Author Topic: Rand Paul's surge in Kentucky (Read 31900 times)

Balog · « **Reply #100 on:** November 13, 2009, 01:43:40 AM »

The R's aren't to blame for everything, that's true. But I do think blaming the Republican Party for, you know, the actions and membership of the Republican Party is a logical and consistent message. And I'm not talking Ron Paul either...

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #101 on:** November 13, 2009, 08:26:35 AM »

Quote

Except when the great leaders are part of the two party system, in which case the two party system conspires to keep out its own members because it's just that eeevil.

No. The Republican Party is never to blame.

Hell, remember the guy on this very forum who was a member of the Nevada GOP and elaborated in great depth about the shenanigans they went through to keep out RP delegates from their events?

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #102 on:** November 13, 2009, 08:46:49 AM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on November 13, 2009, 08:26:35 AM

Hell, remember the guy on this very forum who was a member of the Nevada GOP and elaborated in great depth about the shenanigans they went through to keep out RP delegates from their events?

Now why would they want to do that?

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #103 on:** November 13, 2009, 09:28:32 AM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on November 13, 2009, 08:26:35 AM

Hell, remember the guy on this very forum who was a member of the Nevada GOP and elaborated in great depth about the shenanigans they went through to keep out RP delegates from their events?

No. But I am thoroughly shocked to hear about internecine struggles for control of a political party. That's never happened before.

Quote

No. The Republican Party is never to blame.

zahc · « **Reply #104 on:** November 13, 2009, 10:02:22 AM »

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #105 on:** November 13, 2009, 08:18:36 PM »

Thank you, that is the best thing ever.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #106 on:** November 13, 2009, 08:27:47 PM »

Quote

No. But I am thoroughly shocked to hear about internecine struggles for control of a political party. That's never happened before.

Brilliant.

Let us review what occured during the RP campaign:

1. RP's campaign was geared towards running-just-to-make-a-point. They were incapable professionally of shifting to a different gear when they had more support than they banked upon.

2. RP's followers mismanaged some of the fundraising process. When they called on their people to hold off donations up until December 16th [the first Tea Party] they made it impossible for RP to raise money to campaign in NH. They also mismanaged other things, specifically many people refused the training RP offered to make people into more effective activists.

3. RP was attacked, mocked, and so forth, by a variety of conservative leaders, radio talk personalities, etc. To my knowledge, no prominent Republican/Conservative personality sided with him in the run-up to the primaries.

4. THe local GOP leadership, precinct committees and so forth, did their level best to derail the campaign.

To say 3 and 4 did not occur is disingenious.

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #107 on:** November 13, 2009, 08:36:01 PM »

to ignore why 3 and 4 happened is symptomatic of the general fail

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #108 on:** November 13, 2009, 09:05:35 PM »

Quote from: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 13, 2009, 08:36:01 PM

to ignore why 3 and 4 happened is symptomatic of the general fail

I have a question.

Suppose a person could be located, holding RP's views [not just vague 'libertarian sentiments', but actual, honest-to-god, radical libertarianism]. Do you think that this person would not be attacked six ways from sunday by more mainstream conservatives? Do you genuinely think that these people really attacked him because of the proverbial wookies, or do you think it may have just been because they oppose his radicalism and his ideas? [more the former than the latter, I bet].

On edit, it is possible that said people did in fact base their decisionmaking process based on the behavior of [some of] RP's followers rather than on RP's ideas. That's actually even worse, though. Opposing someone because their followers are strange is far more superficial (and wrong-headed) than opposing them for their ideas).

roo_ster · « **Reply #109 on:** November 13, 2009, 10:19:30 PM »

MB:

It wasn't just his followers' goofiness. RP actually indulged the goofballs.

I recall a Truther video where RP is at a meet & greet and he is approached by some Truthers who go off on some bit of WTC tinfoil hattery. RP doesn't do the "Nice to speak with you, now I gotta go" sort of thing when faced with nutters, he engages them, nods along, and says something to the effect of, "Yes, we should investigate that."

RP was positive enough so that the Truthers were all jazzed and said so to the guy filming the deal.

Very much a "clinging to guns & religion" moment for RP.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #110 on:** November 13, 2009, 11:31:46 PM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on November 13, 2009, 08:27:47 PM

3. RP was attacked, mocked, and so forth, by a variety of conservative leaders, radio talk personalities, etc. To my knowledge, no prominent Republican/Conservative personality sided with him in the run-up to the primaries.

4. THe local GOP leadership, precinct committees and so forth, did their level best to derail the campaign.

To say 3 and 4 did not occur is disingenious.

Maybe I missed something. Did someone deny numbers 3 and 4? Again, this is intraparty struggle to determine the direction of the party, leadership, etc. Why is that even remarkable? A lot of GOP folks wanted to promote their guy instead of the other guy. And?

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #111 on:** November 14, 2009, 09:32:43 AM »

So basically, you're agreeing with me?

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #112 on:** November 14, 2009, 10:03:52 AM »

that he was mocked?

and that he was derailed?

we agree
i see the mockery as being too easy inspired by the acolytes bizzaro behavior leading to number 4 a distancing by the main stream politicos.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #113 on:** November 14, 2009, 03:51:46 PM »

And my view is that the mainstream politicos were never really such great friends of ours, anyway.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #114 on:** November 14, 2009, 09:13:45 PM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on November 14, 2009, 09:32:43 AM

So basically, you're agreeing with me?

No, I'm just wondering why you were stating the obvious.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #115 on:** November 15, 2009, 03:43:41 AM »

Well, I think rejecting a candidate's ideas because his supporters are weird is pretty short-sighted. YMMV.

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #116 on:** November 15, 2009, 04:04:35 AM »

how about rejecting him because his followers, and more importantly his seemingly embracing them, makes him unelectable. i don't recall the last time a candidate had money minted in his image makes inquiring minds wanna know. he was aware of it and coulda at least taken steps to stop them or distance himself from their "plan", failure to do anything is seen as tacit endorsment aka political kamikazee

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #117 on:** November 15, 2009, 04:12:06 AM »

Even a politically 'unelectable' candidate can be good for running.

I remind you of the previous guy who had associations with weird guys like the JBS and who had coins minted in his image:

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #118 on:** November 15, 2009, 04:22:29 AM »

heres a hint wait till you get elected pass it on

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #119 on:** November 16, 2009, 04:39:20 AM »

Quote from: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 15, 2009, 04:22:29 AM

heres a hint wait till you get elected pass it on

You realize of course the fellow I refer to was nominated, right?

[and that 99% of people are to this day unaware of the coin incident]

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #120 on:** November 16, 2009, 06:37:00 AM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on November 16, 2009, 04:39:20 AM

You realize of course the fellow I refer to was nominated, right?

[and that 99% of people are to this day unaware of the coin incident]

so why do you think paul allowed the coin nonsense to continue?

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #121 on:** November 16, 2009, 06:39:17 AM »

Quote from: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 16, 2009, 06:37:00 AM

so why do you think paul allowed the coin nonsense to continue?

I suppose because he did not think it was important. But seriously, my mind-reading ability is not trans-continental yet.

Strings · « **Reply #122 on:** November 16, 2009, 10:11:22 AM »

Is anyone else disturbed by the "yet" in there?

MechAg94 · « **Reply #123 on:** November 16, 2009, 12:12:20 PM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on November 13, 2009, 08:27:47 PM

4. THe local GOP leadership, precinct committees and so forth, did their level best to derail the campaign.

To say 3 and 4 did not occur is disingenious.

I live at least near Ron Paul's home town. I went to the county Repub convention (at least a partial one). RP's supporters tried to basically stack the event and get their direct supporters in positions. I don't know why they are so adamant to do so. One problem was they only came from a handful of precincts so they failed to get people in from 2 or 3 of the biggest precincts, including mine. The other was they started out with a very belligerent attitude and they didn't let anyone know they were going to challenge for leadership so it was all confusion and arguments at first until things settled down. I didn't know any of them on either side of it and I didn't know why they were upset. The only thing I was upset about was a few of them started sifting through precinct records trying to see if they could challenge any of the precinct conventions they didn't stack.

Anyway, no one was kept out of the meeting and it eventually got settled out. They lost mainly because they didn't get things stacked as they probably could have. Most of the people there were from 2 or 3 precincts only. I just couldn't figure out what they were so angry about. At least the guy they were supporting for the county chair seemed to be a reasonable, nice guy.

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #124 on:** November 16, 2009, 04:36:49 PM »

The other was they started out with a very belligerent attitude

say it ain't so!

News:

Author Topic: Rand Paul's surge in Kentucky (Read 31900 times)