cajuncocoa
Banned
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 16,013
I can vouch for your 1st point...and +1 rep for the second!
Hidden Cam: WA State GOP recommends voting on delegate slates for 3 of the 4 candidates
- Thread starter justatrey
- Start date
PolicyReader
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2012
- Messages
- 3,399
There's another point that I think is being kind of overlooked in all of this.
Narrative bias.
Example(A), Ron Paul goes on Alex Jones to be interviewed and that's used as "verification" that Paul believes every view expressed by Jones and possibly most of his callers/listeners.
Example(B), Willard Romneys communications director is sent as a surrogate to be interviewed on TV, he reiterates a known fact (that Willard is a complete political opportunist and changes his views to whatever he thinks people want to hear) that is met with comments of "well Willard didn't even say it so I don't see how it's worth talking about".
Notice the difference?
How about the 'Huntsman' video? Only Paul was called upon to disavow it as if somehow he was responsible for the content because of someone typing the letters 'P-A-U-L' into their newly created user name. But when the same was done under the other candidates names they weren't called out in the same way, nor was Ron Paul apologized to for the incident.
How about actions on the convention floor?
Paul voters chant "point of order" in response to an abuse of the rules, the media and GOP establishment talks about "chaos" and holds Paul to blame.
Dokes violates party rules and conspires to subvert the process disenfranchising voters and then having the properly elected chair arrested... and at first the media and GOP establishment talks about the "disruption" caused by Paul supporters... video changed some of that but picture for a moment what would be happening too/with Dokes if he'd done exactly the same thing but supported Paul rather than Santorum?
I've been around since 2007 (not on these forums obviously) and while sometimes Paul supporters get rowdy or even hostile when ignored/disenfranchised it's on average less than Romney supporters or Santorum supporters. It just gets reported on more and in broader strokes.
Hands up anyone here who hasn't been on the receiving end of pejorative remarks from GOP voters just for being a Paul supporter?
I had that "pleasure" within a handful of weeks after I found out about Paul, seemingly stating that I liked Pauls stance on the Constitution was in and of itself worthy of ad hominem attacks. I remained civil, and I advise that as the correct course of action but it doesn't change the fact that as long as I've been aware of Paul there has been active hostility from both wings of the Status Quo party (unless the individual in question was unaware of who he was, which used to be more common).
Is booing a Romney speech effective politics? No. Do I advise doing it? No. But is it fair to say that Ron Paul supporters are more frequently assholes because some have done that? Also No. What is on balance the more abusive and hostile move, booing at a public speaking engagement or actively subverting the process in favor of your candidate (and it's known that the establishment favors Romney, this is in fact a direct comparison they just have more means to act upon).
Is throwing a snowball and some corporate sellout propagandist effective politics? No. Do I advise doing it? No. But is it worse than the constant narrative shaping lies intentionally spewed to distort the political process and understanding of policy? Also No.
I don't believe we're doing ourselves any favors by taking actions which can be distorted into fodder for this narrative (out side of legal caucus actions which I say fight tooth and nail) but I also don't think that the characterization of Paul supporters as more hostile or disruptive is either accurate or fair (unless you're talking about hostile and disruptive to backroom deals and railroading the process, in which case that's probably accurate
)
Narrative bias.
Example(A), Ron Paul goes on Alex Jones to be interviewed and that's used as "verification" that Paul believes every view expressed by Jones and possibly most of his callers/listeners.
Example(B), Willard Romneys communications director is sent as a surrogate to be interviewed on TV, he reiterates a known fact (that Willard is a complete political opportunist and changes his views to whatever he thinks people want to hear) that is met with comments of "well Willard didn't even say it so I don't see how it's worth talking about".
Notice the difference?
How about the 'Huntsman' video? Only Paul was called upon to disavow it as if somehow he was responsible for the content because of someone typing the letters 'P-A-U-L' into their newly created user name. But when the same was done under the other candidates names they weren't called out in the same way, nor was Ron Paul apologized to for the incident.
How about actions on the convention floor?
Paul voters chant "point of order" in response to an abuse of the rules, the media and GOP establishment talks about "chaos" and holds Paul to blame.
Dokes violates party rules and conspires to subvert the process disenfranchising voters and then having the properly elected chair arrested... and at first the media and GOP establishment talks about the "disruption" caused by Paul supporters... video changed some of that but picture for a moment what would be happening too/with Dokes if he'd done exactly the same thing but supported Paul rather than Santorum?
I've been around since 2007 (not on these forums obviously) and while sometimes Paul supporters get rowdy or even hostile when ignored/disenfranchised it's on average less than Romney supporters or Santorum supporters. It just gets reported on more and in broader strokes.
Hands up anyone here who hasn't been on the receiving end of pejorative remarks from GOP voters just for being a Paul supporter?
I had that "pleasure" within a handful of weeks after I found out about Paul, seemingly stating that I liked Pauls stance on the Constitution was in and of itself worthy of ad hominem attacks. I remained civil, and I advise that as the correct course of action but it doesn't change the fact that as long as I've been aware of Paul there has been active hostility from both wings of the Status Quo party (unless the individual in question was unaware of who he was, which used to be more common).
Is booing a Romney speech effective politics? No. Do I advise doing it? No. But is it fair to say that Ron Paul supporters are more frequently assholes because some have done that? Also No. What is on balance the more abusive and hostile move, booing at a public speaking engagement or actively subverting the process in favor of your candidate (and it's known that the establishment favors Romney, this is in fact a direct comparison they just have more means to act upon).
Is throwing a snowball and some corporate sellout propagandist effective politics? No. Do I advise doing it? No. But is it worse than the constant narrative shaping lies intentionally spewed to distort the political process and understanding of policy? Also No.
I don't believe we're doing ourselves any favors by taking actions which can be distorted into fodder for this narrative (out side of legal caucus actions which I say fight tooth and nail) but I also don't think that the characterization of Paul supporters as more hostile or disruptive is either accurate or fair (unless you're talking about hostile and disruptive to backroom deals and railroading the process, in which case that's probably accurate
)
jbauer
Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2012
- Messages
- 4,080
Ding Ding, how is this any different then what "we're" doing? He's just trying to get the folks to vote for the vanilla delgates that will fall in line no matter what. I hope our people in WA are doing a great job in combating this. I find it very interesting that they feel so threatened by a "non-electible" (however, polls best vs obama) canadate. If we're putting as much presure on as is lead to beleive then we probably have a WHOLE lot more influence then any of us even thinks.
The irony of this, is he's right, we wont fall in line but without "us" they loose.
Not sure about the rest of you, but I've made my mind up and am confortable with it. I'll write Paul in even if it means dumbo gets 4 more.
The irony of this, is he's right, we wont fall in line but without "us" they loose.
Not sure about the rest of you, but I've made my mind up and am confortable with it. I'll write Paul in even if it means dumbo gets 4 more.
PolicyReader
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2012
- Messages
- 3,399
+rep
I don't believe I've commented directly on the "is this legal" aspect, with regards to that I think Wead covers it well.
http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2012/...ney-santorum-gingrich-unite-to-stop-ron-paul/
Carlybee
Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 10,255
Its a bit late to try and be stealth. Of course people should be polite whenever possible. Ron Paul is polite. He is also a bulldog when he know's he right. I don't believe acquiescing to the opposition's perception is the answer. You don't let the opposition define you. The principles of liberty stand on their own and if you don't stand up for them you may as well stand down.
Eh, this Ron Paul Supporters Are Assholes problem has been around since the beginning. And your "being an asshole is part and parcel of being a libertarian" argument is not a new one, search this forum for RPSAA, this phenomenon was discussed at great length in June 2011.
Voters, not the "establishment", don't like it when Ron Paul Supporters Are Assholes.
It was shaping up to be a problem then and we're seeing it now. Again I'm not talking about being tough in conventions, I'm talking about all the unnecessary assholishness that took place that allows our enemies to say "see, they're being assholes again" when we're just doing basically the same stuff they're doing.
Fine, but it hurts Ron Paul.
CaptainAmerica
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2011
- Messages
- 6,468
The Arizona GOP did this in 2008. The McCain people handed out lists of names blacked out to shut out Ron Paul delegates from becoming RNC delegates.
THIS IS EXACTLY the same shit the GOP establishment did in Arizonas state convention.
This is a political campaign. Acting like an asshole doesn't help get votes.
In an alternative scenario, I would hope that you wouldn't go with "act like an asshole" but would choose something effective.
He got bad press for that. It hurt him. Like when we're bad, it hurts Ron Paul.
Yes, there is certainly an element of truth there, msm does go out of it's way to find the bad stuff we do. MSM is more an enemy than the GOP.
Constitutional Paulicy
Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2011
- Messages
- 2,454
This has been posted a couple of times. It also appears on Doug Wead's Blog........
http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/gop-leader-claims-romney-santorum-gingrich-unite-to-stop-ron-paul/
http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/gop-leader-claims-romney-santorum-gingrich-unite-to-stop-ron-paul/
donnay
Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 42,534
Good! I hope this information is disseminated all over the net. This is absolutely disgusting what these sneaky bastards are trying to do.
AngryCanadian
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2011
- Messages
- 10,257
Posted on my blog i already received a huge jump of readers from America after they saw the video, Its catching on ya i am telling ya.
Constitutional Paulicy
Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2011
- Messages
- 2,454
Good! I hope this information is disseminated all over the net. This is absolutely disgusting what these sneaky bastards are trying to do.
Yep, one of our tactics should be to post relevant content like this every few hours on Dr. Paul's Facebook page. The content seems to fall off into oblivion when hoards of supporters do shout outs of "Go Ron Paul 2012". Stuff like this should remain visible.
Good thing to note is that their plan didn't work in that district. The Ron Paul people got together with the Santorum people and shut Romney and Gingrich. They had to split the delegates 50/50 though to get any at all. The slate they are pushing all over Washington is called "The Unity Slate" It isn't working so far though. This camp was trying to pull Romney, Santorum and Gingrich supporters together to create 'Unity Slate' to push Ron Paul out.
In other words they wanted people who would fall in line at the National Convention if need be.
In other words they wanted people who would fall in line at the National Convention if need be.
Third party
The GOP established FIRST fear Ron Paul, SECOND want to beat Obama. It's because they deny Obama not for his political agenda but for rather simple mostly racial reasons, ya all know....
They rather go 4 more years with him than swallow the Paul pill. But as I still believe that RP will get the nomination, the GOP establishment could still go 3rd party
The GOP established FIRST fear Ron Paul, SECOND want to beat Obama. It's because they deny Obama not for his political agenda but for rather simple mostly racial reasons, ya all know....
They rather go 4 more years with him than swallow the Paul pill. But as I still believe that RP will get the nomination, the GOP establishment could still go 3rd party
Similar threads
