NH Nat'l Delegate for Paul, Thoughts about RNC

[No1butPaul]

Interesting. Reading about the convention has convinced me that the exact must be done: Mitt Romney needs to be defeated. While before I considered him nothing more than a hollow, flip-flopping opportunist who would maintain the Bush/Obama status quo, the convention revealed a frightening authoritarian streak in Mitt I did not know existed, one that eclipses Obama's and therefore makes him the greater of two evils.

ESPECIALLY with authority under the NDAA!

 

[CPUd]

I understand the position as well, however the longer we wait to succeed the less chance we have at success. The difference between 2008 and 2012 is immense. The difference between 2012 to 2016 is quite possible a take-over. To support the corruption or imply it's acceptable in 2012 will diminish our push for 2016.

Of course it's fine to state all this comformity as a ruse. But as a plan for success? I don't think so.

I don't see it as support for corruption. They are denouncing the actions of the RNC every chance they get. Generally, when asked if they will vote for Mitt, very few have said yes. They can say they are committed to defeating Obama. They can say their focus is on local candidates. They can even say they are disinterested in supporting Mitt. What they can't say is that they are going to actively work to make sure Mitt loses.

I think the root of the issue here is that some people are here to elect President Paul, and others are here to stack the committees with liberty-minded people who will ensure a fair process. Some people have, for some period of time (including right now), wanted to do both. And there's nothing wrong with that, unless something causes the 2 groups to turn on each other.

 

[69360]

In summary he's telling me to vote for Mitt Romney and that is not going to happen.

No he's not.

I agree but perhaps the takeaway concept (to me) is to silently let R-money fall on his sword instead of being proactive in his demise so as to not be labeled the fall guys for his defeat. Defeating Obama can also fall under the category of boosting our totals in the House and Senate ensuring he can't continue to push through his garb.

Pretty much this. Stay GOP registered and vote Johnson or leave the top of the ballot blank. Keep your vote to yourself.

Did the Goldwater Republicans go on to take over the party?

Yes, Ronald Reagan was elected.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Sounds like the Republicans got you right where they want you.

Let's just continue voting for the lesser of two evils while simultaneously believing we can convert evil to good from within the belly of the beast.

anyone who still thinks this is going to happen is delusional. Did the Goldwater Republicans go on to take over the party? Point made.

Initially I was all for the tear down R-money approach because it was easy to want retribution against him and his ilk while also having a hand in participating. Taking the moral high ground while letting nature take its course on his campaign will separate us from being patsies in the aftermath of his inevitable demise. Obama getting reelected will carry emotional baggage in most republicans and they will have no problem blaming the liberty wing of the party (or the Paul name in general, hence Rand's endorsement for cover) for the top of ticket demise just like we're doing to the R-money camp for ours. Both are true yet plausible deniability can be used on both sides if played right. No need to carry water for R-money to defeat Obama in their (the average republicans') eyes especially if the GOP makes gains in the Congress with our help, which will mitigate R-money's loss.

Regarding the Goldwater republicans, they didn't have the internet working for them yet the neocons who took over had Buckley and his influential rag to promote their positioning up until the tea party thing came up.