Why Jeb Bush is Running For President? Is it really for George P.?

February 8, 2015

Okay, let’s get this out of the way. You don’t really believe that the American people are going to elect three out of the last five presidents from the same immediate family do you?  Ain’t gonna happen.  The American people are in a somnolent trance right now.  It hasn’t registered.

Yes, it’s true that there might have been three presidents from the Adams family. (See how Charles Francis Adams might have been elected president.)  But that stretched out over 100 years.

      So if it is an impossible task why is Jeb Bush running?  Ahhh.  I’m glad you asked.
      Here are six reasons why Jeb Bush is entering the fray.
      1.) He just might win. Maybe he only has a 1-500 chance but would you throw away a lottery ticket with such odds?  He has name recognition, money out the kazoo and the American people are a fickle, unpredictable lot. He could win the GOP nomination and Hillary could slip on a banana peel.
      2.) The polls say he is a factor.  Some polls even have him leading among Republican voters. It is irresponsible for him to ignore those numbers.  He probably entertains that Platonic idea, “If you refuse to lead you are destined to be led by someone worse than yourself.”
      3.) The Republican field is crowded with candidates which means he can consolidate his considerable experience, name recognition, money and contacts to win against a divided field.  And if Bush isn’t the favorite, those factors alone might be enough to beat anybody else.
      4.) Ironically, Hillary Clinton is his best opponent in a general election.  She may be his only chance to win and that may be why he jumped in.  Why wait and have as your opponent some new, sexy face in 2020 and be labelled the old establishment guy with Washington connections?  If he faces Hillary Clinton now, it will be a choice between two old, establishment “guys” with Washington connections and Hillary won’t be able to play the dynasty card against him.
      5.) He can do anything else he was going to do better by running for president anyway.
      Does he want to raise money for an NGO?  Promote a cause?  Change the Republican Party? Champion an issue? Promote an agenda? Be on a slew of board of directors and get paid for it? Get a job as president of a university? Be the next NFL Commissioner? Start a company with billionaire investors? Be a television commentator or have his own show?  Write a book people will read? He can do any and all of those things better if he runs for president than if he doesn’t.
      Maybe, like Charles Francis Adams or Robert Todd Lincoln, he wants to be a cabinet member in the next administration?  Every debate will be a chance to audition for the next president.  Hey, even Hillary Clinton may want him in her cabinet to unite the country.  Like JFK and Barack Obama, who appointed Republicans in their administrations.
      And finally there is this, the big reason…..
      6.) By running now he can clean up the Bush image to prepare the way for his son.
      In case you haven’t noticed, George P. Bush, Jeb’s son, is on his way to the position of Texas Land Commissioner.  It’s a stepping stone to the governor’s mansion.
      George P. has been groomed for a long time.  In 1987 I co-authored a book with George H.W. Bush and while it was dedicated to wife, Barbara, then Vice President Bush insisted that it open with one of his famous letters to his grandson George P.
      Imagine? A governor from Texas, who just happens to be Hispanic, with name recognition and the most powerful fundraising machine in modern politics?  Look out.
      But there is one big problem and that is the Bush brand has been severely damaged.  America’s last impression of a Bush president was one who led us into a questionable war with Iraq, under what many argue was false pretenses, with borrowed money, which led to the second worst financial depression in American history.  Not to mention, the ongoing residual effects of that war which has led to mayhem across Asia, Africa and the Middle East, with the wholesale slaughter of Christians.
      If Jeb Bush runs for president he will come off as a reasonable, kind, bright man with strong principles.  He will have plenty of Souljah moments, such as immigration, where he resists the Republican brand.  One would think that this will almost certainly lose him the nomination but if he does all of this with grace and humility he resets the brand and George P. can start fresh.  Besides it might actually work.  Americans like a leader, even if they disagree with him.  He has nothing to lose.  And he just might win.  Though probably not.  And therein lies another plus.  The national media always fawns over a Republican that they know can’t actually win.  It makes them look bi-partisan.  All the better for George P. Bush and the future.
      If this is what is going on – and it is surely a factor – then Jeb Bush may be one of the most selfless men in the famous Bush family.  He stood aside for his father.  He stood aside for his brother.  And now, by running for president, he may just be doing the same thing for his son.
      See this CNN interview: Bush Family Dynasty: The long range plan that is now years in the making.


Why Rand Paul can beat Hillary Clinton

March 9, 2014

March 9, 2014

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky may be the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton for president in 2016.  He is the only Republican who beats her head to head in battleground states.

Paul decisively won last Saturday’s CPAC straw poll with 31%, his neo-Libertarian sidekick, Senator Ted Cruz, was second at 11%.  Jeb Bush and the Karl Rove faction of the party registered 1%.  According to a recent column in The Washington Post, Rand Paul is now leading the Republican field.  This is showing up in some recent presidential preference polls. It is puzzling to many political pundits.
Polls don’t usually mean much this early in an election cycle. It’s usually all about name recognition. Former Secretary of State and former First Lady, Hillary Clinton obviously leads among Democrats, with Vice President Joe Biden trailing far behind.  In the GOP contest, former Governor and FOX television star, Mike Huckabee polls well, so does former governor Jeb Bush and so does former vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin.  All the other candidates who ran for president last time register small numbers too.  But why Rand Paul?
Yes, his father, former congressman, Ron Paul, ran for president three times but in a career that spanned a whole generation he never led the GOP in a national poll. 

Part of the reason lies in the fact that, if he wins the nomination, Senator Rand Paul will be the first GOP nominee since Ronald Reagan to lead a political Movement.  In this case, the “Constitutional Movement”, which includes conservatives, libertarians and others across the whole left to right spectrum. In fact, it represents more than a movement it represents a new political re-alignment, the first of its kind in several generations.  
During most of our lifetime the debate was about the role of government in the lives of the people.  Liberals wanted a “liberal” use of government involvement, conservatives wanted a “conservative” use of government, relying more on free markets.  But the point of reference was always the role of government in meeting peoples needs, it was in relation to that point that one was liberal or conservative.
The U.S. Constitution was a factor, but mostly over the issue of the Second Amendment and in understanding the politics of the Cold War where conservatives were actually more liberal about spending for defense and liberals more conservative.  Conservatives said providing a common national defense is Constitutional. Liberals said all of this military spending was robbing the poor of this country and hurting our own people.
Liberals accused conservatives about not caring for the poor.  Conservatives accused liberals about being soft on communism and flirting with national destruction.
In the past, candidates were touted as liberal or conservative but only Reagan and Goldwater were considered to be actual leaders of an ideological Movement than transcended their party.  Liberal Movement leaders?  FDR?  Later, Adlai Stevenson?  Hubert Humphrey?  Maybe?  But not really.  All were successful politicians but too involved in the Democrat Party process to have the ideological purity of a movement leader.
Today the old liberal – conservative argument is almost obsolete.  The end of the Cold War has been a big factor.  There is no life and death struggle about left and right.  We have settled on a range of responsibilities that government should be able to assume and are now quibbling over details. “You said I could keep my own doctor, you’re a liar.”
Foreign observers can hardly tell a difference between Republicans and Democrats.  It is the Red team versus the Blue team, not really much of contest over ideas. Just a contest over power between two societies. Oh, it is passionate, like all internecine conflicts. And the public is emotionally invested, like they are with their favorite college football team. They may shed real tears or not eat for days if their side loses.
A good illustration of how irrelevant the philosophical argument has become was the recent presidency of George W. Bush.  In his last year in office, facing a worldwide depression, this Republican president nationalized American banks.  It took Socialist President Francois Mitterrand to do that in France.  And yet we call George W. Bush a “conservative Republican.” Meanwhile, liberal Democrats build no statues to him and conservatives still defend him.  It’s two teams with bitter past histories.  Liberals never applaud conservatives when they do something liberal, such as George  H.W. Bush extending the first White House invitations to Gay activists.  And conservatives never applaud a liberal, like John Kennedy or Bill Clinton, for doing something conservative, like balancing the budget
The Constitutional Movement represents a new realignment of the political landscape.  It includes a variety of voters from the left to the right and everything in between.
The argument is less about liberal and conservative and more about getting back to the Constitution. It is about ending corruption.  The special deals.  It is less about left and right or even, up and down, the rich and the poor, and more about in and out. Insiders are seen to be gaming the system, taxes, Wall Street, the regulatory agencies, banking.  There is great cynicism about this and even despair.  It’s as if only suckers depend on a free marketplace.  The American dream is over.
It is not lost on many that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer on a massive scale under Barack Obama.
While many poor people and certainly all people of color celebrate the rise of Obama, now that he is passing, some on the left are wanting to get serious about doing what they thought a person of such humble origins would do, namely, reform the system. Stop the looting.  End the cycle of corruption.
Hillary – as a woman – represents a dynamic cultural moment and that will be hard to resist.  The media will be transfixed by the idea of a woman following an African American into the White House.  But no one seriously believes that this woman, who in 1979 miraculously turned a $1,000 commodities investment into $100,000 within ten months, is going to do anything about reversing the corrupt system that has clogged our economic arteries. She can only win a Red-Blue contest.  It will only be an argument about who gets the power and which insiders get the taxpayers’ money.
If 2016 become a contest of significant ideas on how to end the corruption Rand Paul will win.  He is the only candidate who has any.

(Clip from 2012, when Rand Paul was stopped by the TSA.)

Rand Paul out front in Iowa and nobody’s laughing now!

May 8, 2013

He won the CPAC straw poll, he is second in the latest national poll, he leads in New Hampshire, the first in the nation primary and now he is the favorite among likely voters in the first in the nation Iowa Caucus.

Senator Rand Paul must be doing something right.

There are still a few of the snubs his father used to get.  Policymic ignored him as a GOP contender, insisting with a straight face that he does not break into the top five contenders.  (Condoleezza Rice who polls 3% in Iowa apparently meets the stringent Policymic threshold.)   But no matter how the power brokers want things to be, Rand Paul, is proving to be popular with the masses, representing the first real political movement since Ronald Reagan.

While the views of the son, Rand Paul and the father, Ron Paul are sometimes different, both represent a strong sentiment against corruption.  The poll in Iowa may show Rand’s campaign picking up right where his father’s campaign ended.

By the way, don’t let anybody tell you that Dr. Ron Paul’s presidential campaign of 2012 was for naught.  Dr. Paul showed great appeal to Independents, Youth and Hispanics.  It was the very crowd that eventually went to Obama and sealed the fate of the doomed GOP ticket.  And it is the group that the GOP now needs for any resurgence.

Astonishingly, in 2012, the smug power brokers in the Republican Party ridiculed and broke their own rules to marginalize and hurt Dr. Paul and his followers.  While publicly proclaiming a “big tent” to Youth and Hispanics, the GOP security guards cut off microphones to Ron Paul Hispanics at State Conventions and escorted duly elected young Ron Paul delegates off the floor of the RNC in Tampa.  During the campaign, Governor Mitt Romney openly laughed at him.  No one’s laughing now.

A recent poll conducted by the McKeon & Associates for Freedom to Choose PAC, found Dr. Paul’s son, Senator Rand Paul, with a commanding lead over all other possible GOP, presidential contenders in the first in the nation contest in Iowa.

Here are the results of voters most likely to vote in the 2016 Iowa Caucus.

Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul      39%

Florida Senator, Marco Rubio      20%

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie   11%

Former Fla. Gov. Jeb Bush          10%

La. Gov. Bobby Jindal                   3%

Condoleezza Rice                         3%

Support for Rand Paul among Independents likely to vote in the GOP Caucus was striking and bodes well for a general election contest. 67% favored the Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul.  30% favored Governor Chris Christie, all other candidates failed to muster any showing at all among these voters.

In 2012, the New York Times and all of the national network media declared Mitt Romney the winner of the Iowa Caucus.  Only months later did they reverse themselves to say that Senator Rick Santorum had won.  This blogger was told that it took threats from the Governor’s office and from fellow GOP leaders, before the Iowa State GOP Chairman would finally release the votes from selected counties that put Santorum over the top.  The Chairman, a Mitt Romney supporter, resigned shortly after.

For the rest of the year, the New York Times, the Associated Press and all the major networks continued to show that Ron Paul had only 3 delegates from the Iowa Caucus.  Meanwhile, national polls showed him doing better than all other GOP contenders – except for Romney – in a head to head face off with President Obama, and tied within the margin of error with Romney.  These were ignored as the national media continued to marginalize Dr. Paul.

In fact, the Paul supporters openly declared that they, not Santorum, had won the Iowa delegation.  They contended that if the news had been reported truthfully and the following contests had been allowed to take place according to GOP rules, Dr. Paul would have arrived as a force at a brokered RNC.

The final Iowa vote on the floor of the Republican National Convention was 22 for Dr. Ron Paul and 6 for former Governor Mitt Romney.  In a final irony, Dr. Paul’s Iowa state co-chairman was voted in to replace the disgraced Romney operative who had been running the State GOP and had withheld votes to assure that his man would get media credit for a win he didn’t earn.

Most people want fairness and despise the expanding corruption that pervades American society from its food supply, to its national media, to its monetary system to its government relationship with Wall Street and K Street and yes, to the corruption of its two major political parties.  What good is an election if the only two candidates to choose from are produced by a corrupt process?  How is that really democratic or free?

This recent poll in Iowa is a good sign.  It shows that the mood of the people is beginning to reach the flood stage.  It shows that the corruption that has bankrupted this nation and made a very few, very rich at the expense of all the rest of us, has finally been exposed for what it is.

It shows that Rand Paul commands a following much bigger and much wider than his father ever had.  But it also shows that his father’s campaign was more than Quixotic.  Dr. Paul did not run in vain, and all of those thousands of people who were shut out or whose votes were thrown away, or whose bones were broken or whose election was nullified, did not give up a year of their lives in vain.  Dr. Paul was the pace car.  And now the real race for America’s future begins.

Join the discussion on FACEBOOK now.

And who do you favor for the GOP nomination in 2016?  Vote below.

Vote for your favorite for 2016

Post Paul: What now?

September 6, 2012

Post Ron Paul: Where do we go now?

Don’t assume that Ron Paul is going to ride off into the sunset, with his cowgirl, Carol, at his side.  He made it clear during his light hearted exchange with Jay Leno that he isn’t finished with us.  And I, for one, am not finished with him either.

If Romney wins, Senator Rand Paul’s trajectory would be on hold and in 2016, Ron Paul, the father, would be the best primary challenger to a Republican establishment president, owned by the FED and the few.

Who else would have the guts to do it?  And the media, who under normal circumstance would pan him, might let him have more than 89 seconds, just to have some fun – and some ratings – in an otherwise boring re-nomination process.  Another run would help educate even more and fatten the Liberty Movement for Senator Rand Paul and the future in 2020.

Besides, this would be the best way to stand up to the corruption and dishonesty of the Republican establishment who runs the party like National Socialists.  To let the abuse of Tampa go unanswered would be a mistake.  “Remember the Maine.”

Is Ron Paul too old?  Not for me.  Konrad Andenauer , Germanys greatest leader of the last two centuries was in power at age 87.  Michelangelo began painting the Sistine Chapel at age 71, he was still at it when he died at age 89.  The Biblical account of Moses has him beginning his long journey, leading the Israelis from slavery, at age 80.  Let Ron Paul lead us out of slavery at age 80.

Here’s a toast to Ron Paul, 2016.

But what do we do now?  And more urgent, how should we vote in the 2012 presidential election?

The good news is that as befits the Liberty Movement, I don’t have to make that decision.  Each one of us will do that as we want.  But here are some of the arguments I am hearing.

1. Vote to re-elect Barack Obama?

The reasoning goes that an Obama win would help bring the Republican establishment to its knees and make them more willing to make room for a Liberty Movement candidate next time.   Isn’t this the best response to their brutal exclusion of the duly elected Ron Paul delegates to the RNC in Tampa?  Haven’t they asked for it?  Hasn’t Bill Kristol and John Sununu made it clear that they do not think they need us and in any case, they do not want us, under any circumstances?

The problem is that Obama’s reelection would likely bring the country to its knees as well.  Even if a manipulated currency created a temporary bubble the long term damage could be catastrophic.  America could go so deep into the sleep of socialism that it might never awaken.  Voting for Obama to create an opening for a Liberty candidate in 2016 might make logical sense to some but it would take the courage of that Utah mountain climber who cut off his hand to get himself free.  Some of us just don’t have the stomach to do it.

2. Vote for Mitt Romney?

If he wins it will delay Rand Paul’s possible rise and may actually end much of what we have accomplished.  Many of our issues, audit the fed, for example, may be co-opted by Romney, who understands the polling data but is owned by the bankers.  Of course, he won’t have a “real” audit but it will appear to address the issue and take the steam out of our cause.  Likewise, the wars may eventually wind down out of financial necessity, as Dr. Paul has said will happen.  For me, voting for Romney is like kissing your sister.  There is just no future in it.

3. Write in Ron Paul’s name?

This was what I was going to do but who would ever know the final number?  It would give me some personal satisfaction, and amuse a few poll watchers, but otherwise mean nothing.  No one would get the message.  There is even a chance that my ballot could be disqualified and all the other viable Liberty candidates I voted for would lose my support as well.

4. Vote for Virgil Goode?

He is the former congressman from Virginia who is running as a candidate of the so called Constitutional Party.  Some say he will get 5% of the vote in his home state.  The Republican Elitist Fascist operation, that worked against us in Tampa, is now hot on his trail, trying to get him off the ballot.  But even if he survives and even if he realizes his most ambitious plans, he will only be on the ballot in 25 states.  What’s the use?

5. Vote for Gary Johnson?

Why not?  No one will know.  A good showing will put the GOP on notice that they had better be respectful to the Liberty Movement and make room for it.  They made it clear they didn’t want us.  Shouldn’t there be consequences?

If the showing is small, well, they were lucky it was Gary Johnson, not Ron Paul.  No harm done.

If Obama wins? Rand Paul can make a run in 2016.  If Romney wins? Ron Paul can challenge him and if the GOP cheats again, and makes it clear they will not allow a free process, he could take on the mantle of the Libertarian Party one more time.  And this time, boosted by bigger numbers and a wider knowledge of the issues, have an impact.

Consider this, if Ron Paul were the Libertarian candidate right now, some polls have him winning 17% of the vote, which would land him in the national debates and change the course of the country.

Bottom line?  I haven’t decided yet but I would like to hear your opinions, without profanity please.  Or join the discussion at: http://www.facebook.com/DougWeadOfficial

Doug Wead and Dr. Ron Paul, backstage at the RNC, Tampa.

In the trenches of the Washington State battle

June 23, 2012

In the last few months I have been inundated with emails and memos and got to this one late but I kept it for months and read it and re-read it.  This is from Peter Chiou in the Tacoma, Washington area and it was written in March when the Ron Paul and Rick Santorum people were working together to stop Romney.  There is good advice here for Ron Paul people still in the trenches.  And this is a good archival piece to have for the future.  It offers needed insight into the process.

One correction? Peter Chiou is a very humble, self effacing leader but he is wrong to blame himself.  We have taken on the establishment and it is no easy task.  There will be successes and times that we fall short.  It is a process and his experiences here will help others in others states win delegates and it will help in the future.

Pierce County Convention 3/25/2012

The 28th District


Peter Chiou

Do not give in to the prospect of losing but proceed ever more boldly against it!

This is a no-holds-barred self examination of how we screwed the pooch so badly in the 28th.  This paper is intended to educate in how to win.  I apologize to all those in 28th who worked so hard to only fail.  We missed a lot of opportunities.  No holding back.  No time for pride and ego.  Get it out and then fix it.  We must really hang up our egos at the door in debriefs like this if we are to learn.  When we’re done, let’s go have a beer.

It was a bloodbath yesterday in the 28th.  The results could have been very different had I known the rules better and had previous experience in a contentious environment like this.  JM (RS DL as well as GOP DL and Caucus Chairman), counter to the wishes of the Santorum campaign, crafted a unity slate with the Romney and Gingrich camps.  Their objective was to shut the Ron Paul people out rather than to ensure a brokered convention at the national convention.  This objective was achieved but to their own detriment.  It was a tactical win but an operational error on her part, IMHBAO.  However, their execution was nearly flawless (my hat off to them) but it took a lot longer than they had expected because a lot of their Santorum and Romney folks were also new and showed up unbeknownst to them.

Hence, the following are ideas derived from my experience yesterday:  (I hate losing due to stupidity)

  1. Expect a battle.
  2. KNOW ROBERTS RULE OF ORDER!!!!!!  http://www.robertsrules.org/  You have to know how to ask the questions and make motions without sounding dumb.  This way, you can challenge with confidence and perceived credibility.
  3. Appoint an experienced floor captain and not simply one with good heart and good intentions such as I but had no experience.
  4. Bring notebooks and each keep own notes.
  5. Establish roll call.  Know what quorum is!  And keep an eye on it.
  6. Establish coalition long beforehand.  Unless we have a clear majority, we MUST establish coalition to deny Romney the likely 1144 delegates.
  7. Point of Information and ascertain the number needed for Quorum.  Then see if a walk-out of the Ron Paul delegation will affect the quorum.  This can be used as a tactic to stall the proceedings.
  8. Must have a floor leader with personality of wanting to win so badly that he seeks every angle and every opportunity.  Not a milk toast like I was.  Could have raised a point of information and asked if all the Santorum and Gingrich people really want to help Romney get to the 1144 faster or do they want to slow them down.  And if I could affect quorum, lead the delegation out and force a hallway discussion before returning to order of the day.  Or, take a risk in walking out and hoping the Santorum/Gingrich people will walk out.  I could also have done this after the first ballot and got all the people outside and really laid everything out.
  9. Appoint a floor toughie.  If the leader is not assertive enough as was our case.  I was too concerned with building rapport and being nice instead of winning.  I made a lot of friends in the process and got people to like me but did not win any delegates at all.  This should be our main goal.
  10. After so many people had left because of exhaustion, we could have politely pointed to the lack of quorum and shut down the alternate election process.  They did not have to have any alternates at all!!!!  We FOULed this one up big time!
  11. Santorum and Paul people must be informed to know the plan to secure victory.  Be bold in who you support.  In other words, don’t be a stealth supporter.  Make it a sporting event where there is healthy competition and energy on both sides.  And everyone knows who the other side is.  At least the leadership should not be stealthy.
  12. There are no secrets in politics when it comes to real-time.  In the military, we safeguard  information and plans until execution.  Then it doesn’t matter because it’s often too late to respond to.  It is true in general but there are always exceptions.
  13. Go to your caucus room as soon as possible.  So that as your people arrive, you can greet them at the door.  Assume they know who you are.  No stealth was needed in our case because for speeches, we simply stood up and said our name, our preference, and if we’d support the nominee.  Most of us said yes.  Only one had the courage to say no.  It wouldn’t have made any difference if we had said no.
  14. Clear leadership presence in the room for each must be established early on.  We failed here in the 28th.  I did not make sure everyone knew I was there and who I was.  Santorum caucus leaders had leis around their necks to show who they were.
  15. Recommend that the two leaders working together know each other beforehand.  Agree that when one motions for recess to talk to your people, the each group will agree to the recess.  Otherwise, you’d just to have wait for an opportune time.  We had Jane Milhans so it was an impossible situation to begin with.  This may be the case with you as well.  However, if you make the case early on – like a week before, then you stand a chance.
  16. Have a Command Post established just outside the the caucus rooms with computer and printer for real-time printing of Slates.  Bring lots of ink and paper.  Exchange cell phones for real time texting.  Text to command post’s google voice account to be able to relay to appropriate personnel for action.
  17. Set the Santorum and Ron Paul tables next to each other or close by to collaborate.  Real-time IM or texting between the two might be helpful too.
  18. JCl, please make my Clear Channel Hotspot available for the conventions’ use if necessary.  We had good wifi yesterday but that may not always be the case.  This will facilitate the google voice texting by the command post, if desired.
  19. Have Ron Paul and Santorum leaders address their respective groups together.  NS had good success here in the 25th.  This builds trust between the two camps.  In the 27th, this fell apart because the Santorum people mistrusted the other side and we were thus screwed.  Our side trusted them, however.  So they got the lionshare of the delegate and we got one after Romney and Gingrich.   After church this morning, a bunch of Ron Paul people and Santorum people were exchanging war stories over coffee.  Remember, we are brothers and neighbors first before we were adversaries in this contest.
  20. DW, a very close friend of mine from church, made the front page of The News Tribune.  They lied and said he was a Ron Paul person when they knew he was a Santorum district leader.  I wish we had thought of this idea sooner.  He was trying to effect mutual support with RP in the 27th but failed.

Shocker: Ron Paul and rule 40, the new Romney nightmare

June 21, 2012

Shocker: Ron Paul and rule 40, the new Romney nightmare

At least one of the cats is out of the bag.  The story is now public that an obscure, overlooked GOP rule, passed in January, 2008, has opened the way for Ron Paul delegates to place his name in nomination for vice president at the RNC in Tampa.  And maybe for president?  Experts say no.  More on that.

Rule 40 came at a time in 2008 when there was concern that the GOP presidential field would be split between candidates Huckabee, McCain, Romney, Thompson, Giuliani and Paul, with no one candidate winning a majority in five states.  It was accepted that this possibility was remote, due to the sequential power of successive caucus and primary victories which would winnow the field and give one or two candidates momentum but the deadlock was at least a mathematical possibility.

The rule change declared that only a plurality within a delegation, not a majority, was needed in five states to place a name in nomination.  It means that a candidate can be nominated for president or vice president if he or she has the most delegates in at least five states.  It is a threshold that Ron Paul has very possibly passed.  And it may explain why the Romney forces have been apoplectic, even self defeating, in their crushing of the duly elected Ron Paul delegates at the various remaining state conventions.

Romney people insist that it is all a moot point in the presidential contest since Ron Paul delegates in many states are bound to vote for Romney if he was the winner of their primary.  Although curiously, Romney sees no problem in taking delegates in states such as North Dakota where Ron Paul beat him.

In the contest for vice president, there is not much that Romney can do to stop Ron Paul delegates from putting his name in nomination.  Unless they find a way to quickly change the rule.  And Ron Paul’s name in nomination at the national convention could do more for his message than anything he has done in the last eight years, including his participation in the national debates.

The specter that haunts the Romney folks is the convention of 1992, when the sitting GOP president, George H. W. Bush, sought to rally his base by giving Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan a voice.  Robertson and Buchanan represented the evangelical and conservative Catholic base of the GOP and Bush had neglected them, even arguably spurned them.  (The Bush administration stoutly defended government sponsorship of the arts which included grants to an artist whose demonstrative talents included putting pictures of Jesus on a cross in bottles of urine.)

There is a big difference in 2012.  Ron Paul, who only polls a high of 17% among the GOP, actually beats president Obama in a face to face contest, doing better than Romney, because he pulls strength from general election voters, youth, Independents, Hispanics and Democrats.  While Robertson and Buchanan represented the base of the GOP, Ron Paul represents its future and its most important general election voters.

Stay tuned.  There’s more.

See: Jon Ward’s breaking story in the Huffington Post


So who needs Romney?

June 14, 2012

Establishment Republicans and the main stream media are having a difficult time understanding why Ron Paul supporters aren’t just falling into line behind Mitt Romney.  Don’t we want the GOP to win?  And don’t we want our own candidate to win the nomination someday?  And if so, don’t we realize that we have to be loyal to the nominee this time?

Of course, these are the same establishment Republicans who are hiring off duty policemen to arrest and detain our duly elected county chairmen, or locking the registered rolls of delegates in the trunks of their cars so that the convention cannot have a roll call vote and they can claim “Ayes have it,” when the “Ayes” don’t have anything.

And this is the mainstream media that gave Ron Paul 89 seconds of an hour long televised debate.  And who in another debate, gave their anchor almost as much time as Dr. Paul, the presidential candidate.  And who ignore videotaped state conventions where delegates have their bones broken for more compelling news stories elsewhere.

We see the train headed toward a canyon and the bridge is out.  There is going to be a great crash.  And meanwhile, we are being urged to change the engineer.  “Obama is driving this train 100 mph!” we are told by hand wringing, hysterical, establishment Republicans.  “We need to get Romney in there.  He will slow it down to 95.”

Some are quite energized by this contest.  They think that the future of the Republic is at stake.  “Can’t you see that?” They ask imploringly. “Don’t you care?”

But we only laugh.  Yes, Romney will spend less than Obama but he will not reduce spending by a single cent.  The circulation of money will be increased to pay the deficit and the poor and middle class will suffer from devalued money.

Obama? Romney?  So what?  This train is still headed toward the canyon and the bridge is out.  This train needs to be stopped, not slowed.  And the bridge needs to be repaired.

Remember this?