If you want to see just how fractured the Republican party is around the country as it tries to please the Tea Partiers, the more traditional business types and the Ron Paul acolytes, look no further than the Louisiana state GOP convention. That event took a turn for the bizarre as Ron Paul supporters revolted against the decisions of the chair, split the convention and were roughed up by the police who were called to remove them.
Several supporters of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) sustained injuries while being arrested during the Louisiana Republican Party’s state convention over the weekend, in a conflict that engulfed the meeting after Paul’s supporters overwhelmed other delegates and voted in new leadership, only to be ignored.
Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) won the Louisiana primary and received 10 delegates, while former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) took second, earning five delegates along with it. Paul finished fourth in the primary, behind former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), but his supporters dominated the state’s caucusing process in April, meaning he stood to gain as many as 30 delegates at the state convention.
And with an audience widely stacked in his favor on Saturday, it seemed likely that Paul would again emerge from a state convention the unexpected victor… That is, until the LAGOP chairman turned the process on its head.
The conflict hinged upon an alleged violation of the state party’s rules by Chairman Roger Francis Villere, Jr., who’s headed up the LAGOP since 2004. Paul supporters claim he called upon a former Rules Committee chairman, who had been defeated the night prior, in order to implement rules that would marginalize Paul’s delegates. That’s when Alex Helwig, a Paul supporter who’d claimed he had won the race to chair the rules committee, stood up and objected to the chairman’s actions, only to be ignored.
As Helwig’s protest continued, cameras caught Villere saying: “This is not debatable. He is the chairman of the rules committee. I would ask you to sit down. We told you to sit down… I’m going to ask you to be seated, or I’m going to have to ask you to leave. I’m going to have you escorted out if you don’t leave.”
The police dragged Helwig out of the room, apparently breaking several of his fingers in the process. Here’s the video of that:
And that’s when the convention split:
Paul delegates moved to request more information on the chairman’s decision, but he continued as if they weren’t present. So, they decided then and there to elect a new chairman, picking state central committeeman Henry Herford Jr., a Paul supporter, to lead the party.
When Villere refused to acknowledge the vote, Paul’s delegates picked up their chairs and turned away from him, forming a new convention on the spot and passing a microphone to their new chairman.
Moments later, Herford, too, was seized by police. Camera-wielding Paul supporters surrounded the fracas as Herford pleaded with officers to be gentle due to his prosthetic hip. “I have a handicap! I’m handicapped!” he said as they pulled him to the ground.
Herford said later, after he was treated for dislocating his prosthetic hip, “It felt like somebody had kicked me, brought me down. They said I was resisting arrest, but they never said I was under arrest. I didn’t leave when they told me to leave, but I never was told to leave… I have a room here in this hotel and I’m on the state central committee. I don’t know how I could be in an improper place.”
So now there are two entirely different sets of delegates, one selected by the Ron Paul alternative convention and one selected by the regular convention, and there’s going to be a big fight over which ones will actually represent the party in Tampa. A similar problem is going on in Nevada, where the RNC has threatened to block the entire state delegation from the national convention after Paul supporters took it over.
This is a serious problem for the RNC. They know that, from a purely political standpoint, they have to keep Ron Paul and his supporters in the fold through November. They don’t want a repeat of 2008, when Paul refused to endorse John McCain and held his own alternative convention in the same city as the party’s convention. But Paul and his supporters have been intent on using parliamentary rules at the state conventions to get more delegates than the candidate actually earned at the polls, putting the GOP in a very difficult position.
And yes, this is very fun to watch, thank you for asking.
62 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
interrobang
June 8, 2012 at 9:33 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of assholes.
Nepenthe
June 8, 2012 at 9:46 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Hmmph. I never expected Paul backers to support “special rights” for people with disabilities. He does oppose the ADA after all.
d cwilson
June 8, 2012 at 9:46 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The utter contempt with which Ron Paul’s supporters show for the popular will should make anyone pause. What they’re saying is, “Screw the vote, we’re going to game the system to poach as many delegate slots as we can.” Paul didn’t win a single primary race, yet he’s coming away from many of them with more delegates.
The tactics they are employing to bully their way into taking control of the state parties are remiscient of a certain European party that I won’t mention in order to avoid Godwinning the forum this early.
dingojack
June 8, 2012 at 9:47 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Why does ‘hoisted by thier own petard’ keep coming to mind?
Dingo
Michael Heath
June 8, 2012 at 9:48 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Is there a historical precedent for the type of extremism we’re seeing from old people in the Republican party? I’m wondering if older people living longer, being retired and not living with their kids, and their lapping up conservative propaganda, has created a new type of monster or if there’s an example of old extremists in a bygone era.
Raging Bee
June 8, 2012 at 9:49 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
No worries — Republican-ruled state governments can simply identify potential Ron Paul supporters, and force them to prove their citizenship or lose their right to vote. Given how quick and energetic they are to do that to blacks, Hispanics, and people who have been most harmed by Republican policies, I’m sure they’ll have their dangerous libertarian faction neutralized in no time.
timpayne
June 8, 2012 at 9:54 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Q: How do you break a Ron Paul supporter’s fingers?
A: Kick him in the ass
Raging Bee
June 8, 2012 at 9:54 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Heath: different specific group, same monster — specifically, near-animal-level fear and resistance to frightening changes, resulting in irrational, instinctual tribalistic reaction; pretty much just like what we saw in (most obvious example) Europe between the World Wars.
Mr Ed
June 8, 2012 at 9:55 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The GOP in a microcosm. The party of law and order until that order doesn’t work the way they want then they are the party of arrest and finger breaking to put down anyone who thinks differently.
/who needs Robert’s Rules when you have Assad’s rules
Raging Bee
June 8, 2012 at 9:55 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
timpayne: I thought that was how you busted his skull.
Gregory in Seattle
June 8, 2012 at 10:05 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@d cwilson #3 – The Paul supporters may be gaming the system, but they are following the rules to the letter and demanding that they be enforced. The “mainstream” GOP is ignoring the rules.
I have been on various rules and bylaws committees for several organizations. If a private organization has published procedures, and fails to follow them, they are subject to civil penalties. And you can bet your maiden aunt’s hope chest that Paul’s supporters will sue the GOP for ever single individual rule infraction they comit.
redgreeninblue
June 8, 2012 at 10:05 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
As an English person, I’m going to have to admit my confusion and ask what the Ron Paul supporters were doing (at this convention) that was so objectionable.
I’m a Green Party member in England, and I have stood in local and national elections on their behalf and attended several conferences. In my experience, the whole point of a vote at conference is that those who can be bothered to turn up and vote (or vote by post beforehand if that is practical) get to influence the decision taken. If the party executive doesn’t like what the floor has voted, well then boo-fucking-hoo. If a current internal rule repeatedly leads to perverse decisions, then it’s up to members to put forward amendments to be adopted by popular vote.
The party officers don’t get to retroactively change the rules, ignore points of order from the floor or simply quash dissent by calling the cops, just because they don’t like the outcome.
This being US politics, of course, I am undoubtedly missing something here. (I don’t mean Ron Paul’s politics – I think I understand those well enough.)
Gregory in Seattle
June 8, 2012 at 10:12 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@redgreeninblue #12 – The Paul supporters were playing by the rules and winning.
Even by GOP standards, Paul is loony and many of his supporters are total wackos. It would be very, very bad for the state party if the Paul fringe took control of the party aparatus: imagine the credibility issues if your local Green Party was taken over by militant vegans who see no problem in blowing up university labs and burning down housing developments in the name of Our Mother Gaia. That is close to what several state Republican parties are having to deal with in Paul.
Kevin
June 8, 2012 at 10:13 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
More popcorn. Lots of faux butter, please.
wscott
June 8, 2012 at 10:20 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ redgreeninblue: No, you’re not missing anything procedurally. But in the past “those who can be bothered to turn up and vote” at state conventions were mostly party loyalists who were willing to support the majority candidate. In this case, the minority candidate’s supporters are flooding the conventions far in excess of their actual percentage at the polls, and are less motivated by party loyalty. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing; you can call it gaming the system, or you can all it good organizing but that’s teh way the system is designed.
Anecdotally, I’ve heard quite a few stories about Obama supporters vs. Clinton supporters at the 2008 caucuses & conventions. But because those two candidates were not that far apart, policy-wise, the disagreements were more genial and everyone was more willing to compromise. The difference between Santorum and Paul is light-years.
Dr X
June 8, 2012 at 10:22 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath,
That seems quite plausible. Older people have lots of time to watch Fox and I think many are regular recipients of insane conservative spam.
An 81-year-old relative sent this to me last night. He didn’t send the snopes link; he cut and pasted the text into the email from wherever he go it. He thinks it’s something new and he showed no evidence of appreciation for how insane it is. There was a time that I could have safely said that this relative would have considered a letter like that insane.
The opportunities to pump millions of elderly people full of this kind of crap didn’t even exist until the last few years ago.
Adding to your observation that people are living much longer without their children, I also wonder if the older generation has lived through an historically unprecedented rate of technological and social change. If anything, the rate of change has been accelerating. The world today is alien to them, so perhaps they’re ripe for reactionary picking.
redgreeninblue
June 8, 2012 at 10:22 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Gregory #13, thanks, point taken. Veganism is fine; Gaia – nice concept, shame about the lack of evidence; blowing up university labs absolutely not fine! Housing developments – well, in England there still seems to be a willingness to build shoddy houses with poor energy efficiency on flood plains and sell them at too high a price for existing local residents to afford – and it is rather cold here at the moment ;-)
More seriously, Ron Paul supporters are clearly dissatisfied with the Republican Party as it stands; I’m wondering why they haven’t simply voted with their feet and set up a new party… though I suspect the two-party system in US politics would make that a long trip into the electoral wilderness. And obviously an election year is not a good time to do such things…
wscott
June 8, 2012 at 10:24 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ Gregory: I’m not sure being loonies & wackos actually disqualifies them; they’re just the wrong flavor of loony (from the tea baggers’ perspective).
redgreeninblue
June 8, 2012 at 10:24 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@wscott #15.
Hmm, entryism, in other words – which is a pretty surefire way to piss off the rest of your party, I suppose :)
Eric R
June 8, 2012 at 10:46 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I was under the impression that Paul supporters tend to be younger on average, he has lots of support in college age voters I thought.
daved
June 8, 2012 at 10:51 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I can’t believe Ed missed an opportunity to headline this story “Ron Paul Supporters Revolting.”
d cwilson
June 8, 2012 at 10:51 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gregory in Seattle says:
You are correct as far as the rules of this convention go. I’m not letting the party chairman off the hook for trying to squelsh the vote. That’s another breed of fascism.
I was referring to the Paul supporters packing the meetings where the delegates were selected and saying, “I don’t care how the party members voted, we’re going to steamroll over you and put Paul’s supporters in as delegates.”
gvlgeologist
June 8, 2012 at 10:54 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Of course, the thing that should be wished for is that the Paul supporters get so pissed off that they mount a 3rd party run for president. I’d sign a petition!
Shawn Smith
June 8, 2012 at 10:55 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Dr. X said,
<offtopic>
I have to disagree with this. In my opinion, the greatest amount of technological change in the U.S. occurred between 1900 and 1950. In 1900, the U.S. could still be classified an agrarian society, and a significant percentage of the population lived on farms. Telephones were fairly new and usually required an operator who could and sometimes would listen in, there was no radio broadcasting, no air travel, no cars, no washing machines, no dishwashers, no vacuum cleaners, almost no cars, etc.
Fast forward to 1950 and you’ll get a United States that is much more similar (technologically) to today. There is broadcast television (in some parts and some times), cars are becoming ubiquitous, telephones are ubiquitous, most homes have electicity and running water and modern appliances.
My point is that I think if you plucked a white guy living in 2000 and stuck him in 1950 it would be easier for him to survive than if you took another white guy from 1950 and stuck him in 1900.
</offtopic>
Raging Bee
June 8, 2012 at 10:57 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
More seriously, Ron Paul supporters are clearly dissatisfied with the Republican Party as it stands; I’m wondering why they haven’t simply voted with their feet and set up a new party…
Because on the issues that really matter to them, they’re practically identical: banning abortion, cutting taxes for the rich, erasing any regulation that invonveniences the rich, taking the Federal government out of the business of enforcing the Constitution or doing anything decent for ordinary Americans, demonizing liberals, demonizing labor unions, and generally returning America to an imagined golden past where life was simple, the rich were revered, gummint didn’t govern, and no one got uppity.
Why do you think those loons abandoned their own party in the first place?
Shawn Smith
June 8, 2012 at 10:58 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
ghetto edit:
no air travel,
no cars,no washing machinessivivolk
June 8, 2012 at 10:59 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Anyone care to explain to a clueless Canadian what’s going on here?
I don’t understand how there’s apparently some kind of public vote, which Santorum won, but which awards him delegates? But then there’s a second vote?
I have this same confusion when it comes to this Electoral College thing people keep talking about.
I also don’t get how the Republican chairman here can call the cops to remove people who’re following the party’s own procedures.
plutosdad
June 8, 2012 at 11:09 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Actually they are not just “showing up”, those people are the actual delegates who were elected back during the primary (caucus in the case of LA).
So it is wrong to say “these people are flooding the convention”, when the truth is, “these people were elected delegates, elected by people who flooded the caucus polls”
They wouldn’t be there if the people of LA didn’t flood the caucus and elect them. Ron Paul’s supporters have been doing this in every state, they aren’t going for Paul’s win, they are going for delegates, to change things at the local level.
After all, don’t they say all real politics and change happens at the local level?
D. C. Sessions
June 8, 2012 at 11:24 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Not remotely.
My grandfather was born in 1894 on a farm in Illinois. When he was a boy, going somewhere was by foot, horse, train, or boat. You got the news by papers, and you communicated long distances by post or (at great expense) telegraph.
Before he died he had fought in one world war and lived through another, lived through the Great Depression, flown on jet aircraft, seen the Summer of Love, and watched men walk on the moon live on television.
I’m 60 now, and nothing I see is fundamentally different from what I grew up with. Refinement, not revolution. The so-called sexual revolution is more a development of the automobile and WWII (they didn’t talk about it all that much, but my father’s generation were just as lively in the 40s as mine was in the 60s and 70s — the Pill is only an incremental improvement over condoms and diaphragms.)
Leo
June 8, 2012 at 11:26 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@27 sivivolk –
I’ll try to explain it the best I can.
“I don’t understand how there’s apparently some kind of public vote, which Santorum won, but which awards him delegates?”
The important thing to note is that he really isn’t awarded delegates from the public vote. The delegates that are often cited by the media and whatnot are what Santorum should get if delegates are selected proportionally to that public vote.
Now, I don’t know exactly how things work in other states and/or in the Republican party, but in Iowa for the Democratic caucus, people essentially volunteer to be delegates for the county convention. They are supposed to take a proportional number of supporters, but they also select “alternates” in case those selected at the caucus cannot make it. If one were a supporter of a minority candidate, trying to sign up as many fellow supporters as you could as “alternates” is a move the could potentially gain you an upper hand. If many of the main delegates for a more popular candidate don’t show up, then the alternates for the minority candidates can take their place (which may involve lying about who they support, fyi). Then, they’ll vote for that minority candidate instead, which then effects the number of delegates that go to the district convention to be disproportionate. They can also repeat this process of signing up lots of “alternates” for that district convention. Then at district convention, it could be the same process again to get an even more disproportionate amount of delegates to the state convention, which is actually the forth (caucus, county, district, state) vote.
d cwilson
June 8, 2012 at 11:32 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Actually they are not just “showing up”, those people are the actual delegates who were elected back during the primary (caucus in the case of LA).
As I understand it, in the caucuses of states like LA and IA, the party members show up and vote for the candidate of their choice. Then, the local party leaders hold meetings to select the actual delegates. In theory, those delegates are supposed to pledge to candidates in proportion to how the party members voted. However, it was these meetings that the Paulites packed themselves in and got many of their number selected as delegates. Thus, Paul is getting a lote more delegates than he should have based on the miniscule percentage of the vote he got.
Leo
June 8, 2012 at 11:36 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@27 sivivolk –
Oh, and another thing…delegates for candidates who drop out.
I was thinking back to ’08 when there was a competitive nomination process for the Democrats. From my caucus, we were to send 3 Clinton delegates, 3 Obama delegates, and 1 Edwards delegate to the county convention. But I think Edwards may have dropped out before that convention. That left a delegate who was essentially uncommitted. That delegate could change hir vote to be instead for Clinton or Obama. Or, they might not even show up, leaving a spot for one of those alternates.
Leo
June 8, 2012 at 11:40 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@31 d cwilson — I cannot say I’m sure how the Republican party handles their caucus here in Iowa. But for the Democrats, we select delegates for our county convention the night of the caucus. And those who are eligible to be delegates are those who are actually there at the caucus. So it is not the case for IA Democrats that “the local party leaders hold meetings to select the actual delegates.”
But I honestly do not know how Republicans handle theirs.
wscott
June 8, 2012 at 11:45 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ plutosdad & d cwilson: Correction noted. I was thinking “flooded the caususes” in my head, but that’s not what came out. (I blame my keyboard.)
Re the pace of change, while I agree the technological change since 1950 hasn’t been as rapid as the first half of the 20th century, the social changes have been unprecedented: civil right, women’s right, gay rights, etc. And I think that’s far more unsettling for some people. Plus I think the technological change of the first half of the 20th century was regarded much more positively by the majority of people. Whereas the social changes of the last 60 years are Very Scary to a depressingly large percentage who value homogeneity and stability over diversity.
Dr X
June 8, 2012 at 11:45 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Shawn Smith,
You’re right about the period from 1900-1950. This may just be a difference in how we think about the elderly. My parents and friends of my parents, the generation that has had the very extended old age Michael speaks of, were born in the 20s. So the group I’m thinking of overlaps significantly with the time period you’re talking about. My parents had “ice men” and ice boxes. They still saw wagons pulled through NYC streets by horses, they shoveled coal to keep the house heated. My mom’s family had an outhouse during her childhood, a tub and hand-operated ringer for washing clothes and no automobiles in the family until after WWII. They took trolleys to get around–the trolleys had been around for their parents too. There was little interstate travel. Definitely had no TV, but they did have phones–party lines if you can believe it. Today my Dad has a blog. He’s also a major beneficiary of modern medicine having had two angioplasties, a bypass surgery and constant medical management of his heart disease since age 61. That’s how he got his extended old age.
cycleninja
June 8, 2012 at 11:56 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
With the exception of broken fingers and dislocated artificial hips. I loathe the Republican party as much as anyone, but if this were any other political party, we’d be decrying the thuggery and sympathizing with the victims. Those people shouldn’t have been manhandled like that. Ed, in my opinion, this is the kind of police tactics you–rightfully–find appalling. The fact that it happened to Republicans shouldn’t make any difference.
Didaktylos
June 8, 2012 at 12:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The point is the Republican party has ceased to be conservative and become outright reactionary. (The difference between a conservative and a reactionary is that a conservative abides by the rules while a reactionary uses them as a tool).
d cwilson
June 8, 2012 at 12:28 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
From what I read, it is how the GOP did things. I could be wrong, of course. But since the caucuses are run by the parties and not the state government, it’s likely that the rules are different for each party.
Marcus Ranum
June 8, 2012 at 12:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
My parents had “ice men” and ice boxes. They still saw wagons pulled through NYC streets by horses, they shoveled coal to keep the house heated. My mom’s family had an outhouse during her childhood, a tub and hand-operated ringer for washing clothes and no automobiles in the family until after WWII.
When I was a kid, one of my dad’s friends was an elderly Frenchman who was a kid (and served as a messenger) in the Franco-Prussian war. He avoided WWI and hung out in the south of France during the German occupation in WWII (largely avoiding WWII)… Anyhow, he came to visit us in Baltimore when I was a child and he came over by boat on the QEII. I asked him why he didn’t fly. His response, “I saw the first airplane in France, and I’d never get in one of those rickety things.” His actual usage was ‘machines infernales’ – literally “infernal device” – which is an expression the French use for what we would call “a bomb.” I was old enough to catch the pun and laugh. But it always stayed with me, remembering that it was perfectly reasonable not to want to fly a transatlantic jet, having lived through the big news of the first successful flight over the English Channel and having literally watched WWI dogfights from a safe distance. Now when I think about my experiences as a kid, flying transatlantic on BOAC and TWA, the aircraft aren’t that much different (hell, the same airframes are probably still flying) but the planes used to be full of smoke, and alcohol everyplace, and they were a lot more casual about safety-theater than they are now. I used to climb down between the seats and sleep stretched out on the floor – I was smaller then and there was more leg-room. I’d probably be fairly comfortable with flying a 1960s flight (especially with the retro stewardesses’ uniforms) but I would consider it a big dangerous adventure indeed if I were flying transatlantic in a WWII era bomber. And no way would I want to try to use a WWI aircraft as anything other than a short entertaining romp if I knew the pilot and knew the machinery was insanely well-maintained, etc. If my experience of aviation was that “planes are those things that fall burning out of the sky” I would probably feel differently about it.
Gregory in Seattle
June 8, 2012 at 1:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@d cwilson #22 –
Party rules allow for delegates to change their minds after being selected. This freedom is logistically mandatory, to allow for candidates who get into scandals, who drop out, and so on. Delegates are not bound to support the caucuses, no steamrolling required.
Raging Bee
June 8, 2012 at 1:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The difference between a conservative and a reactionary is that a conservative abides by the rules while a reactionary uses them as a tool.
Actually, practically EVERYONE uses rules as tools, whether we’re obeying them, enforcing them, ratting out violators, or changing them on the fly to avoid really bad outcomes. The difference, in this particular case, is that one group of idiotic reactionaries are trying to use the rules to their advantage, and another group of same are trying to change the rules to keep their rivals from getting that advantage.
As for who’s right…as much as I hate the paultards and want them to fade into well-deserved irrelevance, they’re pretty much in the right on this issue: the Republican establishment are desperately trying to change their internal policies — and run away from their promises to their own supporters — to shaft a subgroup of people to whom they’d been pandering, but who they now find are getting too powerful (and too embarrassing). I’m not sure how legal the Republican rule-change is (they are a private organization, which means they’re not really obligated to admit or support anyone they don’t want to); but it’s still sleazy, cowardly, hypocritical, and downright desperate.
naturalcynic
June 8, 2012 at 1:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The selection process for caucuses and state convention strategy was explained by a Paul campaign big-wig on Rachel Maddow’s show earlier this year. In caucus states, the caucuses were held with all party members who showed up voting for the candidate. After that vote, most of the party members went home when the local chairman announced that they were looking for volunteers to be elected for the next caucus/convention level. Only the dedicated members stayed and Paul supporters were organized so that they all stuck around wo they had an outsized influence on the delegate selection process. The delegates are supposed to vote for the caucus winner, but this was not a “must vote” in every situation. In other instances, only their delegate’s first vote had to be dedicated to the caucus winner. Whatever the case, the Paul volunteers would have a disproportionate influence on state conventions, including what they would try to get in forming the state party platform [that would then influence the platform at the national convention].
D. C. Sessions
June 8, 2012 at 1:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The Paulistas aren’t doing this for a chance at the nomination — that’s gone, and they wouldn’t have been able to do anything but vote as directed on the first round anyway.
They’re going after the stuff that doesn’t show up on TV coverage: the rules committee, the platform committee, etc.
Midnight Rambler
June 8, 2012 at 2:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
sivivolk @27:
The vote in the primary decides how delegates are committed to vote (other commenters above have been talking about caucus states, which are more complicated, but Louisiana has a primary). What’s happening at this and other state conventions is that actual people are being chosen to go to the national convention as delegates. Paul’s strategy is to get his people signed up as delegates, as well as to take over leadership positions in the state parties. Since it’s only party activists who go to conventions and not rank-and-file voters, you only need maybe a hundred or so people to show up to take control.
If they get enough at the national convention, they can wreak all kinds of havoc on the party platform and so on. Also, although they’re supposed to be bound to vote for the candidate they’re assigned by the primary vote, after this kind of ruckus I have to wonder whether they’ll follow that or go rogue and vote for Paul anyway, and what kind of sanctions would entail.
abb3w
June 8, 2012 at 2:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@29, D. C. Sessions
…posted to the FreethoughtBlogs website on the internet from a smart-phone?
(Granted, I’d be hard pressed to name a non-computer example.)
@43, D. C. Sessions
That depends on just how monstrous a clusterfuck those committees end up, and how many people attending have video-capable smart phones… just like they did at the LA-GOP state convention.
d cwilson
June 8, 2012 at 2:31 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Again, this one of those things that varies between parties and among the states. And it’s often changed from one election to another.
Some are required to vote for their guy in the first round, unless he releases them. Others merely have to pledge their initial support, but don’t require a blood oath, so they are free to change their mind at any time. But again, in theory, the number of pledged delegates is supposed to be proportional to the number of votes each candidate got. So, if say, Santorum got 40% of the vote, 40% of the delegates chosen are supposed to be at least initially pledged to him.
This is not what’s happening. Ron Paul’s supporters are getting made delegates in far greater proportions than the votes he got.
D. C. Sessions hit on the real reason for this: The know Paul is not going to get the nomination. This is about getting control of state and national party platform. We’ve already scene the results with Iowa GOP platform. Expect the national GOP platform to be just as bugnut crazy.
Paul is going to be the best gift to the democrats since Pat Buchanan’s Culture War speech at the 92 RNC.
tacitus
June 8, 2012 at 2:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It would be really interesting to know where Ron Paul’s head is in all this. There is no doubting his supporters’ commitment to their cause, but Paul actions thus far (especially his unwillingness to go after Romney in the debate) would seem to be of someone who is not terribly interested in mounting a Paulista revolutionary takeover of the Republican Party.
Some speculate that he doesn’t want to upset the apple cart for his son, Senator Rand Paul, or maybe he wants to play the “Oh my, you all voted for lil’ old me?” card, and thus distance himself from any messiness that has happened.
Either way, no matter how vile the Republican Party response has been to the Paulistas, it doesn’t take long to realize that the typical Ron Paul supporter (at least those who post prolifically on any remotely-related thread on the Internet) isn’t exactly playing with a full deck.
They typically claim that the primary votes were rigged and that the majority of Republicans actually support Ron Paul, citing the fact that he gets bigger crowds at his rallies than Romney did. Thus they believe taking over the caucuses doing is their duty to ensure that the will of the people is properly served. Yes, they are that deluded.
RW Ahrens
June 8, 2012 at 2:39 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This whole thing exposes how the Republicans approach the process of running a country under “democratic” (small “d”) rules.
“Rules are ok as long as they get me what I want, once they are against me – there are no rules.”
This goes for the Paulites as well as the regular GOPers. One will game the rules to get their way and run roughshod over the opposing side, the others will just ignore what rules there are to run roughshod over the gamers.
Bottom line, if the Republicans can’t run their own party and abide by the rules, what makes anybody think they’ll abide by the rules once they get real governing power?
Answer: They won’t, because they proved it in Wisconsin when they rammed their anti-union legislation through, violating the Open Meetings act, then got their own Party members on the State Supreme Court to throw out the resulting lawsuit.
Game over.
tacitus
June 8, 2012 at 2:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m not so sure. The RNC will pull out all the stops to stage manage their convention so that nothing like that will happen. They have already threatened not to seat delegates who won’t commit to vote for the candidate they were assigned to, and they may also simply pass over the state delegations in the roll call if they are not going to play ball.
Failing that, I am sure they will attempt to negotiate with Ron Paul, who seems to be less intent on disrupting the convention than his fanatical supporters. And unless things go really sour, I highly doubt that a Paul speech will have a lasting impact on the election, as they will work overtime to continue dismissing and marginalizing the “kooky Ron Paul” just like they did in the debates.
I would love it if the Republican Party descended into chaos, but there is simply too much money invested in their winning the next election for that to be allowed to happen.
D. C. Sessions
June 8, 2012 at 3:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Desktop, actually — and there were mimeographed news and discussion groups when I was in high school. It’s quicker and easier now, no doubt, just like the Pill or implants are more convenient than a diaphragm. And, yes, there’s a point where a difference in quantity becomes qualitative — like jet airplanes vs. sailing ships.
But if blogs have seriously changed the lives of more than a few of us, it’s more of a comment on us than on the world.
matty1
June 8, 2012 at 3:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
leonardschneider
June 8, 2012 at 3:31 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
A week or so ago, I spent a long evening lurking the Ron Paul message boards reading about the events at the Kansas GOP convention. I have no stake in the conflicts arising between the Paulites and the GOP mainline — IMHO, the Paulites are almost creepily devoted to the man — but it’s certainly making an otherwise dull campaign season interesting.
I will say this for the Paulites: they can quote Robert’s Rules of Order the same way hardcore Objectivists can quote Ayn Rand. They know parliamentary procedure the way most of us know our home addresses.
leni
June 8, 2012 at 4:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ cycleninja:
I agree. I don’t like Paul, don’t care about his supporters, and I don’t have much good to say about the Republicans, but this is just appalling.
Not concern trolling, but I saw this and was just like “wtf”? Well, at first I wanted to grab the popcorn, but broken bones and dislocated hips wtf? It became decidedly less funny then.
d cwilson
June 8, 2012 at 4:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
tacitus:
Paul probably won’t give a speech at the convention. That’s not how I think he’ll the hurt the party. If his supporters manage to put in enough of his bat shit crazy ideas into the platform, people will be talking about that all week long, no matter how well they stage manage the convention itself.
Michael Heath
June 8, 2012 at 5:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Dr. X adds:
Perhaps, certainly when it comes to media and the ability by marketers to learn from science on how to influence others. However the two older generations from the current group in the 60s and 70s realized an even more radical technological transformation, at least visibly, and yet were relatively liberal with the exception of southern conservative Baptists and other racists. These two older generations were the ones who fought the the world wars and suffered through the Great Depression as adults. This current group I refer to was born too late to fight WWII and were too old to get drafted into Viet Nam. They vote against what they falsely describe as an entitlement culture while demanding the government keeps its hands off its Medicare and Social Security, while being more than happy to sacrifice the same for the younger generations (perhaps the biggest projection by any group).
The question however is more revolved around which societal changes caused old people to become radicalized if this current set of radicals are unique or rare given their age. I don’t think it’s just media, I also think it’s all the time they have while separated from the needs and lives of those of working age.
Michael Heath
June 8, 2012 at 5:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re the talk here about Ron Paul in relation to the GOP and the behavior of his state supporters:
Rand Paul endorsed Mitt Romney yesterday or the day prior. Word on the street is this guarantees him a speaking slot at the convention. So let’s not forget Ron Paul may be playing a long game when it comes to Rand, which makes the behavior of his state people even more baffling since it doesn’t help him with the establishment. There’s a story waiting to be told about both Rand and Ron Paul’s complicity and reaction to what their supporters are doing in some states. Chaos might be a factor.
eoraptor013
June 8, 2012 at 6:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
A lot of you talking about how technology has changed since the mid-20th century have good points, but I think you’re missing the elephant. Tech change shouldn’t, in it self, predispose one to the conservative – tending to reactionary -agenda.
OTOH, what I remember of the period from 1950 to 1989, is going shopping with my parents for a bomb-shelter. I specifically remember the local Sears holding an exhibition of pre-fab and DIY bomb-shelters in the parking lot. McCarthyism and the red-scare was in the 50′s. The ICBM’s were in Cuba in the 60′s. The Evil Empire was in the 80′s. IOW, for more than half a century, pretty much the entire adult lifetime for most of these folks, the US was saturated with fear-mongering of the Commie threat.
That this age cohort, in their dotage, lap up everything the wackaloons publish should be no great surprise.
Pinky
June 8, 2012 at 9:57 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Politics is rife with dirty tricks, character assassination, lies, treachery, secret deals, payoffs, and many more actions no one would confuse with ethics or integrity, but this is the first time I can remember physical altercations.
Oh sure there are many examples of violence connected with or caused by politics such as the 1968 Democratic convention, but I don’t recall seeing any reports on the news of politicians (or their minions) bashing each other physically in state or national law making bodies.
This bit with the Paulites and the LA caucus embarrasses me as an American. Consider what the rest of the world sees; the US political process coming to blows. The world will not differentiate between parties, they will simply label the participants as Americans.
Watch this (58 second) video from 2007: Taiwanese Parliament Brawl.
I’ll guess very few would be able to explain who is fighting whom without doing some research. What Americans see in the video is Taiwanese politicians acting badly.
US credibility is low – the rest of the world viewing the USA as a country large in population and clout, undereducated, overly superstitious /theological yet still having the gall to believe in US exceptionalism as an excuse to be overbearing bullies dictating realpolitik to other sovereign entities.
I doubt the world sees our heavyhandedness as anywhere near altruism.
The fastest way to research why the US has made so many horrendous foreign policy mistakes; from propping up sadistic dictators in Latin America to adventurism in the Mid-East is to (say it with me now) follow the money.
I don’t think we’ve ever fooled the world it was anything else.
Political fisticuff’s is another flag telling the worlds citizens the US has sunk deeper into perdition.
So please less schadenfreude and more concern about how to get the US back on the
rightcorrect track.D. C. Sessions
June 8, 2012 at 10:19 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Don’t worry, Pinky. This kind of thing won’t last.
That’s because the NRA has made sure that next time, everyone will be packing.
BrianX
June 9, 2012 at 12:08 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Tacitus:
“Deluded” is definitely the keyword here. Don’t forget that the tinfoil hatosphere is very strongly Paul-inclined, or at least seems to be, so we are not talking about people playing with a full deck to begin with.
Ichthyic
June 9, 2012 at 1:26 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
*watches video*
*experiences extreme schadenfreude*
Ichthyic
June 9, 2012 at 1:29 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
…does anyone doubt that the GoP will be split into two parties for the elections in 2016?