What happened there? I am quite disoriented here, but there were reports of some strange things and unexpected developments and some clearly frustrated supporters. As far as I gather some people believe there was a partial sell-out. Can anyone sum up the path to it, or just share their impression if that were indeed the case? As I understand it there was this deal of not keeping the intensity of the campaign to the maximum for the whole haul, but downscaling it before its end, then refusal to have a magnificent counter-meeting like the Rally for the Republic in 2008, and finally the dissing of Paul supporters (truest, most sincere Paulians) who decided to try to stage one by themselves by campaign head Jesse Benton ("fringe element"). What the heck did happen there? What should I believe? Did the campaign grow afraid of Ron Paul's success? If true, it really sucks to have the movement pissed on and frustrated from the people seemingly closest to Paul. If true, it helped change what should have been a majestic end of a chapter into something much more whimperish. As if this hurricane wasn't bad enough!
Threads on this:
Ron Paul ends campaigning, but stays in the race for GOP nomination
Theories on the Ron Paul Campaign
Scandal! RevPac Founder Reveals Juicy Behind The Scenes Details
While the second thread is more of a forum debate on the truth about Ron Paul, the first one is basically the play by play as it happened in real time, with all the appropriate links.
In particular, see the write up here, and the links to the details of each theory (which are provided in reverse chronological order) in the opening intro at that blog post.
I put an afterthought in the c-span thread too. I regret that. Context.
He said much more than "guns and gold" although he did say that; from what I remember that is almost a direct quote. He hit all of the normal Ron Paul points, the fed, excessive credit, welfare and self-esteem, wars are bad, reject the use of force, political parties lie to you, etc. He even mentioned "the planners" and PNAC. It was a decent speech. (I've noticed when asked about CFR or Bilderberg, Ron refers to them as "the planners" rather than TPTB, illuminati, masons, etc. His references to that end keep me thinking that he is genuine. His kid has to know and doesn't bother with the fine tuned rhetoric to still talk about them in public forums. You either get laughed at (Alex Jones) or arrested ("Don't taze me, bro!") except in Paul's case. Linguistic precision is require and Ron Paul has that. The setting was laughable as was the sign behind him. Even Rand said good things (keeping the topic of light bulbs to a minimum) he spoke negatively of the war machine in a few of its aspects. Mewonders if Rand will get more tough on the rhetoric now that he is, for sure, totally of no influence in a Romney adminstration. Maybe that's what he and Ron were waiting for all along? To see whether or not the GOP would actually let them in. Now that we, and they, know the answer is an emphatic elephant trunked, "NO!" they will move forward with more biting vocabulary in order to bring the 'fringe' back into the element. Judging by Peter Schiff's conversation with one of the organizers of "Paulfest" [and his response to what had happened (he figured it out mid conversation and you can tell)], Jesse Benton lumped Rockwell, Woods, Gary Johnson, Peter Schiff, and Adam Kokesh into the same "fringe" (quote from Benton) element. (Once Peter realized that he was in the event Jesse describes he immediately changes demeanor so as to not say anything further on the topic.) I wonder if Benton isn't trying to maximize his events and organization, at the expense of the other similarly-themed events, by throwing the die hards under the bus for the Establishment. It would make sense if Ron is retiring, and Rand is much more loose on his ethics, that Benton will no longer have to worry about "ideologically challenged" public figures to help campaign for and that, when becoming a bigger person's problem, one can stand to make serious monied demands in order to politically maneuver bodies of people together like he has had to do. To refer back to this question I asked Maybe that's what he and Ron were waiting for all along? To see whether or not the GOP would actually let them in Anyone here is probably familiar with Ron Paul's 1982 Gold Commission sitting. Now, there are rumors that the GOP party platform includes this very thing: another Gold Commission Inquiry. Is this is concession that the campaign went for? Something that the GOP conceded, literally, 30 years ago? We can just give them the report from 1982! "Here, it's worse now. Ask Bernanke for graphs." This is a tiny bone and almost shows that the GOP is stumped for "ideas from Paul that they can back rhetorically, but not in practice." Because, I promise you, that is all Romney and his people were trying to find. Ron and Rand must know behind their eyes that this is a slap in the face. The attempted mimicry of the Reagan administration's Gold Commission? What about a simple Senate level "Debt Reduction Inquiry"? The Paul Commission? Rand could be on that (he did mention cutting military money in his speech). But, my guess is that Ron and Rand will step up the rhetoric in the future to try to save face in the movement itself. Unless Romney courts Rand into some special deal during his administration it looks like the GOP beat the Paul's at the leverage game of politics.
He said much more than "guns and gold" although he did say that; from what I remember that is almost a direct quote. He hit all of the normal Ron Paul points, the fed, excessive credit, welfare and self-esteem, wars are bad, reject the use of force, political parties lie to you, etc. He even mentioned "the planners" and PNAC. It was a decent speech. (I've noticed when asked about CFR or Bilderberg, Ron refers to them as "the planners" rather than TPTB, illuminati, masons, etc. His references to that end keep me thinking that he is genuine. His kid has to know and doesn't bother with the fine tuned rhetoric to still talk about them in public forums. You either get laughed at (Alex Jones) or arrested ("Don't taze me, bro!") except in Paul's case. Linguistic precision is require and Ron Paul has that.
The setting was laughable as was the sign behind him.
Even Rand said good things (keeping the topic of light bulbs to a minimum) he spoke negatively of the war machine in a few of its aspects. Mewonders if Rand will get more tough on the rhetoric now that he is, for sure, totally of no influence in a Romney adminstration. Maybe that's what he and Ron were waiting for all along? To see whether or not the GOP would actually let them in. Now that we, and they, know the answer is an emphatic elephant trunked, "NO!" they will move forward with more biting vocabulary in order to bring the 'fringe' back into the element.
Judging by Peter Schiff's conversation with one of the organizers of "Paulfest" [and his response to what had happened (he figured it out mid conversation and you can tell)], Jesse Benton lumped Rockwell, Woods, Gary Johnson, Peter Schiff, and Adam Kokesh into the same "fringe" (quote from Benton) element. (Once Peter realized that he was in the event Jesse describes he immediately changes demeanor so as to not say anything further on the topic.) I wonder if Benton isn't trying to maximize his events and organization, at the expense of the other similarly-themed events, by throwing the die hards under the bus for the Establishment.
It would make sense if Ron is retiring, and Rand is much more loose on his ethics, that Benton will no longer have to worry about "ideologically challenged" public figures to help campaign for and that, when becoming a bigger person's problem, one can stand to make serious monied demands in order to politically maneuver bodies of people together like he has had to do.
To refer back to this question I asked
Maybe that's what he and Ron were waiting for all along? To see whether or not the GOP would actually let them in
Anyone here is probably familiar with Ron Paul's 1982 Gold Commission sitting. Now, there are rumors that the GOP party platform includes this very thing: another Gold Commission Inquiry. Is this is concession that the campaign went for? Something that the GOP conceded, literally, 30 years ago?
We can just give them the report from 1982! "Here, it's worse now. Ask Bernanke for graphs."
This is a tiny bone and almost shows that the GOP is stumped for "ideas from Paul that they can back rhetorically, but not in practice." Because, I promise you, that is all Romney and his people were trying to find.
Ron and Rand must know behind their eyes that this is a slap in the face. The attempted mimicry of the Reagan administration's Gold Commission? What about a simple Senate level "Debt Reduction Inquiry"? The Paul Commission? Rand could be on that (he did mention cutting military money in his speech).
But, my guess is that Ron and Rand will step up the rhetoric in the future to try to save face in the movement itself. Unless Romney courts Rand into some special deal during his administration it looks like the GOP beat the Paul's at the leverage game of politics.
It seems kind of simple to me; the Republicans were taken a bit aback by the support Paul got, especially among young voters. They didn't realize that recent trends have lead some people more toward libertarianism than toward standard Republicanism, or neo conservatism basically. So, they have a significant enough portion of their 'base' voting block that they need to pacify while not actually doing anything they want done. So, how do you get the less than smart among that group to buy back into the GOP? You marginalize the "nutcases" and "fringe element" and pull the dopes in with variations on the theme of the standard lip service Republicans pay to free markets. By doing so you do two things at once: you pull in as many of the lost base as possible by making them think Republicans really do support all that libertarian stuff, and you also don't alienate independents and lefties, who might feel sympathy to the Republicans and want to vote for them if only to vote against Obama, but were distressed by all that crazy libertarian free market talk. You mollify the lefties by ejecting the actual personalities libertarians and libertarian leaning people gravitated too, you re absorb the libertarians and libertarian leaning types you lost by paying lip service to their rhetoric but sacrificing their intellectual leaders.
The people who actually give a damn about what Ron Paul stood for are already lost to them, so the GOP is trying to make sure the people he may have pulled away or made question the status quo but who are just pissed and not necessarily ideologicall opposed to them get pulled back in to line. It's not the ideas of Ron Paul that they'll portray as crazy to these people, it's Ron Paul himself. As for the possible lefties and independents, they'll portray themselves again as the 'reasonable' embodiment of what he wanted. Or in other words, the comromise which means more of the same bullshit.
So in the end it's just one big ad hominem against Ron Paul. They can't destroy the message, so they'll destroy the messenger, which they believe for their purposes is good enough.
I don't know how many have read about the convention soiree, but this is the proper reaction, right?
If Paul had pressed hard instead of shutting down when he did this could have been a seriously cool thing. They might not have won, but it could still be a hit on the GOP's public image. AND, I think, that had the GOP had some of them arrested or escorted out, symbolically, it would have doomed the GOP. Here, they look like a successful tyrant. I don't think they care if people think that. If they had people escorted out then they would look like they can't handle internal criticism (which is a big deal in corporate planning).
The GOP might actually stand a chance to win in November if they have the entire Bush staff back. Obama has Acorn (or w/e, the network of information and election riggers) while the GOP has Diebold and their network of string pullers, both have various Establishment connections...
"...in one corner..."
I can't wait for these debates... /sarcasm.
xahrx:they'll portray themselves again as the 'reasonable' embodiment of what he wanted.
This is precicely what the protagonist does in the new HBO drama The Newsroom. But in that case it's not even that good, as he actually does present the ideas themselves as nutty, and presents the notion that actual reasonable people clearly see them as such.
It's painful to watch a lot of the time.
Aristophanes:I can't wait for these debates... /sarcasm.
Oh dammit I forgot about that. Jeez, at this point I kind of almost wish that if it can't be Ron Paul that it may as well be a Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum. At least that would be kind of entertaining. Hell even Herman Cain would have been a decent show.
God I did want to see a Paul/Obama debate though. What I'd give to have one of those take place in front of a national audience.
Ryan/Biden should be fun though.
This is precicely what the protagonist does in the new HBO drama The Newsroom. But in that case it's not even that good, as he actually does present the ideas themselves as nutty, and presents the notion that actual reasonable people clearly see them as such. It's painful to watch a lot of the time.
I never even bothered to watch the show. I do have a thing for Emily Mortimer so I was considering watching it, but I managed to catch the preview for it on YouTube and when I saw Jeff Daniels' explosion I figured it would be your standard leftist BS. And it's a shame for me, I like all the actors involved, I'm just tired of most television and movies because they all seem so far to the left and don't even notice it. It's like they're all Rod Lurie films these days, where the underlying message seems to be that it's okay to be a Republican as long as you're really a Democrat, and it's okay to be conservative as long as you're liberal. It's like these people have lived in ideological echo chambers for so long that anyone who even slightly disagrees with them is almost a different species, and almost always an inferior one. They have never so much as encountered an actual libertarian, much less studied the idea. Their version of libertarian is someone who wants to legalize pot, like Bill Maher. I've even heard Maher himself refer to himself as a libertarian, yet when you watch his shows there apparently isn't one piece of government legislation or one government intervention he doesn't like.
Sorry, there is one: he wants pot legalize. And then regulated to hell and back...
I truly think that most people are almost literally speaking a different language when they talk politics. And the get so bound up in their own BS it's amazing. I listen to a podcast of two usually amusing guys who are pretty far to the left, and whenever the conversation touches on economics I'm astounded at the levels of misinformation and ignorance, and whenever it touches on Republicans I'm astounded at how viscious they are and how unselfconsciously superior they truly think themselves to be to anyone who's ever even thought of voting for a GOP candidates. The media echo chamber is ridiculously obvious in their talks. They claimed Romney is now a 'Birther', and seriously discussed it. I saw the clip of Romney, he was making a fucking joke. Even though he's a schmuck I don't think misquoting him or taking quotes wildly out of context is fair just because he's a schmuck. But that's what happens when you get your news solely from the Daily Koz or other such sources. The amazing lack of self awareness and criticality among some people is truly astounding.
It's not much but the Republican Party did pay some attention to him. This video evidently played at the convention.
I still get goosebumps when reminded of his career and his courage. I know I've at times been disgusted and disheartened by the way he's been ignored and mistreated. Though it's a rather transparent attempt to reach the Ron Paul supporters, mainly youth and independents, it's refreshing to have some of these quotes on the record :
"He's been talking about these thing since the 1970s, he hasn't wavered, he hasn't buckled, even when he's had to stand alone."
"I always categorize Politicians into two categories, they're either here to make a point, or they're here to make a difference. Ron Paul is the only one I know who made a difference, by making a point."
I've gotta be honest, Ron Paul is too old to continue this. He's 77 now. Even if he did have the full support of the Republican Party, he's too old. My hope is simply that the work he's done will continue to spread and grow. I doubt he'll see it come to fruition. That saddens me, but we'll remember him. He's made a difference. It just seems that it comes at a glacial pace.
On what happened to his campaign and the vim and vigor of his personal fight, I'm hoping it's simply that he got tired, and that he had to settle for some movement in policy. I remember some articles in late 2011 about his age, and some wear and tear on him from the immense amount of travel and speaking engagements he had on his schedule.
Will he be forgotten? A lot of the Republican governors are getting the fiscal part of the battle right. They're balancing budgets in their states, and cutting spending, and reducing tax burdens on business. These same Republicans are wedded to the Tea Party on the fiscal issues, and the TP candidates are ending up in the House and Senate. I'm curious to see if we finally start implementing Austerity measures at the federal level instead of simply in the at the state level.
I'm less concerned about the Social issues if the Republican Governors and a Republican House can actually push a state's rights agenda.
It would be nice to see some movement in the right direction, but the ultimate right direction is no government at all, and I don't think anyone is going to move that far, ever. Still the attempt to mollify his supporters and get them back into the fold is interesting. Normally they would just be ignored. Oddly enough I think we owe all this to John Stewart of all people. It's largely because of his commentary that one night that lead to the media finally not being able to simply ignore Ron Paul and get away with it. The guy may fade, the ideas are here to stay, and they were forced to pay attention because enough people reacted when they didn't, and that's significant.