters did not stand with us? That's because they disagreed with the approach of our actions.

If we really want to become part of this party we need to figure out how to reach out and talk to others who want to talk to us. We can't just come and behave as a few of our folks chose to.

 

[steined]

DCDawg. I agree with you to a certain extent. I will defer to your judgement on Robert's Rules as I am a novice at best. So even IF they were correct in stopping at the beginning. There was NO debate allowed from that point on. My point is simply that they didn't follow the rules. They may have had an agenda, but they didn't adhere to the rules during the agenda after the first outburst.

With regard to reaching out... I'd like to know who they reached out to and who declined. I think it is imparative that we discuss with the people that declined, WHY they declined and we can then discuss the reason behind it and we can decide if we should trust the judgement of these leaders in the future. I'm deeply dissapointed they didn't meet to at least hear what they had to say.

My only point below was that, even if they were more accomodating than before, they still didn't follow the rules as I read them. They could have easily allowed some discussion, voted, and moved on while following the spirit of the rules. As I saw it, they just ignored us after the rules reading. You can call it following an agenda and moving on, but the reality is, they just pissed a bunch of people off with way more passion than they have and way more years ahead of them. They had the votes to humilate us while following the spirit of the rules. Instead they chose to insult us. IF we had that coming from the actions of a few that declined to talk to them, then that's even worse than them doing it out of spite towards the movement.

I was deeply dissapointed by some of the RP people's actions, but I can see where they were coming from. SO much for the advice of "staying cool though"

 

[DCdawg]

appreciate your viewpoint

Thanks Steined. I'm just frustrated with the whole thing because I've known Robertson for many years (nearly 15) and he's never treated me with any disrespect. Not even yesterday. He was very frustrated as well because he's always focused on trying to bring people together and was really upset that some people wouldn't even listen to his offer to speak with us before the convention. (I don't know who he talked to but I will ask him.)

I would, however, be willing to bet money (even though I'm not a gambler) that if someone from our group contacted him and tried to just talk calmly and listen calmly, they would find that he wants what we want - a Republican Party that remembers its true identity and strives to bring new people who want to promote a true conservative ideology.

Yesterday's meeting was no doubt very interesting. But I think you should try to put yourself in his shoes and try to imagine what it would have been like to try and run that convention from the podium.

I really feel we did ourselves a disservice.

Thanks for listening to me.

 

[spotics]

Who rejected this offer from Robertson? You did not answer the question.

 

[steined]

DCDawg. Thanks for your insight on this. I'm new to all of this. I didn't like the way the things went down and I am trying to be understanding of the Chairman.

This is all new to me so I suppose in the next few years we'll get a better understanding of who wants what in the party. At the time I just couldn't believe the APPARENT lack of respect for the rules. I was truly agahst. Given the background that our supporters didn't talk to him when he wanted to talk to us, I think it puts it into some sort of perspective. It doesn't mean I agree with how things went down. I STILL think rules could have been adhered too and the same results would have occured, only Ron Paul supporters would have lost "fair and square" in their minds. Oh well. It is water under the bridge at this point.

I was ready to quit the Republican party until I read some of these comments. I guess it isn't as bad as it appears. I just wish people in the party had the same principle that Ron Paul had and would speak up on issues. I mean how many representatives and Senators in the room mentioned drilling in ANWR for example, yet the presumptive nominee doesn't support it and DOES support the CAP & TRADE Tax! Yet not one word of that in any resolution sent to MN Convention. Instead worthless items about Lincoln or supporting Isreal or other assanine things get inserted that have no bearing on the party or are obvious and duplicative.

I'll give it a few more years and see if I can't make a positive influence.

Thanks again.

 

[tuckessee]

Second, not many of you know that Robertson actually reached out to some our leaders and asked to meet with us the morning of the convention. Did you know that? His request was denied.

Specifically, who was asked by whom, when, where and by what method?

And how do you know this?

 

[WRellim]

Specifically, who was asked by whom, when, where and by what method?

And how do you know this?

He said he heard it from the chairman (see below). And he also said he doesn't know WHO the chairman spoke with... but will attempt to find out (see below)... give the guy a chance to do that!

Thanks Steined. I'm just frustrated with the whole thing because I've known Robertson for many years (nearly 15) and he's never treated me with any disrespect. Not even yesterday. He was very frustrated as well because he's always focused on trying to bring people together and was really upset that some people wouldn't even listen to his offer to speak with us before the convention. (I don't know who he talked to but I will ask him.) [...]

 

[steined]

I just spoke with the State Chairman

After calming down about the proceedings and wanting to know more details about the offer to speak to representatives of our campaign, I wrote a letter to Steve Robertson, the chair of the party in Kentucky.

I must say that his response surprised me. I got a phone call from him and we discussed the proceedings and other topics. I must say that, if you view the situation objectively from his vantage point, things probably look a lot different than from where we sat. It is MY opinion that he has similar views. I think he even said that "we both know not all elected officials sell our brand as effectively as others". It is his job to get people involved in the party, and I think there is a spot at the table for us if we want it. I think he hoped to capitalize on the energy that our group brought to the Republican Party, but instead I think he feels like he pissed us off. He did piss a lot of people off, but I think it was because we had a flawed "plan" in order to be heard and since we weren't heard, we blamed him. Perhaps the blame lies elsewhere...

I think he is truly upset about what happened at the convention. I don't think he wanted to do what he did, but I think he felt he had no other recourse. I mean if we really wanted to be part of the convention, why on earth wouldn't we have accepted an invitation to talk to him prior to the convention? *This is my opinion but I think by NOT accepting that offer for a meeting makes us look confrontational and puts him in the mindset that we aren't interested in working WITH the party.

On the pre-convention meeting on Saturday. My girlfriend and I both thought that the meeting focused on the "logistics", and, perhaps, did a good job of that, but both of us sat there asking each other "to what end" are we trying to make these rule changes? What is the purpose of us being at the convention? We should have had plans that addressed the possibility, and reality, that we would NOT be in the Majority. We should have decided what we wanted to accomplish at the convention absent a majority and absent the rules changes. We should have outlined priorities, agreed upon them, and then decided how far we wanted to take things. Instead we went in with plan A and then plan A blew up immediately and people threw up their hands in frustration. (If only that's all they did. Instead there were some comments made that were, quite frankly, embarrassing.) I do sympathize with those that stood up, but don't take things personally, I think we all realize we are fighting to restore our Country, and State, to greatness. Something far more important than how you felt at a convention.

Maybe the pre-convention meeting with Steve would have resulted in nothing, I don't know. What I do know is we'll never really know because we didn't accept it. How was this offer made? It was offered through a third party. The third party attended our pre-convention planning meeting and offered advice that, perhaps, going in guns blazing on rules might not be the best use of our energy. If you recall, he said this in front of everyone. Now I'm unsure what "leader" or "leaders" he offered this meeting to at our pre-convention meeting, but the response was either a flat out no or was judged to be a no based on the response of the offer.

What I would encourage folks to do is to ask what we were trying to accomplish at the meeting and convention? In retrospect, I think the plan was to try to take it over and try to run things our own way. But WHY? Well we wanted to change rules to get Ron Paul delegates elected right?. Ok, we didn't have a majority, we couldn't do it no matter HOW the chair reacted. They had the votes to shut us down every step of the way. So perhaps what we could have done was to debate a resolution or offer a resolution about supporting politicians that support the constitution (KY or US) and, if done in a respectful way, that probably COULD have passed. That would have been a good start at the revolution and a way to hold candidates accountable. But instead, we chose the nuclear option and they held the fuse.

I would encourage people to take a breath and think about where this Revolution needs to go next. We can't waste all this new found energy and structure. Ron Paul even said this won't happen overnight and has encouraged us to become active in the party. I would encourage you to take a few days off from "Ron Paul" come back and read this again, and ask if you are willing to fight the fight the hard way and get active in local politics. Sure there are neo-cons and special interest people in the party, but we have to be the voice of reason and debate things and get people to understand Constitutional thinking. It won't be as easy as taking over a convention if you have a majority, it won't be as quick either. But if you are a part of this Revolution, I think you will agree that the ideas are worth fighting for and worth the time and effort that will be required to get the party back to its roots.

Some of this might involve running for political office at a local level and espousing the views of limited government in local papers. These successes can catapult into bigger things, and if limited government is the common theme among these successes, people will take notice and we can spread the message and have the candidates to support and the party to support them. It isn't going to happen overnight.

At the end of the day I think the State party wants us to be involved. So will we step up and become involved? We might not agree with everything, but we have to do our best to continue the Revolution. I know that many will not campaign for McCain, I can't blame you, but we can campaign for others that we do agree with and try to get others like us to become involved and run as well.

Thanks.

 

[spacehabitats]

Thanks "steined"!

Very good summary.
I agree that we have been all to often acting like the amateurs we are and expecting to impress the veteran GOP activists.
It isn't going to happen.
It is a difficult to educate and convert, but it is impossible if we antagonize the GOP rank and file.
We do not need to be doormats, but we do need to be relentlessly polite and articulate.

It does not help to accuse random people of acting like Nazi's, especially if there only sin is one of ignorance.

 

[TheTyke]

I respectfully disagree with these opinons on several counts.

1) The agenda WAS NOT approved. If the chairman remembered this, it was in error... I just listened to the audio recording. There was a point of information about the seating of alternates before the agenda came to a vote, and after answered, we moved into the invocation/pledge/speeches without voting. How this came to be considered "unanimous", I can't guess. Even if there had been a 2/3 vote rule change, the only time limit I have ever heard is on debate... not points. And the chair cut off a motion before it got a vote...!

2) We were not trying to take complete control of the convention. The rules change was attempted to ensure fairness in counting votes. In the 2nd district convention (where several of the planners came from) we were shut down with out of order "calling the question", and dubious vote counts, and never got to say a word the whole convention. Unless we could call for a fair vote, there was no point trying anything - on national delegates, resolutions or anything at all. After being shut down last time, we had to try being more assertive.

3) I still don't get this "they tried to contact us" business. I can't think of anyone who would have declined to chat with the chairman?

I'm sorry, but though we had shakey delivery, I don't think we can be blamed that practically every rule was ignored (favoring speed & elimination of discussion). We weren't even allowed to state what the points were. At very best, I would say the chair had trouble with the chaos too, at worst, the attempt was to railroad us with a false and unenforceable rule.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3gppbKJCWY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPFVjSNKqUo

If someone can suggest a place, I can upload the whole mp3 (150-200 meg)

 

[tuckessee]

He said he heard it from the chairman (see below). And he also said he doesn't know WHO the chairman spoke with... but will attempt to find out (see below)... give the guy a chance to do that!

We're still waiting for the three post wonder to back up what he said.......


((((((((crickets))))))))

 

[molly_pitcher]

Steve Robertson is a jerk. I had my own dealings with him long before the conventions. I wouldn't trust him, nor believe anything he has to say.

 

[fiscalconky]

I've known Robertson for a while too and really think he does mean well. From time to time, it appears that his judgement is a little clouded by the neo-con's but by and large he wants whats best for the party, and that's a to leap to the right.

I listened to the audio and, while I don't know if his actions were always advantageous to order, it seems they were always within the rough boundries of Roberts Rules of Order.

I think our movement is served best by taking the time to work within the party, not by being advesarial to it. Let's face it. No one wins with Obamara as president.

While I couldn't make it Saturday (apparently, much to my loss), I believe that we can best serve Dr. Paul's mission by working from within the party to make sure we help to recruit and nominate good fiscal and constitutionally conservative candidates. We have four years to go until the next convention. If we can prove our value to the establishment, they'll have to take our arguement's more seriously than last weekend.

 

[steined]

Steve Robertson is a jerk. I had my own dealings with him long before the conventions. I wouldn't trust him, nor believe anything he has to say.

For the benefit of all, let's try to be objective here. Calling him a jerk and citing some dealings with no details does nothing for me to help make a decsion on believing him or not.

Would you care to expand on the dealings long before the convention that you referenced? I generally am willing to give people a second chance, but we need to know who we are dealing with. I don't want to become a "tool of the RPK", but I also don't want to abandon it without giving it a second chance.

In my opinion, we came in with a chip on our shoulder and he thought we rejected a meeting with him. That is NOT a good combination. What resulted, especially when we were in the minority, was not surprising given that context.

Respectively,
-steined

 

[Liberty4Ever]

Saying that Steve Robertson reached out to Ron Paul supporters and was rebuffed is not only wrong, it's exactly the opposite of what happened, and it's a deliberate lie to put a political spin on a bad situation. When the truth looks bad, turn it around with a lie!

There was apparently an unauthorized go between. He's been to our Ron Paul Meetup group once as an invited guest to talk about his pet project. I have no idea why he thought he should be the spokesperson for the Ron Paul supporters if that's what happened, and why he didn't tell any of us he was doing so. He alone said that he didn't think any dialog would be useful, so it's not as if anyone ever approached the Ron Paul supporters and sought to include us or even communicate with us.

In fact, our experience has been quite the opposite. At my county convention, 6th District convention, and the state convention, we showed up with olive branch in hand. We went to great lengths to learn Robert's Rules of Order so we could participate in the proper manner. We hoped that we would earn some respect by making the effort to learn the rules they use to run the conventions, but Robert's Rules were never used. Robert's Rules ensures that all opinions receive a voice in a deliberative process. Each speaker is alloted three minutes. None of that happened. The conventions allowed no discussion or deliberation. The chair had an agenda and they refused to tolerate ANY input. Some horrible bastardized version of Robert's Rules were enforced to ram rod the chair's business through the convention and eliminate any comments or discussion. It was a total sham, and a travesty of a convention. The RPK should be ashamed, but they appear to be shameless.

The pre-recorded messages from John McCain that went out to all non-Paul delegates urging them to attend the convention to oppose divisive elements intending to destroy party unity set the stage, prejudicing the opinions of delegates before they ever met one Ron Paul supporter. We were depicted as outside agitators intent on causing problems. There were emails to county chairpersons that were probably even more strongly worded. If anyone was causing a rift in the party, it was the RPK, who seemed intent on expelling the Ron Paul supporters. Their tactic worked. The hundreds of people they bussed in could barely wait for the opportunity to do the chair's business and took obvious delight in voting down any attempt from some of the Ron Paul delegates to be heard.

According to Robert's Rules of Order, any delegate can request a counted vote if the vote is in question. A second is not needed and there is no debate allowed on this motion. The contentious Rule #8 changed that Robert's Rule to require a second from two county chairpersons from each of the six districts (12 delegates total). This change resulted in county chairpersons being elevated to state super delegates with powers not reserved to other delegates, similar to the Democratic Party's super delegates. I thought we didn't have super delegates, and everyone's vote is equal? The rule #8 change was obviously made to increase the power of the chair, so votes could be called in the favor of the chair's agenda and delegates had less power. The chair is intended to be a debate facilitator, but this rule gave the chair dictatorial power to run the convention as they saw fit and pass any motions they liked and deny any motions they didn't like. Worse still, I have it on good authority that this rule was not even passed by the RSCC, not that it would have been proper if they had. It appears that Steve Robertson & Company just decided they'd arbitrarily change the rules to give themselves more power, in complete disregard for the principles of Robert's Rules of Order.

The convention was mostly a GOP pep rally that was later described as "whistling through the graveyard", which is to say that even though somewhat deluded, they must realize on some level that the party is dying and will do poorly in November. They had only 525 delegates at the state convention out of an allocated 2678 delegates, or 19.6%. That's pathetic. If it wasn't for the Ron Paul delegates and the delegates they scared into being bussed in to oppose the Ron Paul delegates, they probably would have had about 10%! 55 of the 120 counties had no delegates at this convention.

On the national level, president Bush's approval rating is about 30%.
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

This is comparable to Richard Nixon's 24% approval rating just before he resigned.

Dick Cheney's approval rating and the congressional approval ratings are around 16%.

There have been three special elections in traditionally Republican races where the Democrats have recently won seats from Republicans. Any reasonably unbiased observers believe the Republicans will be swept out of office in a landslide in November.

At a time that the Republican party is shrinking and has clearly been heading in the wrong direction even faster than the Democrats, it looks like they'd welcome energetic conservatives who want to return the Republican Party to its platform of limited federal government (instead of creating huge bureaucracies such as DHS and TSA), balanced budgets (instead of more than doubling the national debt in six years, to $9.5 trillion), and national security (instead of a foreign policy of empire and intervention which causes resentment that ultimately results in anti-American terrorism).

I don't understand anybody taking up for the blatantly unfair actions of Steve Robertson. It seems that some people attended a different convention than I did. Or maybe they didn't attend the convention at all and their comments are based on something else?

Work within the party? As far as I'm concerned, I tried that at the county, district and state levels. Three strikes and you're out! I didn't see anything at the state convention worth saving. The only hope for the Republican Party in Kentucky is to keep the conservative party platform and the regular conservatives on the street who truly want the party to reflect their conservative beliefs, burn down the RPK, throw out the liberal RINO neocons who don't understand the concept of a political party based on principle and see only a me-too social club, and start over.