I’m not going to either event, but, if I were in the area, I would check out the Ron Paul event to see for myself. I don’t think Republicans march in lock step very well.

Right BigJolly. The Republican leadership messed up (again.)

Maybe LST should dispatch their roving reporter for some live twittering at the event. It’s likely to be far more interesting the the Republican Convention.

#2 I agree with Bob. It would be lovely for y’all to send someone up there to twitter the event.

I understand the dilemma. I am so anti-McCain and the Republican Party’s freezing out of the Conservatives. I went to the website for sending ideas for the platform of the Republican Party. Guess what! There is no subject for Immigration and Securing the Border. This is what the Republican Party thinks of us. We are Insignificant Rabble.

They are holding us hostage by suggesting how bad it will be if B. Hussein Obama wins. At the same time we are being offered nothing better. If we are going to have a loser for President; let it be a Democrat.

I have subscribed to the Patriots Revolt. It may be futile, but at least I feel like I am doing something. And guys as much as your hatred is for Ron Paul he is head and shoulders above Senator B. Hussein Obama or Senator John McCain.

I am not a Republican I am a Conservative that usually votes Republican.

http://www.patriotsrevolt.com

Tucker Carlson???

Never trust a man who wears a bowtie and seersucker suit to work. Well, maybe if he’s your Great Grandfather.

I disagree whole heartedly. Even if he gets a million votes, there’s no reason to invite a nut to speak at your convention. Besides, most of his voters are disaffected or malcontents anyway, and who they vote for (if they vote at all, an unlikely proposition) is not going to be affected by whether the GOP lets an ego-driven kook have the podium. I agree with the GOP.

I find a strange contradiction on this site. Most all want Conservative Leadership. The only one out there is Ron Paul, yet no one wants him……………

RickG - Yeah, I agree. Whether you support McCain or not, the majority of Republican primary voters chose him as their nominee. Why on earth would they invite a man to speak that has made it very clear he will not be supporting their candidate? The ONLY reason he’s a Republican is because Libertarians cannot get elected.

bigmck - I don’t really see a contradiction here. Many, if not most, have said on numerous occasions that a lot of RP’s positions appeal to conservatives. It’s the extra baggage that comes along with his message. I’d go into what I think that baggage is but we’ve been down that road many, many times before, as I’m sure you know.

I say give him another 15 minutes of fame. There are ways to negotiate and obtain his support for McCain. If that were to happen, and he was able to get half or more of his very active supporters working for the campaign in the fall, it would be a good thing for the Party. IMO.

Short of McCain completely abandoning his stated foreign policy objectives (or Ron Paul his), I don’t see any scenario where they can obtain Paul’s support for McCain.

Luckily, I’m way too young for Woodstock.

Luv2hammer — just one thing, you may wish to em GOP Chair Rick Miller, if you live within our precinct boundaries of Fort Bend. He’s truly a great guy, and perfectly willing to help citizens solve any questions they endure along the way. Good luck!

12. hamous

I agree with you completely. The Paulbots simply aren’t coming home to the GOP. They will vote Libertarian, as about half of them normally do, or they will stay at home, as the other half normally do, watching Loose Change over and over again.

I think the GOP should allow Ron Paul to speak at its convention IF Ron Paul is willing to let neo-Nazi Don Black speak at HIS convention.

Sure, Paul doesn’t share all of Black’s views, just as the GOP (as determined by the most recent round of presidential primaries) doesn’t agree with all of Paul’s views.

The important thing is to allow one small subset of your coalition to feel empowered and give them a chance to brand your larger movement.

I used to be excited to be a Republican, what with finding out we (Republicans) have been on the right side of the civil rights fight all along, God and Country all the way, the 2nd Amendment, smaller government, more personal responsibility, and the contract with America that gave us term limits.

Uh…..

The Republicrats got power and wonder why they lost it to the Demogogues. We need some conservative statesmen that have a clue to what the American experiment was supposed to be about. We cannot spend all out time trying to avoid offending fringe groups and those who use their sensitivities as a weapon. We cannot pander to whiners. We cannot raise taxes and freedom at the same time.

Those who in government want to rob the rich and give to the poor need to remember that the rich Robin Hood was robbing WERE the government.

It isn’t only about the “Paulbots” or a small segment of the Party. It is about needing more votes than Obama. I think that Paul can be pulled back in - fame is a big lure, even for a guy like that. In addition, there could be more focus on cutting spending, which McCain would easily go for.

Libertarian Voters in 2004 and 2006

Several recent polls suggest that 10 to 20 percent of Americans fall into the libertarian quadrant. Indeed, libertarians are a bigger share of the electorate than the muchdiscussed “soccer moms” or “NASCAR dads,” and they are increasingly a swing vote. Over the past six years Republicans have expanded entitlements and spent taxpayers’ money faster than Democrats, giving libertarians less reason to stick with their traditional voting patterns. Polls show that in both 2004 and 2006 libertarian voters shifted toward the Democrats, and they may well have cost Republicans control of Congress.

Encouraging Paul to separate from the Party makes the pool of voters for McCain smaller, IMO. Including him could entice these libertarian leaning independents to use some common sense and vote for McCain rather than Barr. IMO, as always.

I could see a scenario where the republicans could sway RP to endorse McCain…

House Minority Leader Ron Paul.

But even if he personally endorsed McCain, that’s no guarantee that his herd of cats would follow. For example, here’s some of the unofficial informal events that are being planned.

– Three day “Ron-Stock” at a nearby rented fairground
– Random multiple moonings at the RNC convention
– Blimp races
– A ten one minute tribute to Bush’s accomplishments
– Reenactments of jack-booted federal thugs stealing marijuana from the terminally ill citizens in states that have approved its medicinal use

OK, I made some of those up… I’m seriously considering going. Does anyone have an inflatable RINO I could borrow?

#18 bob
You forgot the “Innovations in hemp” seminar.

Bob’s bringing the free-trade coffee

How about adding the response: I would go to RP’s convention if I could afford it.

Maybe McCain ought to study economics. That is the area where a bridge could have been built with Paul. Alas, McCain is infected with the same desease that most all government dependents are infected with: Keynesianism. Of course GOP’s Keyensianism works but the Democrats’ do not.

I disagree whole heartedly. Even if he gets a million votes, there’s no reason to invite a nut to speak at your convention.

But if a complete nutcase receives 9,902,797 votes, he not only gets to speak but he gets to be the nominee as well, right?

#21 jaime
I think they’re responding to the whiney-butts in society who think the gov’t “ought to do something” when the best thing the gov’t could do is just look the other way and do nothing.

When you say McCain needs to study economics, you’re only half-way there. He needs to study economics from people like Thomas Sowell.

#4 Luv2
Yup, the republican party has left me. I agree with your dilemna.
Ron Paul for the most part has sound conservative ideas, it is just unnerving that what he thinks about our armed forces. I would love for him to speak at the convention. One of these days we will have another candidate who thinks
“America first!”

That’s a good idea Hamous. At 17.76 per pound I could probably roast up enough Bob42’s Revolution Blend to pay for the trip.

Here’s another idea, LST could sponsor a booth at the Rally!

#15 - David - Your analogy is false as Don Black was never a candidate for anything. The point being made here is that Paul drew 1.1 million votes in the Republican primary (more than Giuliani and Thompson combined).

Like it or not, in the world of American political conventions there is a long tradition of letting the “also rans” speak to the crowd. Even other candidates who are viewed as “extreme” have been given this privilege as a courtesy for running. Ronald Reagan spoke in 1976, Pat Robertson spoke in 1988, Pat Buchanan spoke in 1992. John McCain spoke in 2000. The Dems even let Dennis Kucinich speak in 2004.

If Giuliani and Thompson get to speak, so should Paul.

The point being made here is that Paul drew 1.1 million votes in the Republican primary (more than Giuliani and Thompson combined).

Both dropped out in January so why is that important?

Ronald Reagan spoke in 1976, Pat Robertson spoke in 1988, Pat Buchanan spoke in 1992. John McCain spoke in 2000. The Dems even let Dennis Kucinich speak in 2004.

All of whom endorsed the party’s candidates.

All of whom endorsed the party’s candidates.

And maybe he’d be open to doing the same thing if it wasn’t already a foregone conclusion in the McCain camp that he must be excluded. McCain wraps himself daily in a fascist nutcase like Rudy Giuliani, but he has yet to even reach out to the Paul camp on much of anything.

Reagan decided to back Ford only he almost unseated him as the nominee in a contentious floor fight. A day prior, Reagan’s endorsement would have been unthinkable. But the two camps reached out to each other to attempt reconciliation.

Both who dropped out in January

Yeah, after finishing behind Paul in the early primaries.

…that they didn’t even campaign in.

…that they didn’t even campaign in.

Really? Cause I remember when Rudy was barnstorming all over Iowa, barely a year ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bil_lyWGaUU

Question to all of you who think Paul should be barred from speaking at the convention:

Do you think Rudy Giuliani should be allotted a speaking slot?

Why or why not?

Yeah, after finishing behind Paul in the early primaries.

Nope.

Thompson beat Paul in Iowa 13% to 10%
Giuliani beat Paul in NH 9% to 8%
Thompson beat Paul in SC 16% to 4%
Giuliani beat Paul in FL 15% to 3%

The only early primaries where Paul finished ahead of both Thompson and Giuliani were Michigan where all three were in the 5-6% range and Nevada, where Paul had sewn up the all-important pimps & hos vote.

And before you answer, consider why I am asking. I am asking because I have generally found it to be the case that Rudy Giuliani is paradoxically palatable to many of the same people who either (a) declare Ron Paul a kook, (b) purport to be offended by Paul’s supporters and associations, or both.

If I am to take the self presentation of political views of this crowd as truthful, Rudy Giuliani should - by all objective measures - be completely and utterly unacceptable to everything they claim they stand for.

* Rudy is pro-abortion, which many evangelicals and other religious righters claim is the _single_ most important issue for them.

* Rudy is a serial adulterer, social deviant, and transvestite with three failed marriages under his belt, plus an unusual interlude at a gay love nest in Manhattan.

* Rudy maintains close personal relationships with the absolute scum of the earth, such as the known repeat child molester Alan Placa.

* Rudy has a lengthy public office record as a tax and spend liberal northeastern Republican who is at odds with the majority of his own party on most major issues.

* Rudy has a long history of aiding and abetting liberal Democrat candidates, such as his 1994 endorsement of Mario Cuomo for Governor, and his feud with Alphonse D’Amato, which split the New York Republican Party and gave us Chuck Schumer.

Yet despite all of these things, Rudy is frequently cast as tolerable by the very same crowd that hates Ron Paul. It’s almost as if it is okay to overlook his many faults - faults for which you would condemn many other candidates and certainly Paul if they had them - since Rudy is (a) “right” on the war, and (b) perceived as electable before the fickle idiocy of the voting public.

So tell me, all of you who oppose speaking time for Paul. Tell me, Hamous, RickG - Do you think Giuliani should have a speaking slot?

And if not, what are you going to do if he gets one anyway? Or ends up in a high position on the McCain team or ticket?

#4 - Except you neglect to mention, Paul beat Giuliani in Iowa and South Carolina, and Thompson in New Hampshire.

In terms of contests won from the first six, Paul beat Thompson in 4 of 6 (NV, FL, NH, MI). Paul beat Rudy in 4 of 6 as well (NV, SC, IA, MI)

It is also notable that Paul performed better than Thompson in total votes for the first six primaries where Thompson was still in the race: 169,565 votes for Paul to 124,214 for Thompson.

Rudy did out pace Paul in those contests, but only because of Florida’s rude obnoxious New Yorker retiree population, who provided over half of Giuliani’s total votes in the first six primaries before he dropped out.

To recap,

Paul beat Thompson in 4 of the 6 competitive primaries before Thompson dropped out.

Paul beat Giuliani in 4 of the 6 competitive primaries before Giuliani dropped out.

Paul beat Thompson in popular votes for the first 6 primaries before Thompson dropped out.

Paul beat both Thompson and Giuliani combined in total popular votes for the primary season.

Paul beat both Thompson and Giuliani in delegates.

Giuliani is a left wing transvestite nutcase who hangs out with child molesters, disagrees with his party on over 75% of its platform, and has a long history of subverting other Republicans.

And yet both Thompson and Giuliani are likely to get speaking slots at the GOP convention, whereas Paul is not.

Why is that? And what does it say about our nominee, Captain Queeg?

I have generally found it to be the case that Rudy Giuliani is paradoxically palatable to many of the same people who either (a) declare Ron Paul a kook, (b) purport to be offended by Paul’s supporters and associations, or both.

Certainly not here, and clearly not in the country as a whole, since he dropped out in January for lack of support.

And no, I do not think Giuliani should have a speaking slot. As to what I am going to do if he gets one, I don’t have a clue, but I’m sure whatever I do it will not be enough to satiate your desire to dictate what the LST contributors cover.

And no, I do not think Giuliani should have a speaking slot. As to what I am going to do if he gets one, I don’t have a clue

So in other words, you’ll quietly acknowledge that you disapprove of Giuliani then continue doing absolutely nothing about it.

but I’m sure whatever I do it will not be enough to satiate your desire to dictate what the LST contributors cover.

Think of it more as a quest to hold your feet to the fire. To put it another way, I’m fulfilling the same function here that y’all serve with the Chronicle when it does something inconsistent or hypocritical

Certainly not here, and clearly not in the country as a whole, since he dropped out in January for lack of support.

That he did, but McCain evidently still supports him enough to keep him around and, in all probability, let him speak at the convention.

Now what does that tell us about where McCain stands vis-a-vis the rest of the country?

Perhaps I should have said, “I don’t have a clue yet. But I tend to react negatively when someone tries to goad me into doing something, even if I probably would have done it anyway. And that is particularly true when that person then turns around and declares I wouldn’t have done it had it not been for said goading.

As for the Chronicle comparison, I challenge you to find one post of mine related to the Chronicle. Remember, Matt’s the Chronicle basher. I’m the chicken little science basher. The only thing we seem to have in common is we’re all Ron Paul bashers

“Here’s another idea, LST could sponsor a booth at the Rally! ”

And, while we’re on the subject of wingnuts, Rick G. could man the booth!

And that is particularly true when that person then turns around and declares I wouldn’t have done it had it not been for said goading.

I think it’s pretty safe to say that Lone Star Times would never have said a word about Alan Placa had I not “goaded” y’all into it, if that’s what you wish to call it. So while I cannot speak for you personally, I can and will safely state that my “goading” on Giuliani accomplished a necessary correction of what was at the time a blatant double standard in this site’s editorial position.

I am certain, hamous, that you will disclaim any personal responsibility for the way that editorial inconsistency developed much as you disclaim any responsibility for every particular criticism here. But like it or not, LST’s reputation, and by extension your own here, is cast by the site as a whole.

When people read kooky left wing garbage on the Chron’s editorial page they don’t say “There goes that James Howard Gibbons again, pushing his liberalism on us” even if it is James Howard Gibbons who pushes it more directly than anybody else. They say “There goes that kooky left wing Houston Chronicle again,” because the editorial position reflects back on the Chronicle as an institution and media outlet. Same goes for stuff around here when one or more of y’all get inconsistent or hypocritical.

Little mike! Hey, you don’t have to show up just for the RP Bash-a-thons, you know?

Ham, I’m sure I’ve missed several RP bash-a-tons since I last appeared.

I won’t be going to the “real” Republican convention at the Target Center, but I will be there in spirit and will support it financially.

Go Ron Paul!

I think it’s pretty safe to say that Lone Star Times would never had said a word about Alan Placa had I not “goaded” y’all into it,

Well, we’ll never know. One thing we do know - you were certainly quick to take credit.

One thing we do know - you were certainly quick to take credit.

And why shouldn’t I? I brought Placa to your attention almost singlehandedly, pressed y’all on him for weeks until LST finally rectified the inconsistency in its editorial position, and then provided my own research about him to help you with the story once it was out. Give credit where credit is due, even if you don’t like the process.

I brought Placa to your attention almost singlehandedly

Bull. It was news long before you started harping on it. It probably would have been covered weeks before but you don’t give your kid his toy back while he’s throwing a tantrum. It’s counter-productive

47.

Phil, Phil, Phil.

Self-delusion is so unattractive.

42. li’l mikey

And, while we’re on the subject of wingnuts, Rick G. could man the booth!

No, thanks. I couldn’t tolerate the smell of burning pot mixed with “natural” deodorants.

22.

Winners tell jokes, losers whine and wallow in conspiracy theories.

No candidate who refuses to support the nominee should ever, ever, ever get in the door, let alone a speaking slot.

If he doesn’t like it, let the egomaniac Ron Paul go run his own party - oh, that’s right, he tried that and couldn’t get elected dogcatcher.

LOL

Oh, and last time I checked, 9.9 million is over eight times 1.2 million.

Just remember, it is OK to dispense with your morals to vote against Obama, but you must stick by your morals to prevent Ron Paul from speaking.

Make mine a double standards, barkeep!

Ron Paul is a Republican who ran for President He won his primary again. We allow him to wear the Republican tag. IF the leaders of the Republican party do not want him as a republican, kick him out. But, don’t use Paul to hold a seat in Texas that we need desperately because the number of seats we hold has dwindled. Don’t Let him run as a Republican in the primary and then stifle him at the convention. I swear it’s a bunch of elitists running this party who are not ” for the people” one whit. I don’t care if he gets on stage and embarrasses McCain. Schedule him last thing atnight, but don’t ignore him.

For me it’s not a case of dispensing with my morals to vote for McCain over Obama. Had Giuliani won the nomination, morally, I couldn’t vote for him.

48
ROFLOL

52.

If you think it’s immoral to vote for McCain, then that’s your crazy wagon, you can pull it.

It’s no more “immoral” to vote for McCain than to vote for Obama or a kook like Ron Paul.

You people who reduce every decision in life to “moral” or “immoral” are scary.
I’m glad I don’t have to live in “that” world.

Why not let Paul speak? If he is truly out of the loop with mainstream delegates they can chose to leave the room and not listen to him. By not allowing his opinions the impression of censorship of differing opinions can be argued.

The censorship gives Paul supporters another bandwagon to climb on and justify not supporting the republican party.

I think it would make a great photo shoot to have Paul speaking to an empty room. If on the other hand, people stay and listen by choice it might suggest to the GOP leadership that Paul has some ideas that people like and that the leadership perhaps should listen.

After all, what is the first amendment all about?

Bull. It was news long before you started harping on it.

It was news that was being ignored around here, all while you were playing make-believe nazi hunter over Don Black under the phony pretense of holding candidates “accountable.”

Placa was brought up to illustrate that LST was holding Paul to a different standard than Giuliani, who had been praised for his “electability” at the time.

Furthermore, to my knowledge, LST (after finally taking notice of Placa at my urging) was the first outlet to report on Placa’s multiple donations to Giuliani’ campaign. And yes, I’ll also take credit for bringing that information to your attention as well.

I think the First Amendment guarantees him the right to speak. It does not guarantee him the forum in which to speak.

I didn’t invite my exes to my last wedding either.

No endorsement, no speakee.

Ok Phil, I’ll give you my LST salary for your invaluable contributions in keeping us on our toes.

57. a crazy canuk

The neocons who control the GOP are terrified of what Ron Paul has to say. He will reveal them to be the hypocrits that they are. He will remind folks of what the party used to be.

All the GOP has is a kooky old man to compete against the Dem’s rock star.

Ron Paul in 2012!

IF the leaders of the Republican party do not want him as a republican, kick him out.

They would if they could, and they’ve tried before. Back in ‘96 when he first ran in the primary, the great “conservative” hero Newt Gingrich threw all the party’s money behind Greg Laughlin, the Democrat incumbent who switched parties a few months before the primary because he saw that the district was turning Republican. Paul won the seat on his own merit and has held it ever since.

They’ve tried to take him out in several subsequent elections, and Chris Peden was simply the latest attempt. Whether you agree with Paul or not though, he is what his district wants for their representative. Every year the opponent (Peden included) comes in with the exact same pro-spending message, assuming he can bribe the voters of the district with promises of cash close to home. They run ads saying Ron Paul votes against NASA handouts and farm subsidies. And every year, the voters reject it and reelect Paul in a landslide.

“I’ll give you my LST salary”

What do you pull down here, Hamous?

100K, 120K?….

59: True. My main point was that he was a candidate for president, he did win votes, and he is an elected, sitting congressman. To allow or invite Giuliani to speak and not afford the same courtesy to Paul gives the appearance that because mainstream gop doesn’t like his message they will censor him.

I also realize the organizing committee can invite whomever they want to speak. The impression given to Paul supporters will be censorship and just feed their martyrdom cause.

51 - No salary needed. Just be honest where credit is due. I won’t claim it if there’s nothing to legitimately claim, but in this particular case there is something to claim.

It does not guarantee him the forum in which to speak.

No, but the time-honored tradition of political conventions in America suggests he should be given a forum there, as is the case with any former presidential candidate who draws a similar margin of support. To break from that tradition sets a bad precedent, not to mention distinctly unconservative.

Republicans should also remember that Paul has won several delegates, who will be seated on the floor of the convention. If Paul speaks, there’s a good chance those delegates will acknowledge that fact, accept it as a victory, and be content with the rest of the convention.

If they deny Paul a speaking slot they’re basically asking those delegates to do what they do best, which is causing a scene in the middle of the floor.

I couldn’t agree more AW. A candidate’s loyalty is to the constitution and their constituents, not their party’s inner cliques.

Ole What’s his name wasn’t the first poor schmuck the Texas republican party talked into challenging the CD 14 incumbent, and not the first time the attempt was an embarrassing failure, as was their attempt to gerrymander his seat away. Yet, the idiots will probably try both tactics again — They’re slow learners.

RickG, I think this is a very poor way to run a party. It makes them look like democrats.

No candidate who refuses to support the nominee should ever, ever, ever get in the door, let alone a speaking slot.

In Iowa, the Ron Paul rally far out drew the official event that he was excluded from by that state’s party leaders.

In Florida (and other places) official harassment at the request of connected republican party hacks took the form of very selective interpretation and enforcement of sign regulations and other efforts to impede grass roots support.

And in Nevada, the republican party leaders essentially canceled the state convention soon after it started rather than allow any RP supporters to go to the national convention. Instead, they’re trying to hand pick delegates, which pretty much means all the money and time that was put in to the caucus was wasted. Citizens are suing, and not all of them are Paulbots.

Overall, republican party leaders have wasted time, money, and damaged party unity by working so hard to discredit a candidate that never stood a chance in the first place.

I’m guessing it’s already too late to patch things up… In a race where party unity and getting the vote out are crucial, they are potentially missing out on:

- An email and snail mail list that is huge
- 20000+ Precinct chairs
- A network of feet in the street volunteers
- At least 2000 trained and experienced phone bank volunteers

Nice job, ya bunch-a-rino jerks. I know McCain’s the nominee, but who do real conservatives vote for?

Out of the 12 candidates running for the Republican nomination in 2000 only three of them spoke at the convention - George Bush, John McCain and Elizabeth Dole. I don’t see this as anything out of the ordinary. Ron Paul is being treated like anyone else.

#64 little mike - at least!

Was Duncan Hunter invited to speak?

Ron Paul has gone nowhere as a Republican and as a Libertarian. What legislation has he passed? Has he voted against earmarks, and then accepted them? Sponsored any anti abortion legislation? How many trips has he made to Iraq and Afghanistan to talk to our troops and commanders? I remember one poster here saying he had treated wounded helicopter pilots from Vietnam when he had done no such thing. How many neo Nazi groups on the internet supported Ron Paul on their websites? I think some of our front page people outlined that. What was it? Something like 1,100 of them. That by itself should scare the hell out of you. Not to mention one of them editing Ron Paul’s newsletter for years, even though Paul says he knew nothing about the guy’s background. Sounds a bit like Obama not know about Rev Wright. Sure. Right.

Smart marketing is to allow him to speak. Acknowledge his successes and followers by a speech for Pete’s sake! It makes the Republican party look generous, open, a party for many kinds of people. What do we have by not allowing him to speak? Same ole same ole. We are supposed to be making people aware of how open we are to all ethnicities, educational levels and financial status. Instead we are the grand ole party of the same ole.

Ok, let’s go with the “time honored tradition”:

1996 Primary

Bob Dole - 9,024,742 (58.82%)
Pat Buchanan - 3,184,943 (20.76%) - didn’t speak
Steve Forbes - 1,751,187 (11.41%) - didn’t speak
Lamar Alexander - 495,590 (3.23%) - didn’t speak
Alan Keyes - 471,716 (3.08%) - didn’t speak

2000 Primary

Bush - 12,034,676 (62%)
McCain - 6,061,332 (31%)
Keyes - 985,819 (5%) - didn’t speak

2008 Primary

McCain - 9,840,746 (47%)
Romney - 4,525,036 (22%)
Huckabee - 4,179,514 (20%)
Paul - 1,163,078 (6%)

Ron Paul was able to muster the internet, fuel young people, and approached running on different levels. He has name recognition. Ask 20 people who Duncan Hunter is. It would not hurt the Republican Party to acknowledge him.

I just hope The Most Honorable Man in America and One of the 50 Most Effective Members of Congress According to Congressional Quarterly allows Philip Giraldi–an official foreign policy adviser to the Ron Paul campaign–to speak at Paulapalooza, so we can better learn to appreciate the constitutional analysis under-girding sentiments such as this:

And then there is Iran, which is really about Israel because Iran does not actually threaten the United States. The Iran agenda includes pre-emptive military action if necessary and the implicit deployment of tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Tehran’s alleged weapons program, both issues that should make even the most hardened politician pause. But all the leading candidates have unflinchingly completed their obligatory obeisance to Israel and its principal lobby AIPAC. All have sworn to defend Israel to the last dead American soldier if that should become necessary though not a single one has bothered to make a coherent argument why that should be so beyond the usual assertions about terrorism, which, incidentally, have themselves been carefully crafted by Israel and its lobby to justify the “special relationship.”

And this:

Conservatives and other voters who have been concerned about U.S. foreign policy in general and who long to see a shift away from Washington’s unflinching support of an Israel-centric Middle East might also be intrigued by Obama. To be sure, Obama has had to run the gauntlet of the Israel-firsters, imitating every other candidate but Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich in swearing fealty to Tel Aviv’s politicians and policies no matter what impact they have on the national interest of the United States. Barack Obama has nevertheless been on the receiving end of more vitriol from the Israel Lobby than any other candidate, possibly because his middle name is Hussein and he lived in Indonesia. The Abe Foxmans of this world, sensitive to even the slightest whiff [BENZION ADDS: With his big Jew nose?] of disloyalty to Greater Israel, detect that Obama might not be completely faithful to the cause.

The Constitution!™

Let me get this right. Because Ron Paul has a policy adviser working for him, who it seems is anti Israel, we should not let him speak at the convention. Well then, I don’t want McCain to speak at the convention because he has a known LaRasa, open borders militant working for him! One friggin speech is all we need to give the man. The MSM would be all over it. We would get attention and look the bigger for it.

AW, come on now. Ron Paul was able to “muster the internet”? What he was able to do was have supporters flood the post debate computer opinion websites showing after each debate that Ron Paul was going to win the nomination in a landslide - which was pure balderdash.

Now if you said that Ron Paul was able to manipulate the internet to provide false levels of support, I could go along with you. Doesn’t it bother you at all that virtually all the white hate/racist groups supported this guy, and he had one of them for years writing a news letter in his name?

The MSM would be all over it.

You’re right, but trust me, it would not be in a good way.

Still trying to find an example of a primary-loser that refused to endorse the winner whom was also invited to speak at the convention.

David, what happened to the part about the Israeli’s oppressing the poor downtrodden Palestinians? And Iran is not a danger to the USA? Well, I know you RP people actually believe that Iran is no danger. That’s why we have to keep a close eye on you? That thinking could get millions of Americans killed.

#79 Shannon - I looked back through all the contested primaries in my lifetime and could not find one single example of that “time honored tradition”.

We should stop sucking up to the Saudi’s and allow Israel take care of itself instead of spending billions manhandling the situation and trying to limit their efforts.

Israel can handle Iran just fine. Just ask the survivors of the U.S.S. Liberty.

Big45- No ,it bothers me we allow him to be called a Republican because it benefits us to have a Republican in his seat. Of course I am not happy with his buddies, but I am more embarrassed at a party that closes their eyes to his friends, but uses him for count benefit. Talk about shoddy behavior. Maybe it would be the first time in history, but the Chairman of the Republican party needs to strip him of the Republican title. IF no one has the balls to unRepublican him, then accept his successes for what they are, and let him speak.

#76 AW

You are so right about McCain. While I don’t agree with Ron Paul’s isolationist policy, even that is preferable to John McCain’s Amnesty, Open Borders, Don’t Drill in ANWAR, and Global Warning. And after the Gang of Fourteen I don’t trust McCain to appoint Conservative Judges and agency heads. Instead of calling ourselves Republican, we should change it to The Chumps.

I feel a song coming on……………………………………………….

82: Those things happen in a war. Let ye who are without sin cast the first stone

By Chris Brummitt, Associated Press Writer | August 24, 2007

KABUL, Afghanistan –A U.S. warplane mistakenly dropped a 500-pound bomb on British troops after they called for air support in Afghanistan, killing three soldiers and seriously wounding two others in an accident that could re-ignite debate about America’s heavy use of air power.

snip
from the same article

Friendly fire involving U.S. troops has led to the deaths of three British servicemen in the current Iraq war, but the incident Thursday night was the first confirmed case between the two forces in Afghanistan. British officials said they were investigating the error, which comes amid growing concerns about civilian deaths from U.S. airstrikes.

In 2002, four Canadian soldiers were killed when an American F-16 pilot on a night patrol dropped a 500-pound bomb on Canadian troops conducting a live-fire training exercise near the southern city of Kandahar. The pilot apparently mistook the Canadians for enemy forces and thought he was acting in self-defense, U.S. officials have said.

In August 2006, a bomb mistakenly dropped by coalition aircraft killed 10 Afghan police officers on a patrol in the country’s southeast. The cause of that incident has never been established.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/08/24/uk_us_bomb_kills_3_british_soldiers/

#82 Bob42.

You are coming in loud and clear.

Crazy Canuk… I beg of you (and others) not to even bother…

Dr. Paul is NOT an isolationist … can y’all get it right. The term is non-interventionism.

And Israel is nowhere mentioned in the uS Constitution and we elect a president of these uS. Any elected official that puts Israel, or any other country, ahead of any of the member States’ interest ought to be, at least, impeached. I wonder how many uS elected officials have dual citizenship?

Want to make Israel a valid issue in our politics? Start a movement to anex and have Israel become he 5st State.

As to Paul not being invied to speak at the GOP, I am as upset as Paul is. Which is o say ho-hum, who cares.

Non-interventionist: One who believes the prudent policy is to wait until all his friends lie dead in the street prior to intervening.

Bob, you ever try and identify something really well at 500 knots and 200 feet off the ground. Trying looking for a 3 X 5 American flag at that speed which, it the wind didn’t have it unfurled, would have been lying limp.

Bob, you might now recall this. There was an incident during the first Gulf War. An Apache Battalion commander was ordered to fire on some vehicles. He questioned the order. He was told they were enemy and to fire on them. He did. Several Americans were killed and wounded. This was all with modern equipment and communications.

I keep telling you over and over, in war, mistakes occur. Some people just always want to make a conspiracy out of it. During Desert Storm, of the 148 American troops who died in battle, 24% were killed by friendly fire, a total of 35 service personnel. A further 11 died in detonations of allied munitions. Nine British service personnel were also killed in a friendly fire incident when a USAF A-10A Thunderbolt-II attacked a group of two Warrior IFVs.

So Bob, when you’ve been in that position yourself, come back and talk to me about a big conspiracy.

i·so·la·tion·ism - the policy or doctrine of isolating one’s country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one’s country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.

I don’t know Jaime, that sounds like it’s straight out of Dr. Paul’s playbook.

At this time I would perfer Dr. Ron Paul over the RINO John McCain.

Big, I never implied a conspiracy, only that Israel has a demonstrably capable military.

Many Liberty crewmen gave testimony that one of the aircraft flew so close to Liberty that its propellers rattled the deck plating of the ship, and the pilots waved to the crew of Liberty, and the crewmen waved back. The ship was marked as a neutral vessel on Israel’s Central Coastal Command plot board, but at 11 am the ship was removed from the plot because information on its position was stale.

Israel has 6 day wars. It seems that we prefer durations between 6 and 60 years.

Bob, I guess you have forgotten Grenada, Panama, and Desert Storm 1. Can you tell me how long you think the war on terror should last, and what are you parameters for saying we have achieved victory against Islamic terrorists, and we will never have to worry about being attacked by them again? Did you also forget they had found nuclear missile storage bunkers built by the Cubans on Grenada? Bet you had or you never even knew.

bob42 - Surely you know that invoking the name “USS Liberty” you are implicitly bringing a conspiracy theory into the discussion.

Big45, I beg you again, don’t bother… if someone is determined to find a malevolent motive to Israel’s bombing of the U.S.S. Liberty, no amount of facts or reason are ever going to be able to persuade them otherwise.

FWIW, there is a flip-side to this line of thinking, only these people argue that yes, Israel knew it was an American ship, but U.S. spy agencies were intercepting Israeli communications and passing them on to the Arabs (for fear of Israel getting “too big for its britches” and “winning too much” in the war), so (they argue) the attack was justified.

Presumably, as “non-interventionists,” Paulbots would argue that America had no business getting involved in dispute, so if in fact the U.S. was intercepting and passing along Israel’s secrets to its enemies then the Liberty “got what was coming to it,” no?

It is all a stupid and pointless debate… Occam’s Razor and thousands of years of human history point to it being a terrible accident, but that can’t be proven to an absolute certainty, any more than the theories being pushed by various Neocons that two passenger jets filled with fuel supposedly brought down the World Trade Center on 9/11.

Here’s the best info I’ve ever seen on the Liberty subject.

WARNING: LINK CONTAINS EXPLICIT ZIONISM

#96 No Hamous, I don’t. And please don’t call me Shirley!

Yes I’m aware of the theories that make up a small minority of the information in the wikipedia link, because I actually read it before I linked to it, not because I agree with them.

#89 Jaime, I long ago gave up on trying to explain the difference between non-interventionism and isolationism around here. It seems to me to be a case of voluntary ignorance, and of course I respect any person’s right to choose that point of view and express it repeatedly.

In the United States, non-interventionism has often been confused with isolationism. Critics of non-interventionism frequently add to this confusion by describing prominent non-interventionists as isolationists. However, true isolationism combines a non-interventionist foreign policy with protectionism (economic nationalism) and strict border controls to prevent international travel and cultural exchange. The majority non-interventionists in the United States reject protectionism in favor of free trade, international travel, and cultural exchange.

Ok, let’s go with the “time honored tradition”

Fine by me, but you left out a few years that didn’t fit your agenda.

1992 Primary - Pat Buchanan - 2,899,488 - (22.9%) - spoke.

1988 Primary - Pat Robertson - 1,097,446 (5.02%) - spoke.

1980 Primary - Howard Baker - 181,153 (1.41%) - spoke.

LOL! Wikipedia??? Yeah, I bet there isn’t a single enterprising RP bud that has thought to update the open-to-the-world entry on isolationism v. non-interventionism so that it complies with Ron Paul’s vision. Too funny.

Out of the 12 candidates running for the Republican nomination in 2000 only three of them spoke at the convention - George Bush, John McCain and Elizabeth Dole

True, except you forgot to mention that the 2000 nomination run dwindled down to a three man race, which was really a two man race when you exclude Alan Keyes,by the time the second primary rolled around. Steve Forbes and Gary Bauer - the last two other candidates besides Bush, McCain, and Keyes - pulled out after New Hampshire.

By contrast, it wasn’t decided in 2008 until Super Tuesday.

RE: Link in Benzion’s #97

You must click on the PDF icon at the top of the page to open the complete 25 page file for the article or go here.

#88 1992 and 1988 weren’t what I would call contested primaries, although Buchanan’s showing was impressive, and above what seems to be the magic 20% showing to garner a spot. 1988’s appearance of Robertson was likely a calculated move to calm the “Christian Coalition” folks who had reservations about GHWB. Regardless, all of those three supported the nominee, again, which RP has said he will not do.

Ron Paul is being treated like anyone else.

We’ll see when the schedule comes out, but I suspect that it’s a foregone conclusion that Rudy Giuliani will get a speech. Fred Thompson probably will too.

Both of those men finished substantially behind Paul.

If either speaks, it will illustrate plainly that Paul is *not* being treated like anyone else and that McStrangelove’s camp is showing favoritism to a liberal transvestite fascist who got a single delegate and a single third place finish.

#103 - But 1980 was. So was 1964, when several of the runner ups spoke.

#100 I take wikipedia for what it’s worth, and understand its limitations and biases. Unfortunately, Conservapedia doesn’t yet have a page focused on the differences between non-interventionism and isolationism. Perhaps you could submit such a page.

Again Phil they all supported the nominee.

Bob, the definition I gave in #92 came from a reputable dictionary, which I assume undergoes a pretty thorough review process.

Howard Baker was the Senate Republican Leader.

Did I mention they all supported the nominee?

And were approved by Z.O.G.!