Washington Times: “Ban Ron Paul supporters from GOP Convention”

An article by Eric Golub titled: “Ron Paul supporters are not Republicans and they should not attend the GOP convention” published in today’s Washington Times states:

“That’s right.  An outright ban on their presence is the only way to prevent the event from turning into a debacle.  There is no legitimate reason at this point for them to be there. . . .  Paul supporters are Libertarians, not Republicans. The GOP nominee is a Republican, he is not a Libertarian. ”

The article goes on to explain:

“The original Libertarians were fiscally conservative and socially liberal. . . . The newer breed of Libertarians is slightly different. They are fiscally conservative and anti-war. Social issues are not agreed upon. . . . They are trying to take over the Republican Party because their attempts to grow the Libertarian Party failed. ”

The full article can be found here:

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/tygrrrr-express/2012/jun/26/ron-paul-supporters-banned-gop-convention/

36 thoughts on “Washington Times: “Ban Ron Paul supporters from GOP Convention”

  1. Shawn Levasseur

    As an LP member, I dare them to try and “purge” RP delegates. It’d be the best thing to happen for the LP.

    However, I doubt the GOP leadership is THAT stupid. They may fail to court the RP supporters, but they’ll likely give it a try.

  2. Bill Wood

    I like what Gary Johnson said the other day about why try to change the Republican Party come join the Libertarian Party where it doesn’t need to be changed.

  3. Ayn R. Key

    Using the “socially liberal fiscally conservative” measure, we’re still socially liberal. We’re also and have always been anti-war. Trying to say we’ve changed from one to the other represents a misunderstanding on the part of the author.

  4. Mark Axinn

    Shawn @1.

    I agree. The anti-choice pro-war Republican Party would show its true colors if it banned RP supporters. Is it going to ban Dr. Paul as well?

    Much more likely is an appeasement olive branch which won’t amount to much of anything. Something like, RP can speak but not during prime time and when most of the delegates are busy doing something else.

  5. Gene Berkman

    I hope Mr Golub is right that Ron Paul supporters have no loyalty to the Republican Party, although it is probably more mixed than that.

    Of course they cannot ban the several hundred Ron Paul delegates who were chosen in primaries and conventions.

    Obviously the convention organizers will not give Ron Paul a speaking option since he won’t endorse Romney before the convention. But if Paul can claim a majority of delegates who are allowed to vote for him from 5 states, then his name can be placed in nomination, unless they change the rules.

    We can hope Mitt Romney comes out for banning Paul supporters from the GOP convention soon – this will give him time to flip flop on the issue by the time of the convention.

  6. bruuno

    So the only way to prevent it from turning into a debacle is to guarantee it turn into a debacle (by banning Paul supporters). This guy is a real genius.

  7. JohnJeremyVines

    If I were a betting man, I’d bet the GOP bans Ron Paul and his supporters from the convention by any means necessary. Look how they rammed Mittens through the primary process.
    For this and several other reasons, 2012 could be the Republicans’ biggest loss ever.

  8. Mike Kane

    Ha, This is hilarious. The times is suppose to be the alternative to the liberal washington post. I guess they are just this desperate because literally no one reads it here in DC. HAHAHA

  9. NewFederalist

    Gosh Batman are they really THAT stupid?

    Yes old chum, they probably are.

    Golly Batman what will the Ron Paul folks do then?

    Well Robin, they will probably do what they have always done… nothing of significance.

  10. RedPhillips

    “This is the Communities at WashingtonTimes.com. Individual contributors are responsible for their content, which is not edited by The Washington Times. The opinions of Communities writers do not necessarily reflect nor are they endorsed by the Washington Times.”

    This is important. Not only is the Republican Party not that dumb, neither is the Washington Times. While both might like to see Ron Paul and his forces fade silently into the night, neither is stupid enough to think this kind of confrontation would be beneficial.

  11. ralph

    This article meta-messages what they want the GOP and parties in general to be, not to mention re-writing history.

  12. onlooker

    Eric Golub rocks.

    This post has nothing to do with third parties. Give it a rest already with Wrong Paul.

  13. Steve M

    I had written a comment on the Washington Times… that suggested the author was either a Libertarian or a Democrat since he seemed to be in favor of a Mitt Romney loss. I see my comment has been deleted.

  14. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Does anyone read the Washington Times?

    I think Root’s been published in the Washington Times. Perhaps he also reads it.

  15. Thomas L. Knapp

    Just ran across an article saying that Paul’s Massachusetts delegates have been disqualified for refusing to sign affidavits swearing they will vote for Romney.

  16. paulie

    I don’t think it’s off topic. It mentions the LP.

    I’m all for construing the IPR topic fairly narrowly, but not too narrowly.

  17. JT

    Red: “This is important. Not only is the Republican Party not that dumb, neither is the Washington Times. While both might like to see Ron Paul and his forces fade silently into the night, neither is stupid enough to think this kind of confrontation would be beneficial.”

    I agree. Most polls show that Obama has a slight lead over Romney right now. Why the heck would Republican leadership want to ban Paul supporters & virtually assure that no Paul supporter will wind up voting for Romney? Let them in & feign some respect for them & at least a minority of Paul supporters may vote for Romney because they hate Obama more. Despite widespread opposition to Obamacare & liberal disillusionment with Obama’s social & foreign policies, Republican officials know that they need every vote they can get to win.

    On a side note, contrary to Golub, I think most Libertarians do agree on social issues as well. Some do only agree on the federal level, but I don’t know any who think the federal government should be legislating social/personal policies (unless you consider immigration a such a policy, and even then it’s only one issue).

  18. Thomas L. Knapp

    JT@23,

    “On a side note, contrary to Golub, I think most Libertarians do agree on social issues as well. Some do only agree on the federal level, but I don’t know any who think the federal government should be legislating social/personal policies (unless you consider immigration a such a policy, and even then it’s only one issue).”

    Well, I think that if there’s going to be a Constitution, all of the parties to that Constitution (i.e. the federal government and the governments of the several states) should be held to its terms.

    In some cases, that calls for one of the parties to check the others on violations of the compact; and in some cases, the party called upon to do so is the federal government versus violating states.

    I’m all for abolishing both the compact and the parties to said compact, but failing that, no reason not to hold them to its terms.

  19. JT

    I agree with the thrust of your post 24, Tom.

    But I think it’s misleading to say that “social issues aren’t agreed upon,” as Golub does. That implies that there’s a total mix of opinions among Libertarians. For the most part, there isn’t. Most Libertarians don’t believe that any governments should be involved with drugs, speech, sex (among consenting adult parties), torture, intrusion without a warrant, etc.

    A minority do think that the federal government should stay out of such things but that state governments shouldn’t. I disagree. But even here, it’s not as though those individuals think it’s okay to restrict such things whenever & wherever government officials want.

  20. mark hilgenberg

    The author is talking about (l)ibertsrians in the GOP, not the LP. He is right, many if not most of them will toss gay marriage, immigration and other social issues under the bus for more perks for corporations. They think liberty is only a financial concept.

  21. JT

    Mark, he wrote: “The original Libertarians were fiscally conservative and socially liberal. . . . The newer breed of Libertarians is slightly different. They are fiscally conservative and anti-war. Social issues are not agreed upon. . . .”

    Here, he’s talking about libertarians as a whole group (though he doesn’t seem to understand that uppercase L refers to Libertarian Party members while lowercase L refers to all libertarians). He’s just contrasting “older” libertarians to “newer” ones, claiming that older ones were “socially liberal” while newer ones are all over the place socially. My point was that’s not true of the majority of libertarians. Most of us pretty much on the same page in that regard in what we believe. Some of the majority favor a more incremental approach in practice & others a more immediate one.

    I don’t know any libertarians at all who want “more perks for corporations.”

  22. Gene Berkman

    As far as I can tell, the only social issue in dispute among libertarians is abortion.

    There might also be a minor dispute over “gay marriage” (or non-discriminatory marriage). When Neil Randall was in the Vermont legislature, he voted against a domestic partnership bill because he saw it as increasing regulation on business, not because he opposes gay people having relationships.

  23. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    He’s just contrasting “older” libertarians to “newer” ones, claiming that older ones were “socially liberal” while newer ones are all over the place socially.

    I don’t think that’s the article’s real intent.

    The article’s purpose is to inform the GOP rank & file that “socially liberal” is acceptable, but that antiwar is not.

    The purpose is to purge the GOP/conservative ranks of any and all antiwar types.

  24. Ad Hoc

    No, I doubt that.

    If Johnson, rather than Paul, gained traction in the Republiklan Party, Golub would most likely be just as miffed.

  25. Thomas L. Knapp

    Is immigration a “social issue” or an “economic issue?”

    I’d personally say it’s both, and it’s one that libertarians are divided on.

  26. Ad Hoc

    You can also say it’s both domestic and foreign policy.

    However, I think it is primarily a social issue having to do with “race” and culture.

  27. Steven R Linnabary

    As an LP member, I dare them to try and “purge” RP delegates. It’d be the best thing to happen for the LP.

    OTOH, the LP never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

    PEACE

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *