Maine Legislator Turncoat

[sailingaway]

For those who are unaware, Rand already said a long time ago that he will support whoever the Republican nominee is in the general election.

Not exactly. He said he would support the nominee.

Saying 'I want to beat Obama' when asked by media or 'I support the nominee' even is different from an endorsement. You don't even have to insert a name. But he is not going to accept the RNC PRETENDING there is a nominee. If Ron isn't running in the general, it is not the same as endorsing someone against Ron.

 

[sailingaway]

This is on the same level as people whinging about Ron endorsing Lamar Smith and fundraising for him.

they are nothing alike. Smith had a specific opponent and while Ron's endorsements aren't as good as his votes (no one being as pure as his votes) he still picks the best from the choice he is presented with. RON is the best choice here, and to know it and turn against it the night before it really matters, is completely different. Show me where Ron ever betrayed anyone

 

[Occam's Banana]

Rocco is making some reasonable points here.

Then he's going about it in a very counter-productive way - by insisting that we all drink the RNC "presumptive" kool-aid, for example.

Regardless of what one thinks of RP's chances in Tampa, repeatedly citing the RNC's "presumptuous" usurpation of the nomination is not a very reasonable way to go about persuading anyone around here (or anywhere else, for that matter).

The idea that we will want to destroy someone who is a soft supporter, who is not the hardest of the hard core supporters is exactly the kind of thing that will prevent people from getting in bed with us in the first place.

We need to bring soft supporters on board.

Agreed. And as you point out, there are many legitimate ways of doing that (including - but certainly not limited to - NOBP).

But endorsing Mitt Romney is not one of them (the RNC's "presumption" be damned).

Our objective is to get people into *our* bed - not for us to get into *their* bed.

By endorsing Romney immediately prior to the Maine convention, Ryan Harmon has jumped into *their* bed.

And he wants the rest of us to jump in with him. Rocco says we should be OK with this. He is wrong.

 

[sailingaway]

Our objective is to get people into *our* bed - not for us to get into *their* bed.

By endorsing Romney immediately prior to the Maine convention, Ryan Harmon has jumped into *their* bed.

And he wants the rest of us to jump in with him. Rocco says we should be OK with this. He is wrong.

^^^^^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[LibertyEagle]

If this movement ultimately fails, the attitudes shown in this thread will be the reason why.

Honestly, take off your RP glasses for two seconds and look at this from his shoes. You have a presumptive nominee who has been endorsed by the RNC, YOUR party. This presumptive nominee has the task of going against the most hated (by republicans) president since Carter and maybe even since FDR. If you are in this legislators position, and your entire state party is in upheaval as this great division of the party is taking place right before you are taking on the most hated president in the last 80+ years, you don't sacrifice all of your political capital by siding with the "divisive" group who doesn't care about beating Obama. To do so would alienate you from the state GOP for years. Have you ever considered the possibility that, just maybe, the guy's actually a republican and would rather see Romney then Obama, and wishes to unite the party to defeat him? Siding with Ron Paul divides the party and hurts their chances of beating Obama, like it or not that is true. Therefore, any republican who does divide the party by supporting Paul after the RNC called it for Romney is hurting republican efforts to beat Obama. I personally acknowledge and have no problem with this, beating Obama is not my priority, restoring liberty is. But if I were holding office I don't know that I would create all these bad feelings amongst my party mates towards me by going against the presumed nominee.

This is especially true because there is no upside to it, RP is not going to win his parties nomination so why even consider sacrificing your political capital if electoral victory isn't even in sight? I'm not saying endorsing Romney was the right thing to do, if I were him I would still be supporting Dr Paul, but this guy has a political calculation to make as well as an ideological one. Do you honestly believe Jim Demint and Mike Lee believe that Mitt Romney is a true conservative? Of course they do not, but they endorsed him because to not do so would harm the GOP's #1 objective (eliminating Obama)

Castigating anyone out of our movement who dares to make a political calculation of any sort will ultimately lead to failure of our movement. Unfortunately the only way to truly succeed in politics is to make political calculations (even Dr Paul does it sometimes). Instead of casting this state rep aside, this state rep who studied at the freakin Mises Institute for crying out loud, we should see this for what it is, forgive him and continue to support him. What I am hearing in this thread is if this state rep were to, say, run for Olympia Snowe's vacated seat they would not vote for him. Now who's playing politics instead of focusing on ideology? If we cast aside everyone who ever endorses a presumed nominee we do not like we will either end up with no liberty people in congress or a small group who, not unlike Ron Paul, have zero political capital and therefore can never get any legislation passed. I love Dr Paul, but if we are going to advance as a movement we MUST get past his attitudes regarding playing nice w/ the GOP and acknowledge that some of our people will do things for political reasons.

He could have just kept his mouth shut. But, he didn't.

That said, I expect him to put his country first, rather than a political party.

 

[Rocco]

I love reading insane things like that I want to support Romney (i'm voting Gary Johnson), that I want to get "in bed" with the RNC, and sell out to the republican party, all because I think it's stupid to create a situation where we're now officially narrowing our tent (according to you guys) to people who didn't endorse Romney in the primary. The number one issue in the nation right now in the economy and to shut out somebody well versed in Austrian economics is a colossal error. The fact of the matter is the only way to win elections is to build coalitions and your attitudes shut people out of our movement and limit our growth. The only way to sustain our movement is with growth. Some in this thread clearly do not want growth, because everything they advocate for limits our growth. Things like no longer supporting Rand just for endorsing Romney, these attitudes are a detriment not a help, it's almost like some of us just want to go back to being the small cult group of loyal Grateful Dea....er, Ron Paul fans.

If you want to be a part of a pointless political movement that never accomplishes anything in the way of real policy reform, go join the libertarian party. I want this movement to actually amount to something.

 

[sailingaway]

People want growth, just not through betrayal. I guess we're too pure.

 

[Rocco]

Obviously people WANT growth, but it's kind of like how liberals want to grow the economy by raising taxes. They want it but it their methods are the antithesis of what causes growth. Shutting people out BY DEFINITION doesn't grow a movement.

People want growth, just not through betrayal. I guess we're too pure.

 

[sailingaway]

So Obama should come in?

Letting in the people we are fighting AGAINST and those who cave to them doesn't grow what I'm interested in growing and takes a place where someone better might go.

 

[WilliamC]

I love reading insane things like that I want to support Romney (i'm voting Gary Johnson),...

If you want to be a part of a pointless political movement that never accomplishes anything in the way of real policy reform, go join the libertarian party. I want this movement to actually amount to something.

Contradict yourself much?

Why not open a Gary Johnson forum instead of campaigning for him on a Ron Paul forum?

 

[WilliamC]

Obviously people WANT growth, but it's kind of like how liberals want to grow the economy by raising taxes. They want it but it their methods are the antithesis of what causes growth. Shutting people out BY DEFINITION doesn't grow a movement.

Which is why the Republican Party without Ron Paul is going to shrink significantly if either Obama or Romney gets in the White House.

Only Ron Paul is actually expanding the base of the Republican Party, yet you and the GOP leadershit seem to think he (or his supporters) are contracting it.

Why do I detect a whiff of bovine stench in your posts?

 

[Occam's Banana]

Shutting people out BY DEFINITION doesn't grow a movement.

By your "definition," no one should ever be excluded for any reason - because doing so would not grow the movement.

Are you serious? Definitions of this sort are supposed to identify what something is or does - NOT what something isn't or doesn't.

Your "definition" is baloney. FIFY: Including SOME (but not ALL) people BY DEFINITION grows a movement. (Exclusion has *nothing* to do with it.)

Do you not understand that a "biker club" whose members don't ride bikes is NOT actually a biker club?
Do you not understand that a "chess club" whose members don't play chess in NOT actually a chess club?
Do you not understand that a "liberty movement" whose members promote the (statist) status quo is NOT actually a liberty movement?
(Do you not understand that *any* "movement" that endorses the status quo *IS* the status quo - and NOT actually a "movement" at all?)

Do you not understand the (critical) distinction between "coalition" and "compromise?"
Do you not understand that (defined & particular) change - and NOT growth - is BY DEFINITION the prime objective of any movement?
(Do you not understand that the previous question DOES NOT imply that growth is not important?)

 

[Rocco]

My god, look at the 4 posts replying to mine. You people have become caricatures of yourselves. Resorting to slippery slope arguments and insinuating that I want everybody to come into the liberty movement regardless of views. If somebody doesnt believe in small government obviously they're not part of the liberty movement. That isn't what we are talking about. But obviously you all get at the heart of what is the issue, you want to cut somebody out of the movement at a level of supposed "betrayal" (though I find that to be a stretch) that I don't want to cut them out. No, we are in fact talking about somebody who has promoted small government at the state level. We are talking about somebody who used his platform when the primary was competitive to endorse the smallest government candidate. We are talking about a LVMI educated public official, I mean how often do we EVER get that? What I am saying is that, yes, your standard that allows you to cut this man out of our movement based on one bad endorsement is inhibiting coalition building. Not "compromise", not "sell out", because that isn't what we're talking about. We are talking about legitimate coalition building that we need to be doing as a movement, and the MAJOR way to do that is to get our politicians in office! If there's a politician who wants to take up the liberty banner and has the small government rhetoric and record to back it up, I could give a damn less who they endorsed.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

If this movement ultimately fails, the attitudes shown in this thread will be the reason why.

Honestly, take off your RP glasses for two seconds and look at this from his shoes. You have a presumptive nominee who has been endorsed by the RNC, YOUR party. This presumptive nominee has the task of going against the most hated (by republicans) president since Carter and maybe even since FDR. If you are in this legislators position, and your entire state party is in upheaval as this great division of the party is taking place right before you are taking on the most hated president in the last 80+ years, you don't sacrifice all of your political capital by siding with the "divisive" group who doesn't care about beating Obama. To do so would alienate you from the state GOP for years. Have you ever considered the possibility that, just maybe, the guy's actually a republican and would rather see Romney then Obama, and wishes to unite the party to defeat him? Siding with Ron Paul divides the party and hurts their chances of beating Obama, like it or not that is true. Therefore, any republican who does divide the party by supporting Paul after the RNC called it for Romney is hurting republican efforts to beat Obama. I personally acknowledge and have no problem with this, beating Obama is not my priority, restoring liberty is. But if I were holding office I don't know that I would create all these bad feelings amongst my party mates towards me by going against the presumed nominee.

This is especially true because there is no upside to it, RP is not going to win his parties nomination so why even consider sacrificing your political capital if electoral victory isn't even in sight? I'm not saying endorsing Romney was the right thing to do, if I were him I would still be supporting Dr Paul, but this guy has a political calculation to make as well as an ideological one. Do you honestly believe Jim Demint and Mike Lee believe that Mitt Romney is a true conservative? Of course they do not, but they endorsed him because to not do so would harm the GOP's #1 objective (eliminating Obama)

Castigating anyone out of our movement who dares to make a political calculation of any sort will ultimately lead to failure of our movement. Unfortunately the only way to truly succeed in politics is to make political calculations (even Dr Paul does it sometimes). Instead of casting this state rep aside, this state rep who studied at the freakin Mises Institute for crying out loud, we should see this for what it is, forgive him and continue to support him. What I am hearing in this thread is if this state rep were to, say, run for Olympia Snowe's vacated seat they would not vote for him. Now who's playing politics instead of focusing on ideology? If we cast aside everyone who ever endorses a presumed nominee we do not like we will either end up with no liberty people in congress or a small group who, not unlike Ron Paul, have zero political capital and therefore can never get any legislation passed. I love Dr Paul, but if we are going to advance as a movement we MUST get past his attitudes regarding playing nice w/ the GOP and acknowledge that some of our people will do things for political reasons.

DeMint not only full-throatedly endorsed Romney last time, he said Romneycare should be taken nationally. DeMint sucks, and is the epitome of the swine in DC. Big government stooges when the Repugnantcans are in power, principled Constitutionalist wearing a Jefferson cape when out of power. You will never, ever, ever achieve anything with dumbasses and frauds like DeMint garnering support or sympathy from us.

Joining coalitions has never worked. Not once in our history has working with statists ever achieved anything but greater power and control for the ruling class. If there is to be a coalition, we are not to join it; we are to lead it.

 

[DamianTV]

Why dont you people that live in Maine CONTACT HIM?

http://www.maine.gov/legis/house/hsebios/harmrr.htm

 

[Bman]

Some people are trying to make in roads, some people are trying to start a war, some people are fake.

What will be said when Rand inevitably supports Romney when he gets the nomination?

I don't know if this guy is a wolf in sheep clothing. All I know is I will not be quick to judge. For everyone trying to start a war, be careful that you have a winning move. We've made great strides but I'm not seeing a winning move in 2012.

 

[DamianTV]

Im thinking that if he realizes enough people support Ron Paul, maybe the Turn Coat will Turn Back. Not likely, tho, I suspect he is bought and paid for.

 

[twomp]

It starts with a harmless endorsement to "unify the team". Then before you know it, you're voting for NDAA to "support the troops". How can we trust you in Washington if you can't "support the team" in Maine?

 

[LibertyEagle]

I love reading insane things like that I want to support Romney (i'm voting Gary Johnson), that I want to get "in bed" with the RNC, and sell out to the republican party, all because I think it's stupid to create a situation where we're now officially narrowing our tent (according to you guys) to people who didn't endorse Romney in the primary. The number one issue in the nation right now in the economy and to shut out somebody well versed in Austrian economics is a colossal error. The fact of the matter is the only way to win elections is to build coalitions and your attitudes shut people out of our movement and limit our growth. The only way to sustain our movement is with growth. Some in this thread clearly do not want growth, because everything they advocate for limits our growth. Things like no longer supporting Rand just for endorsing Romney, these attitudes are a detriment not a help, it's almost like some of us just want to go back to being the small cult group of loyal Grateful Dea....er, Ron Paul fans.

If you want to be a part of a pointless political movement that never accomplishes anything in the way of real policy reform, go join the libertarian party. I want this movement to actually amount to something.

If you stand for nothing, what does growing get you?

 

[LibertyEagle]

DeMint not only full-throatedly endorsed Romney last time, he said Romneycare should be taken nationally. DeMint sucks, and is the epitome of the swine in DC. Big government stooges when the Repugnantcans are in power, principled Constitutionalist wearing a Jefferson cape when out of power. You will never, ever, ever achieve anything with dumbasses and frauds like DeMint garnering support or sympathy from us.

Joining coalitions has never worked. Not once in our history has working with statists ever achieved anything but greater power and control for the ruling class. If there is to be a coalition, we are not to join it; we are to lead it.

Please show me when and where DeMint said Romney's healthcare should be taken nationwide. Because right now, I do not think he "sucks". He is no Ron Paul, but I don't see him as my enemy.

As far as coalitions go, we work with several right now. The difference is that you accept them. Think about the Truthers, the open borders people, etc., etc., etc.