Why a presidential caucus or primary?

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Last fall, officials for both "major" Nevada parties were loudly celebrating "all the new people this will bring into the process."

Then, when those people actually showed up at their state conventions this spring, chaos ensued.

The Democrats hadn't rented a big enough room for enough time to even sort out who was a credentialed delegate and should be allowed to vote. They had to close down and do it all again, a few weeks later.

eRJ House ads


Most Popular Stories
# SHERMAN FREDERICK: Hillary's best hope: racism
# J.C. WATTS: Your side, my side and the truth
# EDITORIAL: It's now illegal to carry cash?
# J.C. WATTS: Social conservatives still a political force
# JOHN BRUMMETT: It's the worst of all worlds for the DemocratsCommentary
# EDITORIAL: Billing Mrs. Fossett
# EDITORIAL: Just 'trust our incumbent senators'
# LETTERS: Tipping 'expert' a total cheapskate
# ERIN NEFF: They just figured it was a lingerie supplier
# LETTERS: To boost revenue, repeal smoking law



And what happened as the GOP carnival in Carson City two weekends ago was even harder to sort out, at first. Reports from party regulars were that the Ron Paul minority (the Texas congressman came in second to Mitt Romney in the party's Nevada caucuses this winter) had shown up and tried to "take over" the convention, or else "wreck it." Though no one could explain precisely why they'd want to do that.

After talking to a number of participants, both those who were on the stage and those out in the cheap seats, I must conclude the clash of expectations on view at the Peppermill in Reno April 26 was actually more interesting and important that the rumored attempt at a "minority takeover," which is not what actually happened.

First, America does not have two major parties. It has one major party -- the Incumbent Party -- which is divided into two social clubs, the Republicrats and the Demopublicans.

This single party has a single agenda: Tell the voters you stand for "change," and then deliver them no change at all, except incremental further steps toward the brand of state socialism popularized by Bismarck, Mussolini, Hitler and Roosevelt the Second.

If we have two different major parties, tell me which one, placed in power, would quickly end the War on Drugs; pull our troops out of 103 nations overseas; restore the Second Amendment right to own a machine gun without having to sign your name or show a photo ID; end the actuarially bankrupt and constitutionally unauthorized Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security Ponzi schemes; shut down the Federal Reserve Board and put us back on a sound, non-inflating dollar made of gold and/or silver. Tell me which one would declare that children belong to their parents, shutting down the state "Child Protection" kidnapping racket (kids have been kidnapped and killed for an offense as minor as mom not "getting them their shots" -- see Cameron Justin Demery, Oct. 14, 1996) and the vastly expensive Government Youth Propaganda Camps which are dumbing down our children into quasi-literate sociopaths.

That would be "change." And the One Party has none to offer.

I come from New England. Many fine New Englanders are the Catholic descendants of Irish and Italian immigrants. They're against abortion, suspicious of much current "Politically Correct" chicanery, and -- having had three generations to start a business and accrue some wealth -- balk at higher taxes. Looking at the platforms of the "two parties," they should be Republicans. But they'd be ostracized by their friends and families if they registered as anything but Democrats. The Republicans are the fat cats with the Mayflower names who live up on the hill and won't let the darned Swamp Yankee (insert colorful racial epithet of your choice) into the country club.

It's a social thing.

Over the decades, the agenda for a Nevada Republicrat state convention -- especially in a year when the presidential nominee already stands anointed -- has become ritualized. Sign in a few hundred delegates, most of whom know each other and -- for that matter -- knew each other's parents. Show some "pep rally" videos designed to stir up the crowd and ridicule the Demopublicans. Troop out the party's old war horses and celebrity guests to take a bow and -- in at least one case -- actually sing a song.

Now, with lunchtime approaching, seek a voice vote OK of the credential committee's delegate slate for the national convention Sept. 1.

In Reno April 26, convention chairman Bob Beers said the "ayes" had accepted the party delegate slate. But a count of hands was called for. Turns out the "ayes" didn't have it -- by a margin of about 670 to 430.

The eager Ron Paulista delegates -- accompanied by a fair number of newcomers who signed on as Mitt Romney delegates, without whom the Paulistas could not have raised the majority that voted down the "company delegate slate" -- didn't realize they'd been invited to attend a formal social gathering with rituals as time-honored as the garter toss and the father dancing with the bride. They thought they were there to participate in "live" politics -- to elect a slate of delegates to the national convention, and instruct those delegates through the mechanism of a state party platform as to which issues they wish the national party to bring before the electorate next fall.

One group was there for a social event. The other still believed that political change can be effected in America through political activism.

The faith of the Paul and Romney delegates -- their hope that the campaign could be made to address real issues, like our eroding standard of living caused by the purposeful inflation of the Federal Reserve -- is naive, but a precious thing. That this faith will be crushed by a system that values nothing other than "triangulating" to 51 percent -- and it has to be this year -- is very sad.

But the folks who started out "in charge" at the Peppermill April 26, assuming all the ritualized business could be handled with some quick voice votes, are not evil people.

Republican Chairwoman Sue Lowden showed great political courage in standing up against mandatory vaccinations in the state Senate a few years back.

That brave stand gave the Culinary union all the ammo they needed to bring her down, absurdly claiming the young mother was "in favor of childhood disease."

And convention chairman Bob Beers is as close to a lower-tax, smaller government Republican as this state party has produced in a long while.

But one team showed up ready to reminisce about old times and play a little lawn croquet on April 26, only to find themselves in a hall with 900 strangers suited up for lacrosse.

You see, when leaders of both parties crowed last fall about how happy they were to see so many new people being "brought into the process" by the new Nevada caucuses, they meant "registering to vote for our guys." They never imagined these characters would actually crash their annual tea party.

Vin Suprynowicz (vsuprynowicz@reviewjournal.com) is the Review-Journal's assistant editorial page editor and the author of "Send in the Waco Killers." See www.vinsuprynowicz.com/ or www.lvrj.com/blogs/vin/.

Source: ReviewJournal.com


I've always felt that an individual, or a delegate who is representing a group of individuals, has the right to vote.
Instead many of the primaries have turned into organized temper tantrums where even though the majority party has the nomination all but locked up they STILL want to tell delegates how they must vote. In Nevada Rons Pauls delegates out numbered the John McCain people so the McCain people stormed out preventing the GOP from electing national delegates.
In Jefferson City Missouri Ron Paul supporters had their credentials challenged simply because of their support for Ron Paul. They were accused of not being strong and faithful republicans.
These are not isolated incidents by any means. They have been occurring across the nation.
To disagree with a political party is understandable and acceptable but to Rob a minority of its voice is disgusting and un-American.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Perry... you have it ALL wrong.

The problem is that the Ron Paul types are trying to rob the majority of its voice.

The idiocy of the Ron Paul folks is captured perfectly in this quote from an LaTime blog.
It makes some sense for the GOP to consider Dr. Paul as the eventual nominee instead of McCain. There are over one million Ron Paul Republicans who will never vote for McCain and will write in Paul or vote 3rd party for Libertarian Barr or Constitutionalist Chuck Baldwin if Ron Paul is not on the ticket. At least half of the Huckabee vote will not go for McCain. On the other hand, Ron Paul could get almost all the McCain GOPers plus the Huckabee vote and also get Independents and steal Democrat votes. The anti-war vote will go to Ron Paul. Its time to wake up to the Revolution.
Translation: my candidate didn't win, but since I feel he is less objectionable than the other candidates we should nominate him anyway.
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Perry... you have it ALL wrong.

The problem is that the Ron Paul types are trying to rob the majority of its voice.

The idiocy of the Ron Paul folks is captured perfectly in this quote from an LaTime blog.
It makes some sense for the GOP to consider Dr. Paul as the eventual nominee instead of McCain. There are over one million Ron Paul Republicans who will never vote for McCain and will write in Paul or vote 3rd party for Libertarian Barr or Constitutionalist Chuck Baldwin if Ron Paul is not on the ticket. At least half of the Huckabee vote will not go for McCain. On the other hand, Ron Paul could get almost all the McCain GOPers plus the Huckabee vote and also get Independents and steal Democrat votes. The anti-war vote will go to Ron Paul. Its time to wake up to the Revolution.
Translation: my candidate didn't win, but since I feel he is less objectionable than the other candidates we should nominate him anyway.

Wow nice research! You pulled someones opinion of an internet bulletin board responding to a biased L.A.Times blog. Good work soldier.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Do you agree with my premise that the minority (Paul supporters) are trying to take over and silence the majority?

If the Paul supporters some how staged a coup and got Paul nominated over McCain would you object?
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If the Paul supporters some how staged a coup and got Paul nominated over McCain would you object?

I would. We are trying to protect American ideals, not destroy them. McCain has the nomination this year, period.

That doesn't mean I'll vote for McCain though.
 

venkman

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2007
4,950
11
81
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Perry... you have it ALL wrong.

The problem is that the Ron Paul types are trying to rob the majority of its voice.

The idiocy of the Ron Paul folks is captured perfectly in this quote from an LaTime blog.
It makes some sense for the GOP to consider Dr. Paul as the eventual nominee instead of McCain. There are over one million Ron Paul Republicans who will never vote for McCain and will write in Paul or vote 3rd party for Libertarian Barr or Constitutionalist Chuck Baldwin if Ron Paul is not on the ticket. At least half of the Huckabee vote will not go for McCain. On the other hand, Ron Paul could get almost all the McCain GOPers plus the Huckabee vote and also get Independents and steal Democrat votes. The anti-war vote will go to Ron Paul. Its time to wake up to the Revolution.
Translation: my candidate didn't win, but since I feel he is less objectionable than the other candidates we should nominate him anyway.

Translation of reply: People shouldn't vote for who they want to want for but instead should stay in line and pick one of the two major party candidates no matter what.
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Do you agree with my premise that the minority (Paul supporters) are trying to take over and silence the majority?

If the Paul supporters some how staged a coup and got Paul nominated over McCain would you object?

Would I agree that Paul supporters are trying to take over? You mean that they desire to see their candidate in office? Doesn't everyone want their candidate in office? You sure have a way of making it sound sinister.
Do they want to silence the majority? I would say the large majority do not. In fact Paul supporters play by the rules more frequently than the status quo.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Do you agree with my premise that the minority (Paul supporters) are trying to take over and silence the majority?

If the Paul supporters some how staged a coup and got Paul nominated over McCain would you object?

Would I agree that Paul supporters are trying to take over? You mean that they desire to see their candidate in office? Doesn't everyone want their candidate in office? You sure have a way of making it sound sinister.
Do they want to silence the majority? I would say the large majority do not. In fact Paul supporters play by the rules more frequently than the status quo.
Nice job of not answering the question.

Try again, yes or no, would you object of the Paul supporters some how got Paul nominated instead of McCain?
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Do you agree with my premise that the minority (Paul supporters) are trying to take over and silence the majority?

If the Paul supporters some how staged a coup and got Paul nominated over McCain would you object?

Would I agree that Paul supporters are trying to take over? You mean that they desire to see their candidate in office? Doesn't everyone want their candidate in office? You sure have a way of making it sound sinister.
Do they want to silence the majority? I would say the large majority do not. In fact Paul supporters play by the rules more frequently than the status quo.
Nice job of not answering the question.

Try again, yes or no, would you object of the Paul supporters some how got Paul nominated instead of McCain?

I did answer your questions.
You asked this
Do you agree with my premise that the minority (Paul supporters) are trying to take over and silence the majority?

I said yes they are trying to get their candidate in office.


If the Paul supporters some how staged a coup and got Paul nominated over McCain would you object?


Ypu mean if they got their candidate in office legally and by following the rules? What supporter in their right mind would object to this?
Of course I would be all for it.

Then you rephrased the question.

Try again, yes or no, would you object of the Paul supporters some how got Paul nominated instead of McCain?

Again why would I object if they followed the rules and the law?
Of course I am all for them getting their candidate in office.

All that said that's not what they're trying to do. Paul supporters know that Ron Paul will not be elected. What they are trying to do is get him a voice at the convention to speak for the minority.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
In other words you don't care about the will of the people. Screw the 95% of Republicans who voted for someone besides Paul. If my guy can some how skirt the rules and win then I am all for it.
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
In other words you don't care about the will of the people. Screw the 95% of Republicans who voted for someone besides Paul. If my guy can some how skirt the rules and win then I am all for it.

Absolutely not. I said within the law and within the rules.
 

Foxery

Golden Member
Jan 24, 2008
1,709
0
0
Originally posted by: Perry404
This single party has a single agenda: Tell the voters you stand for "change," and then deliver them no change at all, except incremental further steps toward the brand of state socialism popularized by Bismarck, Mussolini, Hitler and Roosevelt the Second.

...

"Child Protection" kidnapping racket (kids have been kidnapped and killed for an offense as minor as mom not "getting them their shots" -- see Cameron Justin Demery, Oct. 14, 1996) and the vastly expensive Government Youth Propaganda Camps which are dumbing down our children into quasi-literate sociopaths.

That's some Kwality Grade-A tinfoil hat shit right there. Thanks for the laugh!

Oh, wow, this thing keeps going... and going... and Energizer battery commercial...

Instead many of the primaries have turned into organized temper tantrums where even though the majority party has the nomination all but locked up they STILL want to tell delegates how they must vote. In Nevada Rons Pauls delegates out numbered the John McCain people so the McCain people stormed out preventing the GOP from electing national delegates.

To disagree with a political party is understandable and acceptable but to Rob a minority of its voice is disgusting and un-American.

Where have you been since the mid 1960s? We use democracy to elect people who will then shut us up when we get out of line. The US government is much more interested in maintaining the status quo than in hearing new ideas.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
In other words you don't care about the will of the people. Screw the 95% of Republicans who voted for someone besides Paul. If my guy can some how skirt the rules and win then I am all for it.
Absolutely not. I said within the law and within the rules.
But you have no qualms about ignoring the will of the people.

As long as your side wins you'll be happy. Nice morals you have there.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Nice morals you have there.

I don't think anyone who has consistently supported the Bush administration has the right to question another's morality.
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
In other words you don't care about the will of the people. Screw the 95% of Republicans who voted for someone besides Paul. If my guy can some how skirt the rules and win then I am all for it.
Absolutely not. I said within the law and within the rules.
But you have no qualms about ignoring the will of the people.

As long as your side wins you'll be happy. Nice morals you have there.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.:D
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Ron Paul types would do better to not compare people within our political world to Hitler and Stalin. When people hear that tired rehashed line their eyes glaze over and any worthwhile point you have to make goes in one ear and out the other.
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Originally posted by: Genx87
Ron Paul types would do better to not compare people within our political world to Hitler and Stalin. When people hear that tired rehashed line their eyes glaze over and any worthwhile point you have to make goes in one ear and out the other.

Talk to drudge not me. Now I wish I taken a screenshot.