Let it be clear.
I never said that it wasn't ran fair.I did question a couple of the chairs decisions and he wasn't perfect like many of you guys say.We lost fair and square.
My point is they were exclusive rather then inclusive other then "sure Ron Paul can give a speech but we don't want him to actually win".As soon as I walked in the building all I heard was lies lies and more lies about Ron Paul.EVERYTHING and I mean EVERY SINGLE THING was Ron Pauls peoples fault.
I'm trying to figure out why some of you are saying otherwise.It was running rampant and everywhere you went!
Not to mention there were moles found out,Romney supporters posing as Ron Paul supporters,spies working within the Ron Paul group trying to learn our plans.And they did.
"They nodded in agreement that he should be able to speak."
YES...JUST SPEAK....I mean of course they will give you that...
I'd be ok with just about anybody "speaking" as long as Ron Paul won.There is nothing inclusive about that.
Romney is 100% the opposite of Ron Paul and I hope everyone doesn't forget that.I hope many of you didn't get talked into voting for Romney because they said "we would like Ron Paul to speak at the convention".
Thats the way some of you sound.
Also I want you to remember.THEY WON AND THEY HAD THE NUMBERS WITH CONFIDENCE.Why did they STILL use the spies,bad mouthing,disrespect of Paul supporters?
They were exclusive rather then inclusive.You would have thought they would have been respectful to win our votes for Romney but they flat out said we don't want or need you in OUR party.
We talk of inclusiveness yet we presented our own slate that largely excluded an entire faction. It goes both ways. If we had the numbers, I would of advocated stepping on the establishment’s throats and pulling the trigger. Don't mistake understanding the necessity to change the perceptions of your enemy for a lack of motivation to win. A Convention is indeed a contest and making friends is an auxiliary to winning for your candidate, but it is much easier to get into the castle with gifts and then open the doors from within instead of assaulting the gates from the outside.
In Missouri, we pulled ~12% for Paul -- It is going to take getting involved, helping out, fundraising, volunteering and being cordial with your Party while in the meantime continuing to set brush fires of liberty within your local community. Does this mean becoming Establishment? No. This means the opinions and ideals that we are trying to communicate fall on more receptive minds because it will create a dialogue that is founded from respect.
I can list every name that was among our Ron Paul State coordination team and convention strategy committee - I would be hard pressed to consider any of them as a mole or seen as inducing sabotage. From the floor, sure, there might have been a few Party people that would indulge in such activities. There are a few men in the Greene County GOP who I will maintain a smile while I visualize upper-cutting a coin out of their head Super Mario style. In a room of near 2000 people you're going to find some bags of crap.
I also take extreme offense if you are taking the notion that we are compromising our own principles and in turn telling others to vote for Romney with our accounts of the events. I will under no circumstances vote for this man and I will resist against his nomination until the RNC - In a general election; I am writing in Paul. Do not think for a second that I did not make that perfectly clear to these establishment types during our conversations. As a matter of fact I went as far as accusing them for allowing the nominee to be a man that is in far disconnect from the platform of the Republican Party, that he will lose to Obama in a general election, and that the 700+ people here for Ron Paul will never vote for Party over Principle. I was friendly and respectful but unwavering in my own resolve. By openly discussing our problems with the current state of the party, it plants seeds of introspection for these people. The woman (mid to late 50's) two chairs down from me was actively listening to a portion of our conversation about the NDAA -- A few moments later I watched from over her shoulder as she typed in, "what is the NDAA" in her phone. That's a win. Another man, who is a mortgage loan officer and a committeeman for Greene County, has agreed to read
End the Fed if I in turn read
The Everlasting Man. That's a win.
I am not naive in the least bit to know when I am being pandered to and I also can identify the difference between sincerity and being patronized. When I say "they nodded in agreement that Ron Paul should speak" I am underplaying the description of the actual accomplishment of that and have not included the entire details of the conversation that lead up to that affirmation.
I do agree with you that they are not currently very receptive to our presence within the GOP, but we knew that would be the case going in. Yes it is not fair that they maintain a level of exclusiveness for something that affects everyone. A political party is a representation of the people and to close the doors on the public seems very disingenuous. But the fact is, fair or not, they are. It will take and adaptation of strategy on our part to continue changing (fixing) the GOP back to what it originally stood for. It takes time and involvement but most importantly it takes respect and understanding. But, under no circumstances should that mean you have to jeopardize our personal convictions for Liberty. Like it or not, THEY will have to deal with that.
