Perspectives on Reality

I was going to add this comment here, but I think it deserves front page treatment.

You guys really need some better perspective on reality. The convention and the voting process at the convention is absolutely a show. You may not want to be part of the show, but whether you participate in the Democratic delegating process or the Republican one, you are just complicit in a well orchestrated show. The only difference this year is that in the Democratic one, there could be a legitimate change — but that is a fluke of this year, not the overall process.

The actual process of choosing the nominee is done in primaries and caucuses. Enough have now been done to ensure McCain will be the nominee.

This whole idea of mounting an effort to take over local delegations so that people can cast votes for Ron Paul is part of fantasyland. It cannot happen.

It could happen back in the 50’s and 60’s. But the laws have been changed now.

There is really no point to these conventions any more. They just give the parties free air time and let the networks claim they’ve provided some level of political education to keep their FCC licenses. Participation in the process now is just a left over instrument of the days when these conventions and the process of delegates voting actually matter. You could scrap the whole convention process and still have your nominees now based on the way the delegates are allocated and required to vote according to how voters voted in the various congressional districts around the countries.

You who participate (and I will not be precisely because it is a road show with a pre-determined outcome and I have better uses of my time) are just puppets. Of course, your puppet masters are not the party leaders as some of you would prefer to imagine, but the voters who voted already in your primary. Your vote is bound to their choice for two rounds. Only after those rounds are the puppet master’s strings cut — but we won’t get that far this year in the Republican party. Only in the Democratic party does there appear to be even a hint of that.

13 comments

  1. Chris says:

    I’m told you’re bound. Period. You only become unbound _if_ the candidate you’re bound to officially drops out. That is why Romney, Rudy, Fred and Huckster have “suspended” their campaigns.

  2. IndyInjun says:

    “You who participate (and I will not be precisely because it is a road show with a pre-determined outcome and I have better uses of my time) are just puppets.”

    I don’t take issue with this narrow perspective as relates to county and state GOP conventions. I am not going for precisely this reason.

    If folks wish to take back the GOP, it will take concerted effort in every county, giving no quarter to those backing the status quo.

    Another way is to vote a Democratic ticket until the corrupt elements are gone.

  3. Erick says:

    Indy, that was my point all along — it’s not that there is some back room deal excluding people, it’s that this is all a well orchestrated PR stunt that is essentially meaningless due to the legal requirements to honor the votes cast in primaries and caucuses.

  4. ProfG says:

    You guys are funny. Especially you, Erick. It sounds like you’re doing everything you can to discourage anyone from supporting the GOP, ever. If I didn’t know the process better — and teach it at local colleges — I’d almost think you were right, and abandon politics myself.

    But you’re not right, so I’ll keep plugging away — and welcome into the party those who want to plug away with me.

  5. Erick says:

    ProfG — I’m not trying to discourage anyone from participating.

    What I am trying to do is point out that participation in this process goes on at the ballot box, where it rightfully should.

  6. Doug Deal says:

    Erick, it is a show if everything goes to plan, but what if McCain dies the eve of the convention? What if some scandal breaks that no one every imagined, and he drops out? Also, not all states are bound, like Georgia, so if he was whacked by the scandal bug, people in unbound states could go to someone else, and even in Georgia, I would love to see the state try to intervene in a faithless elector, it would be stricken by the Supremes so fast as to be ridiculous.

    Thinking everything will come out the same every year is how Florida 2000 caught people by surprise. Or how Democrats just suddenly realize how flawed their delegate selection process is. Or how Georgia realized last year how poorly written the Constitution was in regard to vetoes.

  7. ProfG says:

    Erick – participation at the ballot box is where it starts, not where itends, as you seem to be saying. I could be misinterpreting you, of course.

  8. Bill Simon says:

    “well-orchestrated”

    Erick, tell me, WHO is the one brilliant conductor who is able to “orchestrate” all these meetings tomorrow so that they all work in harmony?

    You’re bright, but you’re taking just a little too much liberty with your presumptions of what is “orchestrated” and what is not.

  9. IndyInjun says:

    Hahaha….Erick is still steamed that Ron Paul outlasted ‘Fred’ as I predicted and that Dr. Paul lead the entire GOP field in fund-raising until McCain’s lock on the nomination.

    We realists on the Paul side know he had no realistic chance, except to gain acceptance for some long-forgotten tenets of conservatism.

    His views on the Fed have gained wide acceptance in both parties, the business press, and among the people as the financial disaster of which he warned threatens us all.

    Lately he has been on CNBC quite often, as the financial meltdown accelerates.

    The rest of the GOP would bankrupt a hot dog stand.

  10. BubbaRich says:

    IndyInjun:

    The title of this thread does not seem to apply to your post, or Ron Paul.

    Does abolishing the Federal Reserve really have wide acceptance in both parties? It’s funny to see the Randian Greenspan seem to be MUCH saner than Ron Paul and the von Mises Institute. I assume Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul have their own reserves, and don’t dirty their hands with this nasty fiat money.

  11. IndyInjun says:

    Bubba,

    Ron Paul did an utterly miserable job with the $25 million in fiat we raised for him.

    His campaign and its ads sucked.

    That is reality.

    There is a growing dissatisfaction in finance and in Congress with the Fed.

    It will grow as the tortuous pain of the people grows.

  12. BubbaRich says:

    I don’t think “tortuous” is what you mean to say.

    You’re confusing me with this talk of “the business press” and “finance” being dissatisfied with the Federal Reserve, since one of the things that Ron Paul has complained about it is that it serves the interests of the business and finance communities at the expense of regular citizens. Congress and the President have substantial control over the system. Ron Paul has introduced legislation every year to dissolve it, and yet has not even had any hearings on the issue. That does not indicate to me that his ideas have “wide acceptance” among both parties.

    Do you have any concrete signs of this “wide acceptance” among both parties in congress? Do you have any reason why Congress itself has not exerted its influence over the Board of Governors, and especially why the President (who is also a member of one of the two parties) has not nominated governors to the board who will do things “the right way,” whatever it is you want? Or is it that you have no more complex ideas than Ron Paul, and want to dissolve the Federal Reserve system, and go to a gold standard? I had a von Mises Institute professor at Auburn in Macroeconomics, and he never even suggested such a thing in class. Why don’t most economists favor such an idea?

  13. IndyInjun says:

    Bubba,

    You assume that I am pushing the gold standard, when I have never said that. Dr. Paul even backed off a total gold standard.

    What we have now is sheer lunacy with money supply and the attendant debt doubling under one POTUS and threatening to turn vertical due to the bailouts, which will end up in the $trillions.

    There simply must be constraints to the creation of money and debt by the US government. The soundness of the money depends upon it.

    Whether the limits are effected by a more likely silver standard or by other means is not material to me, just that the Fed/Treasury cannot madly create money and debt with no limits.

Comments are closed.