RNC - Day One

Man, you guys got VP candidates all over the place.

Too funny Jimster.

Nice job Adam. I look forward to reading about the Rally for the Republic in your next article. It should be pretty interesting.

Man, you guys got VP candidates all over the place.

Funniest thing I've read all week.

4.2 Adam, I dare you!

No, it's Ventura...Jesse Ventura... :)

LOL - unless you're attending the Ron Paul rally, then it might be a 'Jesse Venture'.

While I think that's a great question for Adam Hobson to ask in regards to McCain being the first choice and while I'd hate to let you down Adam Kemp, I don't think we're going to experience a lot of division at these events. McCain has been slowly winning the hardcore of the base over and Palin helps him there. There's always going to be a minority of sentimental opposition at any convention, but I think by and large people are eager to rally behind McCain.

What is it that you have seen first hand that makes you think that there is some institutionalized bitter divide? Particularly that would make it unique to Republicans?

What is it that you have seen first hand that makes you think that there is some institutionalized bitter divide? Particularly that would make it unique to Republicans?

What I saw first hand at my district convention was documented in my article about it. I witnessed a bitter divide between neo-cons and traditional conservatives. At one point a fight nearly broke out (I'm not kidding). The neo-cons who ran the convention gave much lip-service to unity and how they welcomed everyone to the Republican party, but their actions proved otherwise. They did everything they could to shut down any debate about the platform, did everything they could to prevent a fair distribution of delegates, and made repeated thinly-veiled attacks against people who were there who wouldn't blindly support John McCain.

I heard similar accounts from other district conventions, and the same problem caused the Nevada Republican Party to end the convention prematurely and attempt to hand-select delegates. I'm amazed if you hadn't heard of that. The party was seriously considering not seating any delegates from Nevada. Instead the national party hand-selected a delegation from Nevada.

They're also trying to prevent Ron Paul from stirring up any trouble. Just think about this: there's a Republican congressman who has been denied the privilege of speaking to the platform committee. He was denied the ability to speak at the convention because he refused to change his position on the Iraq war. While the party makes up this false image of the "maverick" John McCain, they are actively suppressing the views of a multi-term Congressman in their own party who disagrees with them. "Big tent" my ass.

There is no doubt that there is a bitter divide among Republicans right now. They're desperately trying to hide it, and they're probably doing a pretty good job. If there's one thing Republicans do well it's pretend that they all agree. It's all a facade, though. I can't imagine Republicans have been this disappointed in their ticket in a long time. They're taking cues from the past few Democratic tickets, apparently.

I won't dispute your personal observations except to say that perception's vary and being that you are an unwavering lover of Ron Paul, I'll suggest the possibility that you are presenting your perception from the point of view of someone who is indeed outside the party mainstream.

They're also trying to prevent Ron Paul from stirring up any trouble. Just think about this: there's a Republican congressman who has been denied the privilege of speaking to the platform committee.

Ron Paul is one of roughly 250 Republican members of Congress. What makes him entitled to speak at the convention? Of course he's not going to be considered when he's a fruitcake on foreign policy that flies in the face of the vast majority of Republicans who think he's a fruitcake on foreign policy. Joe Lieberman wasn't invited to speak because Republicans wanted to hear a pro-life message - he was invited to speak because he shares the parties position on war. Rudy Guiliani isn't going to put forth his positions on abortion and gay marriage because they conflict with the party platforms. He's going to speak on things that the party shares.

That's how conventions work. Speakers aren't lined up who are going to incite silence or booing from the delegates by promoting positions that are outside the party mainstream. That would invoke division - rejecting Ron Paul, who appeals to people who aren't passionate Republicans and is supported by 9/11 conspiracy theorists (like Ventura) and racists does not.

Paul had his moment - no one tried to stop him. He got his own arena, from what I understand thousands showed up to hear him and Ventura and other screwballs and they got some attention and probably some book sales out of it.

Did you miss the part where a fight nearly broke out? It's not "perception", Otto. It's fact. And for the record (not that this is the first time I've had to say this), I am not in any way "an unwavering lover of Ron Paul". I've mentioned plenty of things I disagree with him on strongly. Not that you care.

Ron Paul is one of roughly 250 Republican members of Congress. What makes him entitled to speak at the convention?

How about the fact that he is the only Republican who managed to stir any real passion among his supporters and easily out-raised McCain (and all the other Republican candidates) over and over again? McCain may have been more popular overall, but Ron Paul is drawing new people to the party, and the Republicans desperately need that. That's the only reason they're even bothering to pay lip-service to this "big tent" idea. Rejecting Ron Paul means rejecting all the supporters who came with him. Say goodbye to all the new Republicans. They won't be back.

Okay, so when some protesters smash store front windows and cop car windows and set things on fire, are we going to use this as an example that the entire anti-war movement has problems? You can't take a micro and define a macro from it.

I've mentioned plenty of things I disagree with him on strongly. Not that you care.

Funny, I've criticized Paul on some pretty important things and seem to recall having it out with you endlessly for a while over some of these key character problems of his. I guess I mischaracterized you. I apologize.

How about the fact that he is the only Republican who managed to stir any real passion among his supporters and easily out-raised McCain (and all the other Republican candidates) over and over again?

And obviously that was done outside the Republican mainstream, otherwise he would be the nominee today rather than McCain. You want to pump up this guy who bucks the party platforms on the most important issues we face while trying to demonstrate how vital he is to the party members themselves. Sorry, it doesn't work both ways. He is not drawing new people to the party. I haven't come across a single person who said they were joining the party and if Paul lost the nomination they would then support the actual nominee. I ran into plenty of people who said if Paul lost they were going to support Obama or Kucinich (go figure). His campaign appeal was to anti-war people. He didn't do a damn thing for the party accept go his own way for the convention which seems to have worked best for everyone.

I'm not taking a "micro" example. There's a pattern here. You're just ignoring it. Did you pay attention to the fact that they tried to avoid seating the entire delegation from Nevada? That's a whole state, in case you weren't aware.

Funny, I've criticized Paul on some pretty important things and seem to recall having it out with you endlessly for a while over some of these key character problems of his.

Do those "key" issues encompass every single position he holds? "Unwavering" implies that I agree with and support everything he does. I don't. I just happen to agree with him on the things you most vehemently oppose.

And obviously that was done outside the Republican mainstream, otherwise he would be the nominee today rather than McCain.

Eventually you'll realize that hardcore Republicans are not representative of mainstream America. Neither are hardcore Democrats. Neither are hard-core Ron Paul fans. The point is, these are new people anxious to get involved and passionate. They work hard, they go all out for their candidate, and they donate lots and lots of money. Republicans are throwing that away. That's idiotic.

I haven't come across a single person who said they were joining the party and if Paul lost the nomination they would then support the actual nominee.

I was about to call you blind until you qualified your statement with "would then support the actual nominee". See, some people actually follow McCain's advice and put "country first". Party first? No. Country first. McCain is wrong for the country in the eyes of most Paul fans. Sorry, but that's how it is. If the party wants to nominate someone they can't possibly vote for in good conscience then they're not going to blindly support him. If that's your criticism of Paul supports then that's pretty sad. It shows how blindly faithful the Republican party is to itself over anything else, and that is the #1 reason I could never call myself a Republican.