the whitestick papers

looking at politics from a different perspective

Posts Tagged ‘Ron Paul

Ironic

with 3 comments

It’s election season in the Oregon Republican Party. At the end of February, the state Central Committee will elect new officers, as they do every other year shortly after the General Election. In this case, there are two dominant slates, one of which proposed and endorsed by current party Chair, Dr. Art Robinson.

Last Monday, Dr. Ames Curtright, self-styled “Fundraising” and “Ethics” Committees Chair (despite having been rejected for the former by the Executive Committee after he tried to bribe them with a $20,000 donation if his political opponent, National Committeeman Solomon Yue, would resign and having been thrown under the bus by Chair Robinson regarding the latter) sent out a slick email flyer supporting Chair Robinson’s endorsees. As is common with such screeds, all the problems of the past are implied to be the fault of the other team while “new leadership” can save the day.

What’s ironic in this case is who’s been doing what over the past couple of years….

Ames flyer

“Party Infighting” is a fact of life within the Republican Party. Until recently, however, any differences we may have over policy or procedure were “one and done” situations; we’d present our best efforts at the county, state or even national level, let the votes determine the outcome and, if it didn’t go our way, wait for the next opportunity to do it again. In the meantime, we’d stand shoulder to shoulder with those we’d just debated against to accomplish a common goal or support Republican candidates – even if we didn’t agree with them on all points. In recent years, however, a few “Occupy GOP” activists have joined with long-term malcontents to ostracize and eliminate anyone who disagrees with them – or is just in a position of authority within the Party. In other words, Dr. Curtright and others who have sought to undercut or overthrow those they consider political adversaries.

Yes, there is a certain degree of “In-group Maneuvering”, but it’s interesting that those who fostered the “false flag” campaign in 2014 are making the charge. You remember that; several Ron Paul supporters ran as Delegates for other Republican candidates for positions at the Republican National Convention in 2014. It became obvious both before and during the Convention the intent was to have the Convention nominate Dr. Paul rather than the person selected on a state-by-state basis. They were out-maneuvered in their efforts to subvert the will of the people and the process and have never forgiven the ORP or RNC for doing so.

The irony goes even deeper.   In mid-December, Chair Robinson announced the dissolution of the Rules and Bylaws Committee. Although within his authority as Chair, it was an unusual move for a retiring Chair to make just 2½ months before his replacement would be elected. Then, last Tuesday – the day after Dr. Curtright’s email – he announced the leadership and membership of these re-formed committees (made up primarily of Occupy GOP folks and those with a grudge against Solomon Yue). He told the Central Committee they’d approved the Rules for the upcoming election, even though the Chairs had not been reviewed by the Executive Committee as required by ORP Bylaws. On Thursday, he announced the Bylaws Committee had reviewed proposed Bylaws amendments, and ruled that – despite the Central Committee having overruled a similar interpretation advanced by an Occupy GOP delegate in 2014 – Executive Committee members would be disenfranchised during the election of State Party officers. These were just the latest in a series of unilateral actions by the Chair and his allies in party leadership, all in conflict with ORP Bylaws; who’s doing the “in-group maneuvering” again?

It’s difficult to determine what Dr. Curtright has in mind when he says “Wasteful Spending”; under Chair Robinson, the ORP has been strapped to meet operating obligations, much less have any funds to waste. This ties in with the next bullet point, “Lost Financial Support”. When embattled Allen Alley left the stage in 2014, the ORP was in the best financial health it had been in at least a decade. He’d paid off outstanding debts, built relationships with donors and had the party on track to be a force to reckon with in upcoming contests. Even after the departure of Suzanne Gallagher under a cloud, the party was in the black. Eighteen months later, Chair Robinson is the party’s greatest creditor, the Executive Director hasn’t been paid in months and the party can barely meet rent and utility bills. The chief reason – Chair Robinson’s insistence on using a single source of fundraising, direct mail, for which he paid out of pocket. Gone are the relationships with donors; exhausted are the reserves built by the former administration. Add to this Dr. Curtright’s insistence that he is the ORP’s “Fundraising” Chair; how credible are his claims regarding the ability of this new leadership to be better?

Finally, we come to the perennial attack on current leadership, “Lost Elections”. The Republican waves of recent years have stopped east of the Cascades, and Oregon remains a Democrat stronghold. In the opinion of this author, however, blame for that failure falls not on the party but despite the party. Following counsel from “political experts”, candidates ignore the party, ignore its principles and values and run as if they were “Democrat Light”. The ORP repeatedly advises candidates to disregard the “common knowledge” counsel as it consistently results in a loss for Republicans; if people want Democrat policies, they’ll vote for the real thing. Instead, like Ronald Reagan, Republicans should point, without apology, to the conservative values that made our country great. That practice works in eastern Oregon and elsewhere in the country nearly every time it’s tried; not following that counsel results in resounding loss just as predictably.

More to the point, however, is to ask for the track record of these erstwhile candidates for leadership. What is their win-loss ratio? How many successful candidates have they run, or how well have they done in repeated elections? To be fair, there is some success there, but it’s no greater than what you’ll find on the other team.

The point of this article isn’t to denigrate these candidates; while a couple of them are largely unknown, particularly within the ORP, in this writer’s opinion the others make a credible case for their election. It’s more to expose the reality behind the implied problems of electing a slate made up largely of current leadership. The other team has been working under the guidance of a Chair who has been secretive, manipulative, even duplicitous and, rather than throw them out because of the Chair’s action, it may be more appropriate to give them a chance to do what they were prepared to do two years ago but have been blocked from accomplishing.

 

Written by Jeffrey S. Smith

31 January 2015 at 2:14 pm

Occupy GOP

leave a comment »

During most even-numbered years, the summer Central Committee meeting of the Oregon Republican Party is dedicated to plans and preparations for the coming General Election. Usually, they’ve been working together since the reorganization meetings 18 months earlier and come together to share ideas and insights, coordinate strategies, discuss and often vote to support or oppose ballot measures and just generally unify for the final push coming in a few short months.

But, for the August 2014 edition, certain folks believe something else is more important than working together to win elections.

Just after the official call for the meeting was sent out, a flurry of proposed changes to the state Party Rules and Bylaws were sprung on the Central Committee members through a clearly orchestrated series of emails.   Per standard operating procedure, all of these would normally have been presented to their respective review committees for consistency with the current documents, RNC Rules, Roberts Rules of Order and plain old grammar and word usage well before the Official Call was issued so, in accordance with the Bylaws, they could be issued with that Call. Instead, due to a loophole in precedence previously used by one of those dropping these amendments, these will go directly to the Central Committee as they are, warts and all.

The purpose of this article is not to discuss the merits of the plethora of proposed amendments and deletions, but to point out the poor timing. When the State Central Committee reorganizes early next year – interestingly, the next regular meeting – the Bylaws are automatically under review. It and the election of Officers are the only business at that meeting.

So, rather than waiting for the meeting dedicated to the process of considering amendments, these folks decided a better use of time that could have gone into plans and preparation for getting Republicans elected this year would be to occupy ORP leadership with minutia surrounding altering Rules and Bylaws most members of the state Central Committee never considered problematic.

There’s one other element of this situation that bears reporting. Although not among those submitting amendments for consideration, one of the cabal behind the bombardment and, like them, a freshmen member of the Central Committee, took it upon himself to tell the state GOP Chairman how the agenda should be set up. As you might imagine, the Chair didn’t take it too well. Art Robinson, himself a practiced campaigner and seasoned political veteran, responded by telling the Central Committee, in effect, he and not this newbie is in charge. That bodes well for the resolution of this issue.

It’s just sad the Central Committee will have to waste time on this during a key stage in this year’s election cycle. But some folks seem determined to make sure Republicans lose.

Written by Jeffrey S. Smith

6 August 2014 at 4:56 pm

A game of inches

leave a comment »

Political campaigns can be compared to a complex game; one with multiple levels of presentation, interaction and involvement, all with the end goal of seeing your guy elected and your opponent losing.  In simple terms, it has three basic layers, and each layer has its own strategies, approaches, ways to win and ways to lose.

The biggest and most expensive is also the most visible – the air war.  This is where the candidate is the most involved; the radio spots, the TV commercials, the interviews, the debates, the rallies and the visits to late night shows are all a part of this.  This is a game of miles and acres, seeking to blanket the electorate with the reasons to vote for your guy and vote against the other guy.   Few people are involved in this process, but they tend to be the folks closest to the inner circle and, except for the candidate, they have little, if any, direct contact with the people casting ballots.

Then there’s the ground game; the lawn signs and bumper stickers, the phone banks and neighborhood walks, the voter-ID and get-out-the-vote operations.  This is a game of feet and meters; putting a human face on the campaign, a local voice on the issues.  This consumes a lot of manpower and volunteer time, and these are the people touching other people, usually for a limited time and with limited contact.  It’s where candidates tend to forget to put time and money as it’s not as flashy or obvious, but it’s probably the most critical element to success as it brings the big effort down to the streets.

Finally, there’s the game of inches.  Many campaigns don’t even bother with it but, if the race is close, it can be the difference between a win and a loss.  It’s not involved with facts but with feelings, not with ideals or issues but with confidence and commitment.  At the same time, it’s something anyone can do and, in fact, it’s almost impossible not to do it if you’re informed and willing.

It’s simply a matter of influencing your friends and family.

This year, the Presidential race is one of the closest in recent memory – easily closer than the 2008 race and possibly closer than 2000, which came down to the difference of less than one vote in each of Florida’s precincts.  Every single vote in this election is critical – and anyone can influence one or two votes, which could make the difference between one candidate or another winning the election.

With the advent of social media – Facebook, Twitter, blogs, texting and the like – that ability to influence others, which used to be limited to lawn signs and bumper stickers, has taken on a whole new level.  So, the challenge is whether you are part of the game of inches or just let the opportunity –and, with it, the election – pass you by.

As the election enters into its final days, you’re probably getting political bits constantly.  To be part of the game of inches, all you have to do is pass them on.  If you get a statement by Reagan or Romney, Rush or Clint or Newt or Glenn that just says it well, whatever “it” is, re-tweet it.  If you get a photo or video that makes the point, “Share” it so your Facebook friends can see it, too.

Interestingly, this works best to undercut the opposition more than promote a candidate, so even those not all that found of Mitt can forward a chart showing Obama’s failure to grow the economy, a video demonstrating Obama’s saying the same things now that he said in 2008, or an article exposing his socialist policies or general disconnect with the American people.  You don’t have to support the Republican candidate; you can support a third-party candidate and still find value in targeting the flaws and failures of Barack Obama.

The amazing thing is anyone can do this.  If you want to add a comment, fine; it often makes the point all the sharper.  But it’s not necessary; all you really need to do is pass on something that comes across your computer screen to influence the vote of one or two other people.  The more that do it the better; the impact of getting the same information from two or three friends can change a vote or, at least, keep someone you know from voting for the wrong person.

The power is in the personal element; that friend knows you and your opinion makes more of an impact than all the fancy TV ads they’ll see during the election.  This election may come down to a game of inches, and anyone can play on that field.

Written by Jeffrey S. Smith

18 September 2012 at 11:57 am

The lesser of two evils…

leave a comment »

It is perhaps the most frustrating of choices; to look on the ballot and try to pick the candidate you dislike the least.  Is there no one you can soundly support or are you forced to vote for one person because you’re determined to vote against their opponent?

The fact is, no matter who you vote for, you’re always voting for the lesser of two evils.

There are a couple of reasons for this, both of which trace back to basic human nature.  The first reality is that everyone is flawed.  Some more than others, of course, but the fact is no one is perfect.  This is true for everyone and seems to be particularly true for those who seek political office.

The second factor flows from this; power corrupts.  Those who seek political office often seek that power and, with it, the inevitable corruption.  Some resist more than others, but it taints everyone.

Taking into account that you will always vote for the person who, to you, is the lesser of two evils, let’s apply that to the current Presidential race.  Either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama will be elected in November.   Sure; there are those who hope others might but, unless you’re completely deluded, even the most loyal follower of one of the “also ran” candidates has to admit that.

Your choice comes down to someone who might be less than what you’d prefer but, in general, agrees with you on many, if not most, points.  Mitt Romney embodies the value of a free market, the necessity of a reduced government and the economic ruin caused by a runaway deficit.  He shows he understands that the country’s greatness has been built by people, not the government.

Or you can vote for a person who has demonstrated a total commitment to Keynesian economics, anti-colonial loathing of America and a willingness to reward some and punish others both domestically and as a foreign policy.  Barack Obama told the Russian President he would do even more in a second term and, since he wouldn’t have to deal with another re-election, he easily could.  Is that what you want?

To vote for someone else or to not vote is to let Obama win by default.  For a person of principle, who wants a restoration of American liberty and rule of law, the only logical choice is to go with the one who could turn things around.  Even though flawed, Romney is more likely to stop the current devolution than to continue, much less accelerate it.

Sure, Romney’s not perfect.

Who is?

Written by Jeffrey S. Smith

13 September 2012 at 8:21 am

Romney: Obama’s “Mini Me”?

with one comment

Repeatedly over the past few months, Liberty Movement members – the name supporters of perennial minority Presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul give themselves – have derided Republican nominee Mitt Romney as virtually indistinguishable from Barack Hussein Obama.  Pointing to the government health care program instituted on his watch in Massachusetts and quoting his statement that he’d repeal Obamacare and replace it, they claim Romney’s very nearly as progressive as the President, and not someone lovers of liberty should support.

It’s not the intention of this article to defend Mitt Romney; he’s said what he’s said and has to live with the consequences.  It’s also not the intent to convince the Liberty Movement that Romney is something other than what he is.  The intent is to look more closely at the differences between his ideology and that of President Obama, investigating, however briefly, the question of whether Mitt Romney is merely a scaled down version of the current inhabitant of the White House.

Whatever else Wendell Mitt Romney might be, he’s a businessman.  More to the point, he’s a capitalist, familiar with and an advocate of the free market, both in word and deed.  While the Democrats demagogue his connection to Bain Capital, everything about that relationship reflects an understanding and appreciation for letting the market, not government, determine winners and losers.  To paraphrase a line from Game of Thrones, “In the game of business you either win or you go bankrupt.”

This is, at its core, the fundamental fact of American success as a nation; of American economic strength even in the face of progressive efforts to win the hearts (and votes) of the citizenry using snares disguised as safety nets.  And it means that, whatever progressive tendencies Romney has, they are incidental; they’re a political addition, and not necessarily part of his core belief structure – his ideological DNA, if you will.

By contrast, Barack Obama is unquestionably a socialist.  At the same time, he’s not a typical socialist; he’s done and said things that are at odds with most American socialists.  There’s his aversion to the American flag; declining, in that famous photo from the 2008 election, to salute it even as other socialists on the stage did so, and it’s removal from his press room and Oval Office.  There’s his catering to Occupy Wall Street, his bowing to leaders of other countries, his apologizing for America.  There’s no other socialist in the national political spectrum that have gone to this level, and it reveals something key about the man.

The recent documentary book and subsequent movie, 2016: Obama’s America, in turn largely based on Obama’s autobiography, Dreams From My Father, builds a strong case for the President being a different sort of socialist.  It shows that, for the President, socialism is a means to an end; the fulfillment of an ideological commitment to the overturning of the world’s last colonial power.

Rare here in the United States, and even virtually unknown in Europe, anti-colonialism is common in third world nations like Obama’s father’s native Kenya.  It’s prevalent in Indonesia, where “Barry” spent his formative years and in Hawaii, where he lived with his activist grandparents.   Obama’s mother was enamored of his father, an anti-colonialist polygamist, and left her second husband after he began adopting capitalist ideas.

Anti-colonial ideology blames every problem and ill on the colonial masters, and there’s a lot of abuse that’s taken place under colonial rule to justify that point of view.  However, unlike the American Founders, anti-colonialists don’t want just independence from the “mother country”; they want it driven out and all its influences destroyed.  In this scenario, the United States is the last – and, possibly, the most evil – of the colonial powers.

So, America needs to apologize for its past and current colonial efforts.  It needs to recognize and even bow before those who have overthrown their colonial masters and established their own rule.  Its symbols are offensive and shameful, not promoted publically and proudly.  And, most of all, its ability to be a colonial master must be undercut, and the best way to do that is by ruining its economy and increasing its debt.

You don’t have to change your mind about Mitt Romney’s supposed similarity to Barack Obama.  You do, however, need to consider the difference.  You’ll make your own choice as to what’s really important to you; the parallel or the disparity.

See the movie.  Read the book.

Written by Jeffrey S. Smith

4 September 2012 at 11:39 am

Earning respect

with 2 comments

One of the basic rules of life is that respect is earned, not given.  Most teenagers have trouble with this concept; they want credibility and respect, but then do and say things that hamper their getting it.  Eventually, most people learn that the best way to earn respect is by showing respect; not being rude or belittling to others, acting courteously and the like.

So, then, does this email indicate respect?

 

From: “Ian Cioffi”
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 3:22:40 PM
Subject: Poll Questions for All Ron Paul Delegates – LibertyChat.com

LibertyChat.com is conducting a poll of all Ron Paul delegates

 

You’re being emailed because you are a delegate that will be at the Republican Convention next week

If you have a moment, please answer the following questions

  1. Do you plan to boo Mitt Romney when he speaks?
  2. Do you plan to boo Mike Huckabee when he speaks?
  3. If Rand Paul says anything about voting for Mitt Romney, will you boo Rand?

Your name will not be published

Thank you for your time

 

Ian Cioffi

LibertyChat.com

 

Before you dismiss this as a fraud, you may want to view this podcast by The Washington Times, taped at the Convention site in Tampa August 24th.  The email is discussed in the last three minutes and, in fact, the entire 11:47 interview is revealing.

Whether or not the booing takes place  – and we’ll know that in a few days – the fact that the idea is even presented reflects poorly on the credibility of those who propose it, and does nothing but denigrate Dr. Paul.

Written by Jeffrey S. Smith

26 August 2012 at 6:47 am

Vindication, Round 2

with 8 comments

On Monday, August 20 2012, the Committee on Contests for the Republican National Convention listened to arguments concerning the challenged Alternate Delegate elections from Oregon’s Second, Fourth and Fifth Congressional Districts.  The next morning, ORP Chairman Allen Alley reported on thier findings:

Delegates, Alternate Delegates, ORP Staff and ORP Executive Committee,

We have had lots of good news as we move toward Tampa (actually I am already in Tampa).  

I just left the Contests Committee meeting and they have upheld their previous August 10th ruling on every point.  In case you missed it, the Ron Paul campaign, challenged our Alternate Delegate selection process with the RNC.  The Contests Committee was very clear in their original ruling and today:

  1. Whether the ORP, pursuant to their Party Bylaws and Standing Rules, has the authority to conduct the Convention as one meeting in five locations?  Yes.
  2.  Did the Convention adjourn at 5:00p.m. as stated in the Official Agenda?  Yes.
  3. Were any of the elections of alternate delegates that occurred during any of the meetings after 5:00p.m. valid?  No.
  4. Was the ORP Executive Committee’s action on July 30, 2012, to select and certify alternate delegates to the national convention, authorized and legal?  Yes.

What this means is there are no changes to the list of Delegates and Alternates we previously published and all challenges are disallowed.  On the second challenge regarding alternates voting in our delegation meeting, the RNC ruled that they do not have jurisdiction therefore the elections stand.  

Other good news, I am so very pleased to see our new Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan take the fight directly to President Obama.  He is standing shoulder to shoulder with Governor Romney and standing up against the Chicago style politics of fear and negativity.  

Romney/Ryan also have a great ally in our Chairman Reince Priebus.  His clear unwavering message that we are going to save the American dream and we are not going to sit and take punches resonates with Americans all over our country.  Check out his interview today on Hannity.  It is worth 8 minutes of your time.

And finally, If you recall, there was a lawsuit filed in June, in the central district of California court, on behalf of about 100 delegates naming the RNC, Reince Priebus, the ORP and me (along with every other state chairman) as defendants.  The basic claim of that suit was that these delegates should be released from their pledges binding them to a candidate so they could vote as they wish (not as their primary results or convention results bound them to vote).  This suit made us aware that there was a national effort to elect delegates who had no intention to vote the will of the Republicans in their state.  We entered our State Convention with this lawsuit fresh in our minds and took extraordinary steps to run our Convention by the book.

I am pleased to say that on August 6th the court in the central district of California granted the RNC’s motion to dismiss in the Delegates v. RNC et. al. lawsuit.  In just about every way, the court recognized the unintelligibly and implausibility of the allegations.  

As with all legal type processes, we expect that the Ron Paul campaign and the attorneys representing the delegates who wish to break their pledges will continue appeal these decisions as long as the money to pay their attorneys continues to be available.  We will continue to defend our process but are very much looking forward to focusing on winning our state back and making Oregon the “1” in the Romney/Ryan 3-2-1 path to victory.  Click here to read about 3-2-1 by Karl Rove.

I am really looking forward to the convention.  With the announcement of Paul Ryan as our Vice Presidential nominee, I think we now have a ticket that the entire party, and the country can rally around.

On to Tampa!

Allen Alley
Chairman
Oregon Republican Party
Oregon Delegation RNC

It’s unlikely this will satisfy those who seek to drive a wedge between the Republican Party and Ron Paul supporters.  There will still be rabble-rouser who continue to attack Allen Alley, denounce the ORP Executive Committee, characterize the RNC as corrupt and just generally try to damage the only effective means to counter Barack Hussein Obama.

But here’s the bottom line; the Committee on Contests, in less than 24 hours, decided the ORP followed the rules, and the challengers didn’t.

 

UPDATE: August 23 2012 7:00pm

This writer was under the mistaken impression Monday’s meeting was the final step in the process, and it isn’t.  One more was held and at least one more is scheduled before the entire Convention decides on the issue next week.  During today’s regular Oregon Republican county leadership conference call, Chairman Alley reported ours is not the only challenge being considered, but it’s one that has successfully defended itself.  Louisiana and Maine have lost their challenges, having failed to document a clear audit process, procedures and adherence to the rules.  There are two take-sways from this:

  • The Committee on Contests isn’t a “rubber stamp”.  The evidence for and against the contesting perspectives were reviewed, considered and, at times, fiercely questioned.  If it didn’t meet criteria, the delegation suffered.
  • Oregon played by the rules.  If and only if that were true would the Committee have ruled in favor of the ORP.

 

Written by Jeffrey S. Smith

23 August 2012 at 5:45 am

%d bloggers like this: