Ron Paul

Ron Paul Roundup: Paulites Cement Control in Nevada, More on Progress in Minnesota, Fed Audit Bill Up for Vote, and More


The non-Paul factions continue to flee the now largely Paulite official Republican Party in Nevada, the Las Vegas Review Journal reports:

Hours after the top two leaders of the Clark County Republican Party resigned, Ron Paul supporters took complete control.

They changed the locks at party headquarters and announced Thursday they could now focus on electing "genuine" conservatives, leaving infighting behind. 

Ron Paul's rEVOLution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired

The sudden departure of Chairman Dave Gibbs, Vice Chairman Woody Stroupe and several others completed a purge of establishment GOP officials since Paul backers took over the executive board by sweeping elections at the Clark County Republican Convention this year.

The old guard are forming their own Romneyite "shadow party":

The moves also marked a permanent election year split in the GOP at the county and state levels, with Gibbs and Stroupe both saying they would join forces with "Team Nevada."

The Team Nevada organization is run by the Republican National Committee to help elect presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney and other Republicans. The RNC plans to run its campaign ground game money through Team Nevada to bypass the Clark County GOP and Nevada Republican Party.

The official Party is still doing the business of a political party:

Cindy Lake, the county party secretary and a Paul supporter, was elected acting chair. In a statement, she said the new leaders would focus on electing Republicans who share their values. Paul promotes smaller government, less spending and taxes and more personal freedoms, for example.

"After months of turbulence and in­stability following the Executive Board elections held at the Clark County Republican Convention, the CCRP Executive Board is now able to concentrate on the task of developing a consistent, accessible message that will allow the Party to take a large role in electing genuine conservative candidates to office," Lake said. "The CCRP Executive Board is looking forward to working together with Republicans across Clark County towards increasing Republican registration, building a strong, robust party, and achieving electoral success in the November elections."

22 of 28 delegates from Nevada to the national convention are expressed Paul supporters, but they are bound by state rules to mostly vote for Romney based on his majority in the state's caucus.

*Paul's latest Fed audit bill heading for House vote.

*One poll: 93 percent have a favorable opinion of Ron Paul.

*Profile of John Ramsey, moneybags behind the latest Paulite SuperPAC Liberty for All, which spent quite a bit on Thomas Massie's primary victory in Kentucky Tuesday.

*Paulites angry at Massachusetts decision to not count provisional ballots from April caucus meetings that could have sent more Paul-leaning delegates to Tampa.

*The Weekly Standard takes a close look at Paul's clean win of control of the delegation in Minnesota. Highlights:

Marianne Stebbins, Paul's 2012 Minnesota campaign chair and one of the national delegates selected in St. Cloud, is the brains behind the Ron Paul revolution in the Minnesota GOP….

There's a larger purpose to the "liberty" crowd's fight. Though they won't have a chance to get concessions by threatening to block Romney's nomination at the August convention, Stebbins and company are looking long-term at remaking the Republican party, state by state, in Paul's image. Paulites in Minnesota, like those in Iowa, Nevada, and Kentucky, are now in control of their party's rules and platform. They'll be recruiting candidates for local, state, and federal offices, too….

Stebbins predicts the Paul delegates won't cause a fracas in Tampa. "The people who were elected as national delegates are a little more refined," she says. "I don't think you're going to see any disruptions at the national convention."

My new book, Ron Paul's Revolution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired.

Cross posted at dedicated blog/site for Ron Paul's Revolution.

NEXT: Q and A With California House Candidate Christopher David, a "Ron Paul Republican"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The House Republicans will try to give Paul his Fed audit, will they?

    Since we all know that the Fed's behavior has been consistently above board and in the public interest - that it has in fact saved the economy from collapse - then I'm sure they have nothing to fear from an audit. The auditors will simply give the Fed a clean bill of health, and then will Paul's face be red!

    In fact, the Fed should have authorized an audit earlier, just to rebut the idea that they had (snicker) anything to hide!

    1. I mean, the last audit left them smelling like roses, didn't it? Well, the next audit will do the same!

  2. ...they could now focus on electing "genuine" conservatives, leaving infighting behind.

    Oh, snap.

  3. As much as Ron Paul is the closest thing to a main party candidate with an attractive overall platform as has existed in my life, I am beginning to wonder if all these people he's bringing in with his revolution are even remotely in line with my, or his, overall principles.

    As the only credible anti-war guy, he's attracted a number of people who are more left leaning when it comes to domestic policy than I or even Paul himself.

    I just watched the video for that Christopher David fellow running against Waxman. In it, there is a brief point around the 3:20 mark where he delineates some of his legislative priorities, among those are reconsidering tax cuts, increasing payroll tax revenues, promote prevention and wellness, and all sorts of other elements that are symptomatic of the growth of the state. Beyond that, there are little things that hint at a more left-leaning philosophy than a libertarian one: during the montage at 4:00, the evil huge Citibank turns into a peaceful wonderful local credit union as though that were some panacea to cure what ails us. Certainly, I oppose bailout econ, but the idea that an institution that is large is necessarily undesirable lacks a fundamental understanding of certain elements of economies of scale. The dollar store turns into an fair trade organic food store.

    1. Look, I recognize that the guy is running in an extremely liberal jurisdiction (and I know, I live in the 33rd CD), and so maybe he's doing small things that are geared towards gaining support otherwise not available to him. But I wonder if the movement that Ron Paul inspired will over the long haul bare any resemblance to his libertarian philosophy when it's all said and done.

      1. I used to know some lefty Paul supporters so maybe I can provide some insight into the mind of such a creature with my anecdotal reasoning.

        Now these were fellow restaurant workers; people that work a lot of hard hours for little pay. They didn't have much sympathy for the permanent moocher class, that being said, they weren't entirely convinced that we should scrap government alms altogether.

        These people I knew, and there were actually quite a few of them, had a mistrust of arbitrary authority and large institutions; government and corporate alike. The issues that they were most concerned with, as non-taxpaying citizens, were civil liberties issues: drug war, free speech, separation of church and state, government spying, corporate spying, gay rights, patriot act, etc.

        About half bought the dems bullshit about being better on these issues, most I talk to lately no longer hold such illusions.

        Usually in conversations with people of this sort I would stress that economic and personal liberty are inexorably connected. I was not rebuffed outright, which gives me hope.

    2. If he wants to promote wellness by ending DoAg subsidies to unhealthy food makers, more power to him.

      Just because he cares about issues that leftists care about doesn't mean he's into coercive solutions. And there's nothing unlibertarian about letting taxes go back to normal.

      1. And there's nothing unlibertarian about letting taxes go back to normal increasing taxes.

        Yes, yes there is. Anything that facilitates the state taking more of the people's money is by it's very definition constraining liberty.

        1. So when Walmart's Black Friday early bird specials expire at 11 AM, that constitutes "raising their prices"?

          1. Oh my god, your transformation into a tax and spend republican is complete. Jesus, you're like a fatter Mike Huckabee.

            1. I'm missing the "spend" part.

              You do realize we have a massive budget deficit, right? Better to tax a little and cut a lot than borrow a lot and cut a little.

              Taxing less AND spending less simply isn't on the table. You have to give the Dems a way to save face. (I know introducing pragmatic political concerns is anathema around here, I apologize)

              1. Fair enough, I'd be willing to concede some tax increases for significant reform of entitlements, but it would have to be reforming the very way they operate and divvy out the loot rather than merely tinkering at the margins with retirement ages and COLAs (namely, means-testing and allowing opt-out for younger workers). Although it's worth noting that a tax increase along the lines of repealing the 2001 and 2003 cuts may have an adverse impact upon economic activity and therefore not result in significant revenue gains.

                But let's not pretend that an increase in taxes would be anything other than unlibertarian. Would it be permissible to trade one libertarian faux pas for massive victory in reforming the entitlement state? Sure, but it would still be trading one thing that is philosophically anathema to our principles.

                And to be honest, I'd prefer instead of tax increases we focus on larger tax reform and lower rates with a broader base. Make tax compliance easier and less subject to gaming and you'll see significant revenue increases.

              2. Oh fuck that, where the hell are you going to get TEN TRILLION DOLLARS worth of taxes? You could confiscate all of the assets of the top %5 and probably only have a couple of trillion dollars.

                You're probably one of those dumbshit republicans that believes we can pay off the national debt by defunding NPR and stopping foreign aid(except for Israel that is).

                Har har, you've emerged from your chrysalis missing a few IQ point, prof.

                1. I take it that is directed at Tulpa and not me. Look, he does make one point insofar as if you want to actually reform entitlements, you'll likely need to make a trade off with Dems in order to get it through. If some sort of small tax increase is the price to pay for a game-changing entitlement reform that would slash spending over the next 75 years, I'd be willing to listen. I doubt that would even swing any votes, but it would be a conversation I could entertain as it would cut back on the need for further deficit spending or more crushing tax liabilities 20 years hence.

                  1. Hypothetically and in theory it all sounds good, but we all know what happens when the government receives more revenue.

                    Me, I'd want to see major, MAJOR, cuts before a the notion of a tax increase was even entertained.

                    And if you don't believe that higher taxes make for a stagnate and fearful economy and are a direct burden on innovation we should end this palaver now, because we ain't gonna agree on anything.

                    1. Considering in my initial response to Tulpa I noted:

                      Although it's worth noting that a tax increase along the lines of repealing the 2001 and 2003 cuts may have an adverse impact upon economic activity and therefore not result in significant revenue gains.

                      It stands to reason that you and I share more in common with eachother on this issue than either of us does with Tulpa. Having said that though, the prize of sweeping changes to entitlements is so elusive and hard to come by that I'd be willing to give into a small bit of class-envy left-wing crap if the exchange resulted in a fundamental change to entitlements. Not tinkering at the margins, not punting down the road, but a major overhaul. Considering that there has never been a shrinking of SS/MC, the ability to actually shrink them would be too juicy to pass up.

                      This is purely hypothetical though. You and I both know that the left would never allow a rethinking of these programs even if we went full Octoberist/Leninist on the rich and slaughtered them and their offspring like the Romanovs.

                    2. Your last sentence is why I'll stick to my guns on this. There is no way there will be major entitlement cuts. The democrats will raise hell over it and the republicans don't want to alienate their aged base, like Tulpa. Hell, Romney couldn't get to florida fast enough to tell the turnips their bennies will be safe under his regime.

                      This idea that with some tweaks here and there and taxing the upper 10 another %3.4 is going to rid us of our collective albatross is patently ridiculous. If we want to get to even it's going to be fucking painful for a lot of people for a long time, but that's what happens when you live beyond your means as hard and long as we have.

              3. You do realize we have a massive budget deficit, right? Better to tax a little and cut a lot than borrow a lot and cut a little.

                I'm all for increasing the taxes on the 50% THAT PAY NONE. (income)

                Maybe when everyone has some skin in the game we will all come to our senses. Taxing the producers to eliminate the debt is insanity.

                1. Agreed. The only way the government is going to stop spending so much money is to give the beast more money.

                  1. The problem is the previous "historic compromises" by which Repubs agreed to tax increases and Dems agreed to spending cuts. The tax increases took effect, but the spending cuts not so much.

          2. Yes. They lower them, then raise them.

            1. So Bush was lying when he sold the tax cut as temporary?

              I mean, obviously Bush lying wouldn't shatter my worldview but you're never going to sell another tax cut as temporary if you don't let those ones expire.

  4. A shadow party, eh? Apparently kitty thinks it can scratch.

    1. It's like a rainbow party, except less colorful and easier to clean up afterward.

      1. So I take it Lindsey Graham's on the guest list?

        1. ^No relation^.

          1. Hey, Doc. Apparently you care about *something*. 😉

        2. I believe he said "rainbow party" -- not "lemon party."

    2. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of the Clark County Ron Paul supporters?

  5. Paul's 300-word measure

    "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

  6. "Paulites angry at Massachusetts decision to not count provisional ballots from April caucus meetings that could have sent more Paul-leaning delegates to Tampa"...

    Attending the caucus, it was pretty clear that the old guard GOP types were running scared and had called out every warm body they could get to vote for the Mitt-the-Twitt. It's not surprise that they decided to dig into the dirty trick box to overturn the clearly stated rules.

  7. As to Dr. Paul himself, you think that starting in 2013 he'll be one of the guys commonly called on by radio and TV shows as a guest commenter on political issues?

  8. That jsut does not make a whole lot of sense to me dude. Wow.

  9. If the movement within the GOP started by Ron Paul succeeds this here will be how it happens. It's useless to elect Ron Paul President when the GOP is still controlled by establishment statists. Like we're seeing in Minnesota and Nevada it must start at the bottom. It starts with taking over precinct chairs, county chairs, and eventually state chairs. Libertry-minded Republicans get elected to city and county offices and state legislatures. We put these same Republicans in Congress and the courts.

  10. Federal Reserve audit from July 2011 Fed Investigation.pdf

    Article about the audit

    "The first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve uncovered eye-popping new details about how the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression."

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.