The Battle of Minneapolis?

L.A. Times political blogger Andrew Malcolm, one of the most active Ron Paul-watchers in the EmmEssEmm, sees a quiet revolution brewing on John McCain's libertarian flank:

[Q]uietly, largely under the radar of most people, the forces of Rep. Ron Paul have been organizing across the country to stage an embarrassing public revolt against Sen. John McCain when Republicans gather for their national convention in St. Paul at the beginning of September. [...]

The last three months Paul's forces [...] [have] been fighting a series of guerrilla battles with party establishment officials at county and state conventions from Washington and Missouri to Maine and Mississippi. Their goal: to take control of local committees, boost their delegate totals and influence platform debates. [...]

They hope to demonstrate their disagreements with McCain vocally at the convention through platform fights and an attempt to get Paul a prominent speaking slot. Paul, who's running unopposed in his home Texas district for an 11th House term, still has some $5 million in war funds and has instructed his followers that their struggle is not about a single election, but a longterm revolution for control of the Republican Party.

Whole thing here. McCain jokes here that he hopes his opponent come Novemeber is the good Dr. Congressman. Brian Doherty's "Scenes from the Ron Paul Revolution" here.

Comments

Episiarch | May 12, 2008, 10:31am | #

Methinks that this attempt will result in a more statist, pro-war GOP that really, really, really hates libertarians and actively scorns them, instead of the current statist, pro-war GOP that is annoyed by libertarians and passively scorns them.

If McCain loses don't for one second think the GOP will reflect upon its lost ways. They will viciously blame Ron Paul and his supporters, just like Dems blamed Nader and Greens in 2000.

And if he wins, they will just assume they can win without libertarian support so why give libertarians anything?

P Brooks | May 12, 2008, 10:31am | #

Good luck, and Godspeed.

It's unlikely the Republican convention will have the same entertainment value as a Clinton vs Obama freeforall, but we can hope.

More indicators of the coming President McCain regime: he has sent Carly Fiorina forth as his spokesperson/ economic advisor. That's the same Carly Fiorina who was heaved overboard by Hewlett Packard after she hired private detectives to spy on the Board of Directors. No word on whether she believed she had the right to torture them.

Colin | May 12, 2008, 10:32am | #

Let's start a pool: who will the first to write "Reason sucks"?

kinnath | May 12, 2008, 10:41am | #

I take 10:32 am by Colin

Elemenope | May 12, 2008, 10:43am | #

Methinks that this attempt will result in a more statist, pro-war GOP that really, really, really hates libertarians and actively scorns them, instead of the current statist, pro-war GOP that is annoyed by libertarians and passively scorns them.

Good. Good! It's better for people to know right out where the GOP stands, so they realize sooner rather than later that they no longer stand for freedom (in any sense). The convenient lie that has been perpetrated since Reagan's time is ready to die a public death.

Let the GOP commit electoral suicide on the altar of purging libertarian elements from their ranks. I can't wait.

jmr | May 12, 2008, 10:45am | #

Note the "correctly dismissed" antilibertarian bias on full display at the same blog which was, no doubt, "correctly" declaring McCain's campaign dead at the time due to (hmmm....) overspending. Gee, might there be a blatant antilibertarian bias problem in the news media that's so expected a Reason blog didn't even bother to mention it?? I reported, you decide.
JMR

Warty | May 12, 2008, 10:49am | #

Reason sucks.

Also, it's all the better if the Republicans actively revile libertarians. Them paying lip service to libertarianish things hasn't done too much for us lately.

R C Dean | May 12, 2008, 10:52am | #

The last three months Paul's forces [...] [have] been fighting a series of guerrilla battles with party establishment officials at county and state conventions from Washington and Missouri to Maine and Mississippi. Their goal: to take control of local committees, boost their delegate totals and influence platform debates. [...]

Thus showing a great deal of sophistication. How do you think the religious right got its position of power in the Republican party, anyway?

Episiarch | May 12, 2008, 10:53am | #

Let the GOP commit electoral suicide on the altar of purging libertarian elements from their ranks. I can't wait.

I agree. My point was merely that the people referenced here are, in fact, hoping to steer the GOP to a more libertarian tack, and I think that they will discover, to their chagrin, that their efforts will result in exactly the opposite of what they hoped for.

Bramblyspam | May 12, 2008, 11:19am | #

I would *so* love to see Paul's delegates at the republican national convention voting for Barr. Yeah, I don't expect it to happen, but can you imagine a better way for the Paul delegates to give the republicans a much-needed slap in the face? It would wake up the MSM and the republican party far more than casting the expected votes for Paul ever would.

madmikefisk | May 12, 2008, 11:29am | #

Good. Good! It's better for people to know right out where the GOP stands

I think not even the GOP knows where the GOP stands anymore.

The question remains, however, whether or not these delegates will try to simply shape the platform or just create theatrics... not sure the theatrics really benefit anyone, although getting some people to (at the very least) counteract the influence of the Huckabee nuts (who, in my opinion, take the worst aspects of McCain and Obama's policy agendas and put them together into one Jimmy Carter-like package) when it comes to writing the platform is a very good thing indeed.

Although I still (reluctantly) vote Republican usually, I'm having a hard time backing McCain due to his anti-market, pro-government-service rhetoric, and wish I had another solid choice (hoping to cast my ballot for Barr or Root should they get the LP nomination).

That aside, I had a hard time getting behind Ron Paul... maybe it was some of his supporters, or maybe some of Paul's statements (in particular, mentioning on Glenn Beck's show how we could replace our current tax system through alternative methods, including tariffs), but Dr. Paul wasn't quite the right guy for us at the time. Hopefully, however, that his campaign is a sign of things to come, a harbinger of a future libertarian coalition.

Fluffy | May 12, 2008, 11:34am | #

I am going to go out on a very short limb here and predict that the Paul people will succeed in getting a small number of delegates elected to the convention, and those delegates simply will not be seated and will be arrested when they attempt to enter the building.

The second half of my prediction is that the media will not cover this, or will report it in passing. OR they will report it but will present it as justified for McCain's "safety" from "extremists" who "threaten" the convention.

Any minor incident or disagreement at the Democrat convention will be covered ad nauseum, however.

RW | May 12, 2008, 11:38am | #

Ron Paul is a sleeper agent of world communism and a member of the Austin, Texas branch of the Illuminati. He takes his orders from Nelson Linder. Paul's first task is to destroy the Republican party. Don't be fooled.

Bingo | May 12, 2008, 11:39am | #

I think not even the GOP knows where the GOP stands anymore.

Democracy by conquest, flaunting and imposing Christian values, aggressive criminal justice system, and maybe the 2nd amendment?

Al Federber | May 12, 2008, 11:52am | #

I'm all for the Ron Paul convention revolt. It's time to stand up to fascism, don't you think?

Brandon | May 12, 2008, 11:56am | #

P Brooks said, “That's the same Carly Fiorina who was heaved overboard by Hewlett Packard after she hired private detectives to spy on the Board of Directors.”

Fiorina left before that debable. You're thinking of Patricia Dunn, who's first day (I just learned) was Fiorina's last.

MK2 | May 12, 2008, 12:02pm | #

"It's time to stand up to fascism, don't you think?"

Fascism means anything you want it to mean, doesn't it? You fucking moron.

brotherben | May 12, 2008, 12:38pm | #

This story in the Idaho Statesman paper today about Dr. Paul


http://www.idahostatesman.com/idahopolitics/story/377849.html

Prof. Nuttbutter | May 12, 2008, 12:49pm | #

as MK2 so drolly demonstrates, the word "fascism" has quite an emotional hook to it these days. Try substituting the word "authoritarian" (and its derivatives) for the word "fascism" to keep the kneejerky reactions to a minimum.

Me, I blame the liberals.

Damn that Scoop Jackson anyhow...

spinnikerca | May 12, 2008, 12:51pm | #

"Ron Paul is a sleeper agent of world communism and a member of the Austin, Texas branch of the Illuminati. He takes his orders from Nelson Linder. Paul's first task is to destroy the Republican party. Don't be fooled."

Thanks! But for the coffee that went up my nose, that statement made my day.

zig zag man | May 12, 2008, 12:54pm | #

"Paul's first task is to destroy the Republican party."

I, for one, eagerly await the destruction.

madmikefisk | May 12, 2008, 1:04pm | #

"Paul's first task is to destroy the Republican party."

I, for one, eagerly await the destruction.

The only downside to it is the amount of damage the Democrats can do to the economy in the meantime... the Republicans are witless on the issue, but the Democrats are willfully moving in the opposite direction of freedom when it comes to economic matters. (Social issues it's almost the reverse... Republicans take the stance of Democrats on the economy, and the Democrats are largely witless, with the occasional willingness to subsidize particular social patterns.)

Can we just nuke both parties, say "screw it all", and start over, maybe with a parliamentary multi-party system?

Al Federber | May 12, 2008, 1:15pm | #

MK2 -

If what you meant by your juvenile comment is that fascism comes in various guises, then we can agree.

R C Dean | May 12, 2008, 1:24pm | #

start over, maybe with a parliamentary multi-party system?

Because those have such a sterling record of respecting liberty and limiting the powers of government.

zig zag man | May 12, 2008, 1:30pm | #

"Can we just nuke both parties, say "screw it all", and start over, maybe with a parliamentary multi-party system?"

How about no national political parties, just individuals or groups who refer to themselves however they want to? Sovereign groups like states. Has this ever been done?

Marcvs | May 12, 2008, 1:37pm | #

The only downside to it is the amount of damage the Democrats can do to the economy in the meantime

Looking at the numbers, Republican administrations have a worse track record in this regard (I'm referring to gov't spending, deficits, etc). A Democratic Congress AND Presidency would be highly disturbing, though. Give me old-fashioned gridlock!

Marcvs | May 12, 2008, 1:43pm | #

How about no national political parties, just individuals or groups who refer to themselves however they want to? Sovereign groups like states. Has this ever been done?

Up to about 10 seconds after George Washington was elected President. Then it all went to shit. The human race as a whole seems to like subjugation more than freedom.

RustyJohn | May 12, 2008, 1:46pm | #

I for one will be content with an Obama victory and withdrawal from Iraq, a Dem Congress that is out of control, followed by a Republican party that finds their nuts and puts up a real, small-government opposition and a capturing of the House and Senate in 2010. Divided government we stand! Let the morons argue and pass nothing.

zoltan | May 12, 2008, 1:53pm | #

.Democracy by conquest, flaunting and imposing Christian values, aggressive ineffective criminal justice system, and maybe the 2nd amendment?

Don't forget.

prolefeed | May 12, 2008, 2:35pm | #

Good. Good! It's better for people to know right out where the GOP stands

The GOP is not some monolithic bloc of people all thinking the same. It is a messy coalition of libertarians, theocrats, warmongers, fiscal conservatives, etc. just like the Democratic party is also a coalition of groups with oftentimes opposing agendas.

But if the libertarians and fiscal conservatives bolt the GOP in large numbers, the resulting electoral beatdown might make the GOP come to their senses and reembrace Goldwater small-government values.

P Brooks | May 12, 2008, 2:36pm | #

You're thinking of Patricia Dunn

Oops- you're right, Brandon. I did a quickie google to refresh my memory, but only skimmed through the headlines. I guess I have to go to the penalty box.

But I'm still not buying into "Carlymania" and based on what I heard her say in the Bloomberg interview, I wouldn't describe her as bursting with good ideas.

windycityatty | May 12, 2008, 3:18pm | #

Fascism, authoritarianism - whatever name you prefer to use as a label doesnt really matter.

A constitutional republic, in whatever sense you want to define it, no longer exists. Limited government no longer exists and hasn't for many decades. If we can agree on that, the rest is just pointless drivel and labels.

I dont think the Republic can be saved at this stage - as a government that grows this large will not be able to restrict its size but can only grow bigger and bigger. Budgets must be increased- not eliminated. The people have become dependent on the government and more importantly the government itself has become dependent on more government. We are likely well past the point of no return -and only a major depression or catastrophe can revert it back. We are on the way to the former, lets hope we can avoid the latter.

It is with little irony that I note that President Bush, a so-called Republican, has actively increased the size and scope of federal government to unprecedented budget busting levels. Terry Schiavo, homeland security, all of it points to where the Republicans now stand. They deserve every election failure that comes their way.

If we keep voting them in, they arent going to change their policies. Why would they? They need to lose, and lose bad, before they will come back around.

Geotpf | May 12, 2008, 3:32pm | #

Libertarians, neocons, and theocrats are so different, they make the two biggest opposing groups in the Democratic party (unions and enviromentalists-ask each group what the best car is for a fun time) look like bosom buddies. It's amazing that the Republican party had managed to keep all the groups semi-happy for as long as they did. That's no longer the case.

Geotpf | May 12, 2008, 3:35pm | #

Marcvs | May 12, 2008, 1:43pm | #

How about no national political parties, just individuals or groups who refer to themselves however they want to? Sovereign groups like states. Has this ever been done?

Up to about 10 seconds after George Washington was elected President. Then it all went to shit. The human race as a whole seems to like subjugation more than freedom.

I dunno, I think blacks are a bit more free today than in George Washington's time.

P Brooks | May 12, 2008, 3:35pm | #

They need to lose, and lose bad, before they will come back around.

I wish I could believe that. At this point, my expectation is that the Republican losers will all shake their heads and say, "what a bunch of dumb fucks those voters are," and set to work dreaming up new ways to run our lives and drafting more grandiose giveaways in order to buy more votes next time around.

M | May 12, 2008, 4:32pm | #

So when Ron Paul was a kid, was his father absent? I mean, this guy is really fucked up.

Andy | May 12, 2008, 5:03pm | #

Being close to Minneapolis, I have to ask - Has anyone here ever been to a convention before? Are they boring or fun or what? Of course factor in that the Ron Paul people might be around.

NIIIIIIIIIII! | May 12, 2008, 5:05pm | #

Paul's first task is to destroy the Republican party.

His next task: to buy us a shrubbery! One that looks nice. And not too expensive.

MK2 | May 12, 2008, 5:07pm | #

If what you meant by your juvenile comment is that fascism comes in various guises, then we can agree.--Al Federber

No, idiot, I meant that you don't have a fucking clue what fascism means.

Mad Max | May 12, 2008, 6:01pm | #

"So when Ron Paul was a kid, was his father absent? I mean, this guy is really fucked up."

How many babies have *your* brought into the world? How many decades have *you* been married? Do *your* children support your campaign for President?

Edward | May 12, 2008, 6:11pm | #

How many babies have *your* brought into the world? How many decades have *you* been married? Do *your* children support your campaign for President?

Yeah, How many racists have you pandered to for political gain?

Edward | May 12, 2008, 6:12pm | #

Federber = Feather brain