Wednesday, August 29, 2012

For Romney the Shots to the Foot Continue

Ron Paul's delegates have been kind of aced out at the Republican convention. You can get the story at Democracy Now. For Romney the best political strategy is to enrage any faction within the party that doesn't tow the line 100%. I think a lot of Ron Paul supporters that would have considered voting for Romney as the lesser of two evils now will not consider that.

It's pretty frustrating I imagine. People often ask Ron Paul why he doesn't just run as a liberterian. He disagrees so much with the Republican platform. His answer is that he just knows it's fruitless. The system is rigged to prevent any third party success. He doesn't want to spend all his time trying to figure out ballot access and red tape. He wants to spread his message. To do that successfully he has no choice but to work within one of the two parties.

So Paul did that. The rules are rigged against him, but he used those same rules to get lots of delegates out of Maine and get himself a voice at the convention even though he did not win the popular vote in Maine. But that doesn't matter. Now the RNC has just changed the rules when it turns out they are used against Romney. They just told Maine's delegates they can't be seated.

It's a tough situation for Romney. He'd like to think everyone within the party is happy with his nomination. That would be ideal. But that's not reality. Politically is it wise to just rig the rules to silence dissenting voices so you can have the illusion of unity? Why not instead allow people to express disagreement, but then reach out to them and say that yes, you know you have disagreements, but you still want their vote and you can still agree that Obama is more harmful? We all know what Paul thinks of Romney. We all know that his supporters have problems with Romney. Preventing his delegates from having involvement isn't going to change that.

I think it is the kind of thing that will help some of the Paulites recognize that the Republican party has real contempt for democracy and will certainly subvert it if necessary. This is something Democrats have known for a long time. Consider the events surrounding Mike Connell and the 2004 election. The party elites and big money behind them are going to try and win by any means necessary.


Jonathan said...


Speaking of democracy, I was wondering your thoughts on the Wisconsin legislature subverting the democratic process by leaving the state when they didn't have the votes to stop the Walker collective bargaining bill. Should they have respected the democratic process, or for the greater good was it ok to disrupt the process?

Examinator said...

Distraction 101? Wisconsin was legal tactic the other (Rove) was not! no comparison.
If you are comparing Wisconsin with the Republican exclusion of RP delegates. No real comparison either except in an esoteric sense. But then it applies only to democracy for the republicans party MEMBERS (it's a members club)it is not part of any government as such and as such it can be as exclusive as it wants.
I would disagree with Jon that their actions were undemocratic (in non member wider public sense).
RP by his own words was playing the rules of the party. He is in their party so they can change the rules if the want.

Chad said...

Thank goodness for Romney the other choice is BHO otherwise I would be nervous about the Paul faction. Come election day, they may hold their nose while pulling the lever, but most of them will make the trip to pull that lever because the alternative is so unspeakable..

Jon said...

Jonathan, how is engaging in action that allows the policies of the majority of people to be implemented, how is that subverting democracy?

Walker wants to implement the policies of a tiny elite (like the Koch brothers) and the legislature wanted to implement the policies of the majority of people in Wisconsin. That's the opposite of a disruption in democracy.

Jonathan said...


Part of democracy is the process which was put in place to carry out the democratic ideals. You can’t just take your toys and go home anytime it doesn’t yield the results you disagree with. If you don’t like the system, you change the system, or those in office, or both, but you don’t just go break the system under claim of being democratic. A number of Democrats interviewed said they voted to keep Scott Walker in office during the recall because they felt that the recall was being abused. I’m not claiming specific numbers here, but I am saying it is very presumptive to subvert the system in this way on behalf of the people. If you don’t believe the system can be fixed, I guess you have a decision to make about if you want to revolt against the system, but in the process you are disenfranchising those who are in support of the current system.

When a democratically elected Governor, working in a democratically elected majority held legislature, has the votes to pass a bill, and the losing side of the legislature stops the democratic process by fleeing the state, are you saying this is not subverting the process? I understand your rationale for wanting to stop the legislation from going through, but once you start to distinguish between the process and the ideal the process is built upon, you are not only ceding a great deal of your democratic high ground, but you are also opening the door to the same action by anyone on the losing side of an election. In your attempt to prevent the tiny elite from having power, you’ve given the power to the tiny elite known of the minority legislature, able to disrupt the process any time they wish.

Would it have really mattered to you what the % breakdown of who was for and who was against the legislation was? I’m guessing even if 95% of the people were in favor of the legislation, you would not have been opposed to the legislation fleeing the state and ultimately stopping the bill from passing (if that would have happened) if it meant stopping the Koch brothers agenda. Am I wrong?

Jon said...

Just about all the progress that has been made in this country to further the democratic process has come about by people violating the rules imposed by the elites that seek to block democracy.

They would tell ML King to follow the process, but he wouldn't do it. He'd break the rules. That's what Susan B Anthony did. I'm not following your corrupt rules. I'm voting because it's right.

The rules are rigged to serve the powerful, and even then the powerful don't follow their own rules. From bankers to former Presidents and VP's openly admitting to outrageous crimes, like torture and surveillance without warrant. You can't just demand that the process be followed when for once that process is violated in service to ordinary people.

Jonathan said...


Which seems like more against democracy, Romney's move at the RNC, or Obama's decision to change the platform with a "2/3rd majority vote" here:

Jon said...

I'm not saying what Romney did was pro-democracy or anti-democracy. I happen to think politically it was just counter productive. If he wants to win he shouldn't try to piss off the Ron Paul people in my view. But I could be wrong.

Similarly on that Youtube clip. The DNC got flak for removing references to God and Jerusalem as Israel's capital in their platform. So apparently they have now re-installed these items. That's political maneuvering as opposed to principle. I think a lot of people that consider themselves Democrats don't want to see a lot of God talk in the platform and they also aren't big on legitimizing Israel's occupation of Jerusalem in gross violation of international law and basic decency. But politically they don't want to allow the Republicans to make hay of this. They don't want to get on the bad side of the Israel lobby. So they're putting these things back in to placate. It's not pro-democratic or anti-democratic. Except to say that we have an anti-democratic system, with things like Israel lobby money heavily influencing our politics, and the DNC obviously understands that this is the ocean they swim in.

Terry K. said...

I was a democrat until the DNC did a very similar thing to our party at the convention that the RNC did to the Ron Paul supporters i.e. when they voted for the inclusion of the God wording and Jerusalem as capital of Israel into the platform. Clearly there was no 2/3 majority vote. I am changing to the Green Party and I am advising all dissatisfied GOP to join the Libertarian or some other party. Our 2 party system is hopelessly corrupt.