Ron Paul Wins in Nevada, So Romney and the RNC Buy a New Party

[sailingaway]

Am I the only one that sees this as a win? Think long term.

Once upon a time, the libertarian-minded people left the GOP in disgust to form their own party. I wish the new Neocon Party the same success as the Libertarian Party. It's time to let the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party know that it's now safe to rejoin the newly reformed Republican Party, and many independents and moderates will find their way into the big tent of liberty as well.

This "shadow party" may be a pain in the butt for a little while, but it's going to be a magnet for everything that's currently wrong with the Republican party. You won most of the keys to the party in Nevada, and now they're handing you the rest of them. Let them leave... in the long run, you'll be much better for it.

I kinda see it the same. Before we left in disgust at the cockroach infestation, and we've come to take back the house. This time the cockroaches are leaving. Sure, we might have some damage to repair, but it is our house, dammit.

We either get real representation, with Paul in a position of power/influence this go round or I don't know that a new party isn't the best way to go. Letting them hold the keys and cheat sure doesn't work.

However, we DO have to fund what the localities we take over need.

 

[kathy88]

It worked in NH, Romney folks forced the tea party chair elected in 2010 out because he 'couldn't fund raise enough' when all the institutional donors pointedly withheld their usual donations in support of Romney. Eventually he had to leave so the party could get the money it needed to run. So we do have to get money to those parties we take over, or the OTHERS who don't mind US but need candidates to get funded, will be pressured into going where the money is. It is to make us irrelevant.

This is very important because it is a shot across our bows. They are warning other states this could happen if we take over. A political blogger /party guy was saying this might happen in IOWA. It is very important that we be able to bring funding into the party where we take over management in a state. We need to focus on this, after the moneybomb.

This just sucks. We donate to the GOP and they oust our guys, take the money and use it to promote Mitt.

 

[rich34]

I'm sorry and it sucks but I don't see how in the world we can match their funding. I wonder on a per state basis how much they need?

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

It worked in NH, Romney folks forced the tea party chair elected in 2010 out because he 'couldn't fund raise enough' when all the institutional donors pointedly withheld their usual donations in support of Romney. Eventually he had to leave so the party could get the money it needed to run. So we do have to get money to those parties we take over, or the OTHERS who don't mind US but need candidates to get funded, will be pressured into going where the money is. It is to make us irrelevant.

This is very important because it is a shot across our bows. They are warning other states this could happen if we take over. A political blogger /party guy was saying this might happen in IOWA. It is very important that we be able to bring funding into the party where we take over management in a state. We need to focus on this, after the moneybomb.

Demand compliance from us, yet stub their nose when the shoe is on the other foot. I'd rather expose them as the hypocritical asses they are than writing a check to a GOP where I am not assured the funds will be spent on uses that are acceptable to my views (even if chaired by a supporter of Paul). I never like giving money to a party, where the central authority (no matter who it be) doles out the funds to whom it wishes. I only donate to candidates, and I expect that is the same with most of us here.

 

[jonruh52]

This just sucks. We donate to the GOP and they oust our guys, take the money and use it to promote Mitt.

Uhmm.. question. Why the heck were you donating money to the GOP???!!!! Don't throw your money in with Goldmann Sachs and all the special interests. Fight them and give directly to someone like Ron Paul or give to the Libertarian Party, or use your dollar bills as toilet paper if you want but for the love of freedom don't give it to the GOP!

 

[sailingaway]

This just sucks. We donate to the GOP and they oust our guys, take the money and use it to promote Mitt.

that is why we only donate to the chapters of the GOP we take over.

 

[sailingaway]

Demand compliance from us, yet stub their nose when the shoe is on the other foot. I'd rather expose them as the hypocritical asses they are than writing a check to a GOP where I am not assured the funds will be spent on uses that are acceptable to my views (even if chaired by a supporter of Paul). I never like giving money to a party, where the central authority (no matter who it be) doles out the funds to whom it wishes. I only donate to candidates, and I expect that is the same with most of us here.

I am ONLY talking about donating to state chapters where OUR guys hold the check book.

 

[sailingaway]

I'm sorry and it sucks but I don't see how in the world we can match their funding. I wonder on a per state basis how much they need?

AK transfered $100K to a local party before we took over. If we could replace it, or even half of it, our guys could fundraise from there. But right now they have nothing to pay bills with because the old chair walked off with it. In MN they were already a million in debt, we won't pay it back but an operation fund that pays rent and utilities and to their candidate fund or whatever or a moneybomb day where we split between all 'our' state chapters.... Iowa is being pressured on funding as well. MN and Iowa both still have conventions coming up. MN is this weekend and Ron's fundraiser is really all we can do on that front before then, but Iowa is in June and I think we need to address it or it will be thrown at us to sway the Santa conservatives there.

 

[Im4freedom]

Just crap. Which is why we need to donate!

Donation amount: $400.00
Transaction date/time: 2012-05-17 06:48:58
Transaction ID: 361519664

Would have been more, but have to get to our 2 day convention this weekend.

 

[papitosabe]

Romney should know we'll vote 3rd party if he continues this...should be loud and clear...he will lose against Obama if he continues these charades... either way, i'm not voting for him, heh heh

 

[sailingaway]

Just crap. Which is why we need to donate!

Donation amount: $400.00
Transaction date/time: 2012-05-17 06:48:58
Transaction ID: 361519664

Would have been more, but have to get to our 2 day convention this weekend.

woot!! And + rep!

 

[Keith and stuff]

It worked in NH, Romney folks forced the tea party chair elected in 2010 out because he 'couldn't fund raise enough' when all the institutional donors pointedly withheld their usual donations in support of Romney. Eventually he had to leave so the party could get the money it needed to run. So we do have to get money to those parties we take over, or the OTHERS who don't mind US but need candidates to get funded, will be pressured into going where the money is. It is to make us irrelevant.

That's not how the situation was explained to me. It had to due with several things. Jack had no idea what he was doing. Jack signed a Libertarian Party ballot petition. The special election candidates kept losing the races. And fundraising was also an issue. However, I never heard the fundraising had anything to due with Romney. What is the source for that?

 

[sailingaway]

That's not how the situation was explained to me. It had to due with several things. Jack had no idea what he was doing. Jack signed a Libertarian Party ballot petition. The special election candidates kept losing the races. And fundraising was also an issue. However, I never heard the fundraising had anything to due with Romney. What is the source for that?

I didn't keep the articles, but early in the cycle when he was first elected over a Romney guy, Romney's backers 'warned' (i.e. threatened) about inability to fundraise and comparing what Romney backers could do financially, and it kept coming up as 'an' element in articles, to the point where I was somewhat concerned, because he was more favorable to us than Romney guys would have been, even if he wasn't 'ours'. Then when he was voted out the stories in the press talked about fundraising problems just as they are doing now about Iowa.

 

[aclove]

I've been wondering, for the last couple of years, how our "take over the GOP" strategy would play out when we finally started winning. Would the party grudgingly accept our leadership and follow its own rules, or would the people we tossed out refuse to accept defeat and simply fracture the party in order to maintain their influence?

If the situation in Nevada is an indicator, it may be the former. I worry that we may take over the Republican Party, only to find that what we've taken is a hollowed-out shell, with a "new" party populated by the moneyed interests that used to fund the GOP now funding whatever new organization they set up. And, coincidentally, ballot-access laws get quickly re-written to include the "new" old-guard group. If that happens, what have we really accomplished?

 

[sailingaway]

I've been wondering, for the last couple of years, how our "take over the GOP" strategy would play out when we finally started winning. Would the party grudgingly accept our leadership and follow its own rules, or would the people we tossed out refuse to accept defeat and simply fracture the party in order to maintain their influence?

If the situation in Nevada is an indicator, it may be the former. I worry that we may take over the Republican Party, only to find that what we've taken is a hollowed-out shell, with a "new" party populated by the moneyed interests that used to fund the GOP now funding whatever new organization they set up. And, coincidentally, ballot-access laws get quickly re-written to include the "new" old-guard group. If that happens, what have we really accomplished?

Then we have our party back, with all its ballot access, and we can build it up again. It is a win win.

But getting it back is the question given the manipulation of rules so they only count against us, never for us.

 

[Keith and stuff]

I didn't keep the articles, but early in the cycle when he was first elected over a Romney guy, Romney's backers 'warned' (i.e. threatened) about inability to fundraise and comparing what Romney backers could do financially, and it kept coming up as 'an' element in articles, to the point where I was somewhat concerned, because he was more favorable to us than Romney guys would have been, even if he wasn't 'ours'. Then when he was voted out the stories in the press talked about fundraising problems just as they are doing now about Iowa.

Jack's competition was Juliana. She likely is a Romney guy but I never heard this issue had another to do with her potential backing Romney and Jack potentially backing Cain or anyone else. It was a very close vote. Juliana was by far the more qualified person for the job. It is too bad she didn't win. She is good at raising money. Jack is good at rallying tea party people. It was a mistake of him to run and I'm thankful he was removed. It is important that people with the ability to do the job are in the position to do the job. The NH GOP hasn't caused problems for tea party or liberty people. It has welcomed them for a long time. However, we don't seem to be as good at fundraising as establishment Republicans. So I am glad we aren't in charge of fundraising.

 

[Carlybee]

Just saw this on the Mitt Romney chatroom; (not re: Nevada but Idaho)

what the RP people in ID are trying to do is get 2/3 of the delegates to the state convention in June. Then they can vote to suspend the convention rules and pick a delegation to the national convention that is not bound to the caucus winner. The only problem with that is that the RNC will most likely refuse to seat the delegation. Game ove

Good Lord if that happens and the RNC refuses to seat the Ronbots - there will be a riot outside.

Dont woprry they are prepared fro the paulbots

the police will arrest the Ronbot and then they will have egg on their faces ...the fools that they are

I believe this is the moderator:

I spokr to RNC and they are aware of the ron paul people all the security are former secret sevice people

And pretty telling what they think of RP supporters:

a free pot giveaway in Orlando, will take care of the Paulbots in Tampa

And good grief:

I am sure they will have drug dogs there too

 

[sailingaway]

new story on it http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...ney-rnc-to-build-shadow-state-party-in-nevada

 

[sailingaway]

Just saw this on the Mitt Romney chatroom; (not re: Nevada but Idaho)

r.

I think that is old news, based on the primary last week I dont' think the spots were obtained. in any event, and the campaign had sent out an email disaproving of at least how it was being spun, maybe not the reality of what they actually aimed at.

 

[Keith and stuff]

I've been wondering, for the last couple of years, how our "take over the GOP" strategy would play out when we finally started winning. Would the party grudgingly accept our leadership and follow its own rules, or would the people we tossed out refuse to accept defeat and simply fracture the party in order to maintain their influence?

I've never liked the takeover strategy. In fact, even people willing to call it that are hurting their goals. Where I live, the liberty folks haven't tried to take over the party. However, the party has welcomed us with open arms. It recruits us to run, trains us, volunteers for us and raises money for us. It has been a great relationship so far. If this take over stuff continues to backfire in various states, maybe people will try to emulate what we are doing in NH.