WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com
Tonight Ron Paul's Rally for the Republic takes off. As Matt wrote, the Ron Paul people had a great affect in Nevada on that state's participation at the presumptive Republican convention.
The final count this morning on sold tickets is 9,785, so the total number of people could surpass 12,000. I've been interested in whether there will be any press coverage, and originally, Lou Dobbs was supposed to be a presenter there, but no longer. On his web page, it says that he'll be covering it nightly during his show, but his picture has been taken off the Rally site, and he is no longer listed as a performer, as the Rally refers to all its presenters. I've looked for live feeds, but I cannot find a live link. If I find one later, I will post it.
I'm interested in this for three reasons: first, I find Ron Paul and what he stands for, fascinating. While almost all of the positions are diametrically opposed to my own, there are Libertarian points of view (like getting out of Iraq, and legalizing pot for personal use) that I agree with. Second, this is America, where Freedom of Speech is a dearly held concept, and finally, this group is really a splinter from the presumptive Republican Party.
The Republicans split in 1964, and the two sides never made peace. Had the Rockefeller side held sway that year, there is the potential that the evangelical right would never have risen to hold sway over the mainstream GOP. So here we are 40+ years later, and I want to know what the Paul people have to say.
And as an aside, I think it's cute that they have "performers" in lieu of "speakers" or "presenters" and that buses bringing people there yesterday are called "Ronvoys".
So what is going on there?
Today is training school: a nine-hour course on grass roots organizing.
Tomorrow is three parts: one part Ron Paul book signing, one giant all-day concert to thank the people who participated in Paul's campaign throughout the primary season, and a "leadership summit" about which I can find no information, except that if you bought a ticket to the Tuesday program, you get one ticket to this.
Finally, Tuesday is the real deal. This is their list of performers:
11:30 - Doors open
12:30 - Intro: Tucker Carlson
12:40 - National Anthem: Matt Colvin
12:50 - Invocation: Barb Davis White
12:55 - Howard Phillips
1:10 - Doug Wead
1:30 - Tom Woods
1:50 - Grover Norquist
2:10 - Lew Rockwell
2:30 - Bill Kauffman
2:50 - Special Guest
3:10 - Bruce Fein
3:35 - Gov. Jesse Ventura
4:05 - John Tate‚ Campaign for Liberty Presentation
4:25 - Gov. Gary Johnson
5:00 - Aimee Allen
6:00 - Break
7:00 - Intro: Barry Goldwater Jr.
7:05 - Ron Paul
8:05 - Sara Evans
9:30 - End of Program
9:30 - Jimmie Vaughan After Party
I'll be reporting on the information that comes out from the Rally. What I'll be looking for is how much of the Republican base wants to migrate from the McCain-Palin ticket over to write-in Ron Paul (and perhaps as another option, vote for Bob Barr.)
On the Democratic side, we talk often of this being a transformational year, and of the great enthusiasm we have for our ticket and our ideals. I suspect that the Paul people are equally passionate, although far lower in numbers. But if they can get a foothold, 2008 becomes as much a transformational year for the Republicans as it does for us. Could it be that 2008 is 1964 redux?
Logging you in...
del.icio.us
coop · 865 weeks ago
RichardC · 865 weeks ago
Both of them move people but in different ways I'd argue (Paul by the power of his ideas and Obama by the power of his oratory and leadership). I've paid close attention to both of them. The sad thing has been watching liberal websites like Kos and C&L attack Ron Paul and his supporters with either made up information or just outright lies, and I think this demonstrates a serious blind spot in the progressive movement. They've been so afraid to let their guard down to anybody with an (R) in their name, even when the mutual goals are sincere.
Here's an important area where progressives and libertarians/constitutionalists match up: they both want the elimination of the neocons and the religious right as a power base. However Ron Paul and his supporters are doing it not from partisan attacks, but are attempting to take their party back from within. They had alot of young people register republican this cycle, precisely so they could be involved in the internal workings of the Republican party and support Constitutionalism, not Neoconservatism. These Republicans stand against Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/McCain as much as Liberals do, maybe even more so. And they have a very clear and good goal: restoration of the Republican party to something that is ethical, moral, intelligent and honorable.
Beryl 51p · 864 weeks ago
I was an Independent for 16 years and my mother is a Republican. I watched the Republican debates and wanted to cry when each of them supported the war even when it was proven to be based on a lie. I wanted more candidates (e.g. The Huckster) to stand up against it. I was OK with Ron Paul but knew that he didn't have a chance to win.
I only became a Democrat only to support Obama but would have supported HRC if she was selected.
Leah 85p · 864 weeks ago
Jack · 864 weeks ago
I disagree with 95% of what Ron Paul has to say, and I think he's, at best, an eccentric obsessed with conspiracy theories, but I am still amazed at his supporters. Some of them are so devoted that they still think he'll be the nominee.
RichardC · 864 weeks ago
Ron Paul supporters are not few in number (at least at their high point). Paul got at least 1mill votes during the primary. I know that sounds like nothing compared to Obama or Hillary, but keep in mind that this was very competitive in the Repub field. There were several states where he placed 2nd or 3rd, and arguably 1st (like Washington state and Louisiana), but the GOP did everything they could to diminish and block those votes. His grassroots funding made him the mini-Obama of the Republican party. At one point he was bringing in more small donations per quarter than all the other Republicans combined.
His support no doubt would've been higher, but there was serious malaise among his moderate supporters because of the apathy generated from the perception that he stood no chance of winning. He was the lone guy fighting everyone in his party, and the media did everything they could to ignore him. When they paid attention to him, they'd hit him with the same scrutiny and bias that's typical of our media when it comes to any candidate, and its all about creating and controlling a narrative. Being a true libertarian, Paul is not very good at guiding the media narrative (like mccain's maverickness or hillary's comebackness).
It's true the RP signs probably were disproportionately high given his candidacy, but remember his supporters were always fighting an uphill battle. Against the perception 'he couldn't win', against republicans, against democrats, against the media. They had few friends, and alot of people who said they were dreaming.
Honestly I don't know how anyone could disagree with "95% of Paul's positions", because that tells me you are either misinformed or don't know/understand his positions. His position is basically the constitution and bill of rights, with little exception. So that means that if you agree we shouldn't fight unnecessary wars, or torture, or that individual rights are the most important rights we have, or that taxation should be minimal and fair to every citizen, then I'm sure you agree with more than 5% of his positions. If you're a liberal minded person you probably agree with at least 50% of what he has to say, you're just not aware of it.
I'm sure you've heard alot of distortions about him. He was not a nationally known figure before this primary to most people and he was getting it from every side: the right, the left, the media. The thing that made him possible and what allowed him to get some undistorted messages out there was the internet, it was a serious game changer this election. Otherwise the Neocon-GOP would've almost certainly squashed him out early and we wouldn't have even known anything about it.
As far as conspiracy theories go, that really has nothing to do with him. The confusion here has been a small but vocal percentage of his supporters are conspiracy theorists, because he is open and libertarian in his philosophy he does not pander to other people's interests and turn these people away. But he has clearly stated several times he doesn't share their views.
I think he's been far more influential this political season than people realize, and he's been the single largest draw for young people into the Republican party in a long time. But because he stands against the neocons and religious right, and therefore the power base of the GOP party as it stands today, they fought him and his supporters. In this way the GOP basically blew any chance they had of building a legitimate grassroots movement for their party, and the GOP is very fractured and reduced right now because of this division.