Posted on 06/04/2008 7:51:35 PM PDT by traviskicks
Baloney, SecAmndmt, the whole lawsuit is a power play, not a move that’s “grassroots conservative and constitutionalist.” There’s a difference in definitions of the words in the law and a desire to subvert by lawsuit rather than resolutions and process, that’s all.
Why not put forward a resolution at the rules or platform committee? Why cost the Party money through a lawsuit, why call “the establishment” “Tories,” unless you are disruptive?
Have you read the platform of the Republican Party of Texas? Who do you think wrote that platform? Where do you come off calling names?
As I asked earlier, exactly how will voting for the chair at the first session empower the “grassroots conservative and constitutionalist” more than holding the votes to Friday morning? I told you how it will cost each of the delegates and alternates.
I predict that the lawsuit will end the fussing that we’ve been having over which wing - which group of would-be leaders - of the Party will lead. When our Delegates hear about it, they/we will vote down the disrupters at the first chance we get. I, for one, will be at the microphone to speak against any candidates put forward by Medina, Polland and their cohorts.
Hear Hear!
(I’m trying to sound like a Tory.^)
well, I was responding more to that other poster who started off the thread by calling ron paul supporters ‘a-holes’. So the ‘country club’ comment was more directed at him. I am a republican, and have been for some 5 years. I was a poll watcher in north carolina in 2004 and volunteered for the orange county republican candidates that year. Since then, no doubt, my views have become more libertarian and I’ve been supporting Ron Paul out here in NV quite strongly.
I think, unfortunately, Ron Paul supporters often unecessarily create conflict with the Republican party establishment. They view them suspiciously and assign intentions when most state republican leadership actually wants to welcome them to the party and otherwise just wants to hold events in timely and professional manners. Not all Ron supporters are like this, many if not most are established republicans, some of whom are already part of the party leadership. Occasionally RP supporters have good reason to direct angst at party leadership. Which was the case here in Texas, I don’t know; since they got a judge to agree with them, sounds like the latter.
But the truth is that in many cases political conventions and party meetings are social clubs, people see old friends and make new friends and sort of forget about the purpose of it all, become ideologically complacent. The Ron Paul supporters are lighting a fire under the GOP. I think the best would be if we need to work together to advance liberty and the Republican party (the two used to be synonymous).
Apparently you didn’t bother to read for comprehension. The 2008 Primary favored RP and was a tough hill for an inexperienced campaigner Peden, who still garnered a significant number of votes. Voters in the 2010 Primary will remember RP’s supporters shenanigans at the County and State (and potentially at the National) conventions and they will hold him accountable.
My guess is that RP won’t even run in 2010 and will attempt to anoint an heir apparent to succeed him (if it is who I suspect, that candidate will be trounced when word gets out about his role in all of this.)
Polland has been lusting over higher office for some time, but this will sink his dreams. those who previously respected him, will see him as a RP toady and shun him.
Did anyone think that the RPT must function under the 2006 Platform and Rules?
The Chair, etc., can’t change rules passed by the Party.
I know that our County delegates and alternates are usually the most organized in our SD and CD. However, we do count on getting all our ducks in a row at the SD Caucus, rather than at the First General Session.
I highly recommend reading our Platform, available by link on this page:
http://www.texasgop.org/site/PageServer?pagename=library_home
In light of the fact that Paul took 70% of the Republican vote against Peden, AND in light of the national exposure that Paul's views got, it would appear that quite a few of those Paul supporters are from his own district. Your observation is mere "wishful thinking" which does not have a basis in reality.
Paul MAY give up his seat, he's not young, but it is highly unrealistic to believe that the Republican establishment is going to be able to remove him from that seat.
My guess is that RP won’t even run in 2010 and will attempt to anoint an heir apparent to succeed him (if it is who I suspect, that candidate will be trounced when word gets out about his role in all of this.)
Perhaps, perhaps not. i don't have any insights into his plans. Unless Paul states them, this is just more guess work posing as analysis.
Polland has been lusting over higher office for some time, but this will sink his dreams. those who previously respected him, will see him as a RP toady and shun him.
As a Libertarian Party member (who did NOT change registration to vote for Paul in my state's closed primary), i know nothing of Polland, and really don't care. You may be right, or making yet another guess.
Baloney? It isn’t just RP supporters who have witnessed some of the power plays by the local R party establishment. As I posted in other threads, a friend (Huckabee supporter) who has been active in the Texas R party for years watched the local county chair break the rules several times in order to prevent decent conservative resolutions (eg getting rid of the income tax) from being brought up by RP delegates and others. Conservatives should be leaders in supporting principles and rules. Republicans who defend or justify rule-breaking in order to protect the party establishment are not conservatives.
You obviously have heard a lot of stories, but haven’t given any real specifics. (Who, where, when?)
Nor have you read the Platform. http://www.texasgop.org/site/DocServer/2006_Plat_with_TOC_2.pdf?docID=2022
The Republican Party of Texas Platform already calls for the end of the income tax and the repeal of the 16th Amendment. See the top of page 24.
“Nor have you read the Platform.”
Not true, and not relevant to the issue at hand.
Of course the Platform is relevant. Why put forward a resolution to end the IRS and income tax, when it’s already in there?
Has the 2008 RPT platform been written yet?
It doesn’t even matter, because the platform is NOT relevant to the subject of this thread.
Your anecdote was that you knew someone who knew someone who couldn’t get a resolution heard. The purpose of resolutions is to amend or build the platform. The Platform Committee works from the last version and first resolution each convention I’ve attended is to adopt the Platform as amended by the Committee.
I know that our local Resolutions Committee’s first recommendation was to adopt and affirm the 2006 Platform. We had a couple of people complain that their resolution wasn’t being heard. We pointed to the same wording in the Platform that had just been affirmed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.