They Didn’t Start the Revolution Without Him
While most eyes were fixed on St. Paul and the McCain-Palin festival, a not very quiet throng of Ron Paul supporting Republicans, Libertarians and independents of similar bent gathered across the river in Minneapolis for the Ron Paul convention. A sold out house awaited the diminutive Texas Republican, where more than ten thousand tickets were sold in advance for $17.76 and another thousand were issued at the door.
“Freedom brings people together,” Paul said before a sold-out crowd at Tuesday’s Rally for the Republic.
Paul, who said he entered the presidential race reluctantly, told the roaring audience, “I lost my skepticism. I hope you lost your apathy.”
“I did not want to run people’s lives. I did not want to run the economy and I did not want to run the world. I didn’t have the authority to do it, and I didn’t have the Constitution behind me to do it,” said Paul, who has served in the House of Representatives for more than 30 years.
The crowd, predictably, went wild during a prolonged standing ovation as red, white and blue tickertape fell down from the ceiling. They were apparently equally charged up when Jesse Ventura showed up and gave a similar speech. The theme was a common one for Libertarians. The two party system has abandoned any pretense of wanting to shrink the size of the Federal Government and get spending under control. “Stay out of our wallets, out of our bedrooms, and end this military adventurism around the globe.”
As it turns out, Ron Paul had a choice to make last night. He could have chosen to attend the GOP convention with the rest of his party. It seems, however, he didn’t care for the conditions which the RNC wanted to place on a seated member of their congressional delegation to even get in the door.
Earlier Tuesday, Paul said he was told he could go to the Republican convention floor, but only under very restricted conditions.
The Republican National Committee told Paul he would have to pick up his pass at the gate and couldn’t have any guests.
“Republican congressmen should have a pass to the floor, but they said, ‘Your pass will be at the gate, and we’ll pick it up when you leave, and you can’t take anybody with you,’ ” he said on CNN’s “American Morning.”
There’s an interesting side story for the convention you probably won’t read about anywhere else.
There is one question left unasked for me, though. Ron Paul is no longer running for president. Jesse Ventura isn’t either. But the themes they hit on which so charged the crowd should sound familiar to any enthusiasts paying attention. Why didn’t they take advantage of this huge event to have Bob Barr speak? Certainly he is the closest person left standing who is actually on the ballot across most of the nation who seeks they same goals “the revolution” is looking to put in place.
Photo by Jeremy Freeman of CNN
email the author: jazzshaw@gmail.com
10 Responses to “They Didn’t Start the Revolution Without Him”
The problem that the libertarians have is the same as the Repubicans and the Greens. They just do not appeal to non-whites. As different political parties and ideas compete for the white voters, the non-white voters keep voting overwhelmingly for the Democratic party. And since those groups are growing faster than the white population, no other party will be able to remain relevant versud the identify politicis of the Democratic Party.
I think the main problem with the Libertarian movement is that people in general feel that, while they do not necessarily like the two-party political system, America is entrenched in it. I think most Americans would be open to a new third party candidate or platform — particularly one that has the message of individual liberty and small government — but would never vote for it because they feel like they would be wasting their vote (a la Perot, Nader, et al)
And therein lies the problem with running as a third-party candidate. Unless someone comes along and TRULY challenges the status quo AND inspires Americans, we're stuck in the two-party system indefinitely.
http://thepajamapundit.com/
P.P. Juding by how the Republican cannot appeal to non whites, cannot recruit candidates, has abandon several states, and cannot fund raise, can you really believe that the U.S. will remain a two party state? Every demographic trends is against the Republicans remaining relevant to politics.
Instead of thinking about a thrid party, why not think about how the U.S. will function as a one party state?
Or, even were your supposition correct (not saying that it is or it isn't) it still might not close the door on a *different* two party system, eh? Would the collapse of either of the current two dominant parties open the door for a current “outside” party to grow into the gap?
Jazz,
then question is always will non-white voters ever give any party that is not the Democratic party a chance.
Present day elections for the Democratic party about about white swing voters and turning out non-white voters. Can any political party exist with only white voters. I believe that the current Repubican party demonstrates that no, it cannot.
Also, when the Repubican party finally collapses, a new party, to be relevant, will have to try to compete in all 50 states. If that task if to hard for the Established Repubican Party, do you really think that the libertarian or the green party will be able to find candidates in all 50 states or will they not bother to compete in minority-majority district just like the current Repubicans do not bother to compete.
The current social conservative would probably have nore influence on policy if they would turn out and vote in the Democratic Primary instead of taking over the collapsing Republican Party.
There’s an interesting side story for the convention you probably won’t read about anywhere else.
Here's a video clip of Paul discussing on CNN the conditions imposed upon him by the RNC.
Here's a comment I posted on another thread. I hate to do re-runs, but I think it's reasonably applicable, given the previous comments.
It used to be that Republicans were the party black people voted for–the party of Lincoln. The key marker for that change was the passage of the voting rights act of 1964. Democrats became the party of civil rights. Republicans became the party of white anxiety and resentment.
I suppose this is no longer 100% true. But it remains true enough in the absence of any significant outreach by Republicans.
People vote in favor of what they perceive to be their own interest. In the aggregate, 90% (I don't know if this figure is accurate, but I imagine it's close) of black individuals perceive the Democrats as the best choice.
Some might think this presents an opportunity for Republicans to peel away some percentage of black voters. In a closely divided electorate, there is probably some advantage to doing this. I think it would necessarily have to be a long (or medium) term project.
But I imagine there are also short term disadvantages. One would be risking the loss of anxious and resentful white voters.
There is a culture-wide status quo as far as race goes. I think it's an open question as to which side truly benefits.
GeorgeSorwell,
Most blacks were voting for Democrats well before 1964. The lived in areas where there were no viable candidates such as the South or in northern urban cities. Blacks have not been republican voters since Reconstracution. As the Voting Rights Act did not had the south to the Republicans. Jimmy Carter won most of the south by large margins in 1976. What lost the south were things that the Democrats did not really need to do such as forced busing, quotas, and set asides.
Superdestroyer–
It's true there was a growing tendency of blacks to vote for Democrats before 1964. That's because Democrats had been tending toward becoming the party of civil rights before then. I might have mentioned Harry Truman's order to desegregate the military. Or the walkout of the Dixiecrats in 1948.
You mentioned Jimmy Carter in 1976. Fair enough, that happened. But at the elections of 1968 and 1972. Then go back to 1964. Look at the differences between 1960 and 1956.
Then compare all that to the election of 1928, when an apparently unelectable Catholic still managed to carry the deep South.
That's what I mean when I call it a long (or medium) term project.
You're also illustrating, I think it fair to say, what I mean by short term risks.
[...] although he didn’t speak for reasons that neither I nor Jazz Shaw can figure out, Bob Barr was at the Target Center talking to Paul supporters: ABC News’ Nitya [...]