Carter finally makes his mind up.

After prevaricating about the bush for weeks, everyone’s favorite former President announced he will endorse Obama after the polls close tonight.

Carter told The Associated Press on Tuesday: “The fact is the Obama people already know they have my vote when the polls close tonight.” Carter spoke to the AP after addressing the Georgia World Congress Center.

Carter, a superdelegate, has remained officially neutral in the race but has offered high praise to Obama. Carter has noted that his children, grandchildren and their spouses back the Illinois senator.

175 comments

  1. Ms_midtown says:

    A cool rule change would be superdelegates from each state must commit on the same day delegates are selected for the national convention.
    A least a newspaper endorses before and election. The superdelegates have acted like fans waiting for the quarterback to start taking a knee, then getting up to cheer a victory.

  2. Ms_midtown says:

    A cool rule change would be superdelegates from each state must commit on the same day delegates are selected for the national convention.
    A least a newspaper endorses before an election. The superdelegates have acted like fans waiting for the quarterback to start taking a knee, then getting up to cheer a victory.

  3. ACConservative says:

    I takes a horrible president to recognize a guy who would be a horrible president.

  4. StevePerkins says:

    A cool rule change would be superdelegates from each state must commit on the same day delegates are selected for the national convention.

    A cooler rule change would be not having over 1/3 of the votes needed for a nomination come from people who aren’t selected by the primary/caucus process… while simultaneously whining about how the Republicans are undemocratic and disenfranchise people.

  5. moocher says:

    Steve-

    You took the words out of my mouth. If you change the rules, at some don’t you eliminate the need for the whole undemocratic, elitist super delegate concept.

  6. Bill Greene says:

    Interestingly, if the Dems’ method of delegate distribution in the primary/caucus system was the same as the GOP’s, Hillary would have sewn this up already.

    And if the GOP’s was the same as the Dems’, Huckabee would have sewn it up.

    And if the Republican Party’s state leadership didn’t break laws and ignore their own rules at state convention after state convention and shut out 40% of their own delegates — overwhelmingly young, new and energetic conservatives — they wouldn’t be facing the prospect of aging and declining numbers in their ranks while the Dems are reinvigorated with young, new and energetic liberals.

    Welcome to the new GOP.

  7. Bill Simon says:

    “And if the Republican Party’s state leadership didn’t break laws and ignore their own rules at state convention after state convention and shut out 40% of their own delegates ”

    BY ALL MEANS, Mr. Greene, please elaborate on all that you claim…and, cite the law that was broken, please.

  8. Bill Greene says:

    Sure, BS.

    According to the GA GAP’s own waiver form, “The Georgia Republican Party’s convention process is a legal voting activity defined by
    Georgia Election Law and governed by the Rules of the Georgia Republican Party. As a
    voting activity, no poll tax may be charged, however, registration fees may be charged to
    cover meeting cost. Anyone wishing to participate and is unwilling or unable to pay the
    registration fee may sign a petition for waiver of the fee.”

    There were a couple dozen delegates and alternates who “wished to participate” but were “unwilling or unable to pay the registration fee” at the state convention. There were forced to appear before the Credentials Committee, which grilled every one of them about their income, their homes, their spouse’s income, their cars, and more… and then every single one of them was denied.

    I’m sure this won’t be enough for you, BS, and you’ll gnaw on it like an old boner until I give you every bit of information to show you exactly what I’m talking about… and then you’ll ignore it all and call me a @#$! or %&*$ or @!$% or something along those lines.

  9. moocher says:

    “And if the GOP’s was the same as the Dems’, Huckabee would have sewn it up.”

    I’d love to hear this theory.

  10. moocher says:

    “shut out 40% of their own delegates”

    “There were a couple dozen delegates and alternates who “wished to participate” ”

    So are you saying that 24 folks, who were allegedly shut out of the convention, represented 40% of the delegates?

  11. Bill Simon says:

    No “poll tax” was charged, BG. Thus, you’re wrong to classify it as such.

    BY THE WAY, you may have to spend some of your own money in Minneapolis. Gonna bitch and moan about that too?

  12. Romegaguy says:

    I thank God every morning that Phuckabee is not the nominee. I pray that McCain doesnt choose him as a running mate.

  13. StevePerkins says:

    I have to disagree with Bill Greene on both counts. If the Dems had a winner-take-all system, Barack would have put Hillary out much sooner and gone into the general election cycle stronger… Hillary didn’t start putting together consistent wins until the second half of the ballgame. Meanwhile, there is no calculus whatsoever by which Huckabee could have won on the GOP side.

  14. drjay says:

    yeah the trying to not pay the registration fee thing is horribly lame–we are by no means wealthy but we come up w/ the registration fees for the various activities we participate in–i find it just as lame as the folks in augusta a couple of years ago making “pauper declarations” to get on the ballot for mayor w/out paying the qualifying fee for that either…i suppose unable to pay is one thing but “unwilling” to pay as far as i’m concerned you have just as much right to NOT participate as you do to…

  15. drjay says:

    if the gop had been proporional in a lot of cases i think huck did rack up a lot of 2nd place showings and pretty close ones like sc where he an mccain were about tied–the altered delegate counts could have altered the dynamic of the race–the dem side ws pretty 50/50 i’d have to look at the numbers–but on the day he won a bunch of small states she won cali and ny–winner take all could have changed the delegate counts there as well…heck in texas she got more votes but somehow got less delegates???

  16. Bill Simon says:

    Steve,

    Nonsense. Huckabee won the infamous Iowa Caucus. That caucus has been defined to be THE caucus to win if you ever want to be a presidental nominee.

    Don’t you believe in the historical statistics consistently yapped about by the ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/FAUX jerk-offs?

  17. jsm says:

    Honestly, Dr. Greene, your complaint sounds much like the emotional cries of the left for handouts to the “poor.” I can’t imagine that, if a person wants to attend the convention as a delegate and happens to be short on cash, he couldn’t find a friend within his local party that might sponsor him for the fee.

    Were you willing to help pay for some of these indigent delegate candidates? That’s what we ought to be about as Republicans–helping folks out of our own pockets instead of expecting the system to do it for us.

  18. drjay says:

    the iowa winner is just as often not the nominee as he is the nominee–think bob dole in 88, gephardt in 88, hw bush in 80, heck technically noone won in 72 and 76 for the dems–but muskie was the 1st actual candidate in 72–historically nh has been a better indicator as i recall

  19. Bill Greene says:

    jsm, I *did* pay for them — because I recognized that the law was being violated, but it would be too late to do anything about it after the doors shut at 10am.

    And a number of you folks seem to have the wrong impression here. It’s not a matter of “should they have tried to use the waivers” — it’s a matter of state law saying that they could use them, and state law being violated.

    This is a nation of laws, if nothing else. Our elected representatives put that law in there. If we don’t like the law, fine, get them to change it, or elect new representatives. But meanwhile, unless the law is a violation of a fundamental conviction of yours and you’re willing to “do the fine/time” by violating it… then OBEY the law, fer cryin’ out loud.

    That’s what upset me the most: a deliberate and flagrant violation of the law.

  20. StevePerkins says:

    Oh please. Iowa and New Hampshire work in tandem… you need to win one or the other, but a MAJORITY of nominees in recent cycles have failed to win both. This year, everyone knew the Iowa caucus was a contest between Romney and Huckabee (and maybe Fred!). It lost a lot of its shine because Rudy (still considered the front-runner at the time) sat out altogether, and McCain had enough intelligence to tell the ethanol farmers to go stuff themselves.

  21. Bill Greene says:

    “shut out 40% of their own delegates”

    “There were a couple dozen delegates and alternates who “wished to participate” ”

    So are you saying that 24 folks, who were allegedly shut out of the convention, represented 40% of the delegates?

    Please re-read the statement. I clearly said I was talking about delegates at more than just the GA convention being shut out of being heard or represented. And the issue of the delegates being denied their waivers in GA was just a small part of the larger issue.

    Nitpick all you want, the facts of the statement still stand: the GOP is facing the prospect of aging and declining numbers in their ranks while the Dems are reinvigorated with young, new and energetic liberals, and if the GOP leaders don’t wake up and welcome the new conservatives into the party (or else die off or get replaced), then the GOP can look forward to years of obscurity. That is not something I would relish for my party.

  22. Bill Greene says:

    B.S., I’m not the one who classified it as a “poll tax” — if you would bother to read what I posted, it’s GEORGIA LAW that classifies it as such, and PARTY RULES that spell it out as such. Please learn to pay attention here.

  23. Bill Greene says:

    drjay – it’s fine to disagree with the “unwilling” aspect of the law, but let’s be clear here: it IS the law, and should not be violated.

  24. Bill G,

    If Ron Paul supporters could raise $20 million in a day, surely they could raise the money to go to the State GOP Convention.

    And another thing: If these guys couldn’t afford to attend the State GOP Convention, how the heck were they going to afford to go the National Convention?

    You’re starting to sound like the conspiracy nuts my friend.

  25. drjay says:

    “Oh please. Iowa and New Hampshire work in tandem… you need to win one or the other, but a MAJORITY of nominees in recent cycles have failed to win both.”

    that’s a pretty fair assessment for years when there was a contested primary season…

  26. drjay says:

    thankfully i am not a lawyer so i assume there are more ins and outs to enforcing the law in question-for instance-i am on the selective service local board and should the draft ever get ramped back up we don’t just take every “conscientious objector” at their word…

  27. Bill Simon says:

    Bill G.

    The law still covers being able to charge for a registraton fee. And, that is what the charge was for.

    BUT…If this is the way the rule is stated (and has no pre-text referring to Party Rules), I will grant you that it is not well-worded.

    Because, to me, it LOOKS like it would be conceivable for ANYONE (voter, non-voter, Republican, Democrat, Communist, etc.) who “wishes to participate” can just sign a waiver and stroll right in to the convention, regardless of having the credentials of being a delegate or alternate.

  28. Bill Simon says:

    Bill G, Part 2

    Do you wish to keep this position you stated above as 100% accurate: “There were forced to appear before the Credentials Committee, which grilled every one of them about their income, their homes, their spouse’s income, their cars, and more… and then every single one of them was denied.

    Every single one of them was denied? No one was allowed into the convention with pauper status?

  29. drjay says:

    i don’t know what happened in credentials so i can’t speak to it to any compentent degree–but i do remember people saying they did not want to pay b/c the did not want to “give any money to mccain” well 2 things about that 1) if you do not want to support the presumptive nominee in as indirect way as paying to attend a state convention then i am not scandalized by your not being seated–2) i am curious what the party “cleared” after the expenses related to the convention were paid to see if any money “was given to mccain” out of what were ostensibly fees to pay for the convention to begin w/…

  30. Chris says:

    Anyone wishing to participate and is unwilling or unable to pay the registration fee may sign a petition for waiver of the fee.”

    A petition is a request, not an automatic gaurantee. I can petition the government for a regress of greivences, that doesn’t mean I’m entitled to a regress.

    I don’t think it is at all out of line for the state party to deny petitions from those who could afford to attend or to those who what to consider themselves republicans but won’t even support the party in such a basic manner as to cover the cost of the convention.

  31. Bill Greene says:

    Buzz,

    How exactly is it that you know that it was these specific people that contributed $20 million dollars? I know these specific people, and while they were willing to hold signs in the sleet and make hundreds of phone calls for their Republican candidate, many of them were, in fact, *unable* to pay the poll tax convention fee, and traveled a long way with rides, crowded into motel rooms, etc.

    And others were, indeed, *unwilling* to pay (as GA law and GA GOP rules allow) because they were not supporters of John McCain, and did not want to see their hard-earned money funneled into his campaign by the state party.

    And Buzz, what makes you think that the delegates and alternates to the STATE convention who attempted to use waivers were running to go to the NATIONAL convention? In fact, they weren’t.

    Use logic, and get your fact straight, buddy. You’re starting to sound like the publik skool kidds my friend.

  32. Bill Greene says:

    B.S., Part 1

    It is most likely worded that way so the Justice Department doesn’t come down on their heads, as they’ve been prone to do in the past.

    And this law and its subsequent rules must be taken together with others, which make it clear that you have to go through “the process” to become a delegate or alternate to the state convention (by the way, part of that “process” also allows for waivers to be used at county and district conventions). No one can just “stroll in,” as you surely know.

  33. Bill Greene says:

    B.S., Part 2

    Please stop skimming my posts and actually read them, Bill. I very clearly and specifically said that I was talking about these “couple dozen delegates” here. Your leap to “No one was allowed into the convention with pauper status” is YOUR leap, not mine. I doubt anyone was admitted using the waiver — but I know none of these specific people were.

    Do I have to keep schooling you like this, Bill? Jeepers.

  34. drjay says:

    “And others were, indeed, *unwilling* to pay (as GA law and GA GOP rules allow) because they were not supporters of John McCain, and did not want to see their hard-earned money funneled into his campaign by the state party.”

    that’s why i would be curious to know the actual cost of putting on the convention b/c if the money collected was actually used to hold the convention that is a moot point and that “unwillingness” would then be invalid–there has to be some arbiter of unwillingness or every delegate could claim unwillingness and the party would be helpless to stop them

  35. Bill Greene says:

    drjay, what I find almost laughable is that none of these people would have attended without the waivers (or if their fee had not been paid by others at the last minute), so allowing them admittance via waiver would not have harmed the GA GOP in any way — they wouldn’t have gotten their money either way. So the party decided to break the law and their rules for no good reason (except to “punish” supporters of a Republican candidate who had the audacity to stay in the race when everyone told him he needed to go home).

  36. Bill Greene says:

    drjay, every delegate CAN claim unwillingness, and the party WOULD be helpless to stop them. That’s the law, and that’s the party rule. Don’t like it? Change it. But obey it until then.

  37. drjay says:

    “what I find almost laughable is that none of these people would have attended without the waivers”

    b/c they COULDN’T pay–or b/c they WOULDN’T pay–i still feel this is an important distinction–i get the college kid w/out the 60 bucks or the widow on a fixed income, the disabled vet, etc…but some middle class regular guy not paying b/c they don’t like the nominee–i’m not sure its breaking any law to determine if they really are “unwilling” or are actually someone less than that, like i said i’m on a local selective service board–and “i don’t wanna” will not keep you off the bus if the balloon ever does go up agian…

  38. Bill Greene says:

    thankfully i am not a lawyer so i assume there are more ins and outs to enforcing the law in question-for instance-i am on the selective service local board and should the draft ever get ramped back up we don’t just take every “conscientious objector” at their word…

    I’m pretty sure the law doesn’t allow for someone being “unwilling” to get drafted, drjay. 🙂

  39. drjay says:

    agian thankfully i’m not a lawyer–but i would be shocked if the language of the law–or perhaps even absence of language in the law does not allow for some leeway to be given to approve or deny such requests–which appears to be what was done in columbus

  40. drjay says:

    well actually–being a 1-O would be essentially the same thing–the true “coscientious objector” and one of the stipulations is being opposed to all war for whatever religious, moral or philosophical reasons–and not just opposed to the specific war at hand–so oddly enough there is some paralell to the discussion about columbus…

  41. Bill Greene says:

    Let me clarify that: it doesn’t allow for someone “unwilling” to get drafted without proof. The law DOES allow for someone “unwilling” to not have to pay the convention fee, without any other reason or “proof.”

  42. drjay says:

    the paralell here would i suppose be somone who says “i should not have to pay to participate in the political process, there is no way i would give money for the privilege to go to a convention…” as opposed to “i hate the nominee, i’m not giving money if its going o his campaign” which actually implies a “willingness” to spend money in a different circumstance–i think, maybe, i am really enjoying this discussion btw…

  43. Bill Greene says:

    I don’t think it is at all out of line for the state party to deny petitions from those who could afford to attend or to those who what to consider themselves republicans but won’t even support the party in such a basic manner as to cover the cost of the convention.

    So Chris, what is the purpose for having the waiver at all, then? You have just nullified it altogether. Kinda silly, dontcha think?

  44. Icarus says:

    Is no one going to refer to Carter as “History’s Greatest Monster”? I think that it is required by Peach Pundit’s bylaws…

  45. BJ Van Gundy says:

    Bill Greene,

    Regardless of your ignorance of what actually occurred in the credentials committee meeting the fact is that Chris Farris has hit the nail on the head.

    Here is the dictionary definition of the word petition (it’s a wacky idea but you could have looked it up yourself and then not have made such a fool of yourself in this entire argument):

    Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) – Cite This Source – Share This
    pe·ti·tion Audio Help /pəˈtɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[puh-tish-uhn] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
    –noun 1. a formally drawn request, often bearing the names of a number of those making the request, that is addressed to a person or group of persons in authority or power, soliciting some favor, right, mercy, or other benefit: a petition for clemency; a petition for the repeal of an unfair law.
    2. a request made for something desired, esp. a respectful or humble request, as to a superior or to one of those in authority; a supplication or prayer: a petition for aid; a petition to God for courage and strength.
    3. something that is sought by request or entreaty: to receive one’s full petition.
    4. Law. an application for a court order or for some judicial action.
    –verb (used with object) 5. to beg for or request (something).
    6. to address a formal petition to (a sovereign, a legislative body, etc.): He received everything for which he had petitioned the king.
    7. to ask by petition for (something).
    –verb (used without object) 8. to present a petition.
    9. to address or present a formal petition.
    10. to request or solicit, as by a petition: to petition for redress of grievances.

    NOTE THE KEY WORDS:
    beg, request, solicit, application, ask, favor, mercy

    At no point in the entire definition does it state that a petition is somehow an automatic awarding of that which is asked for.

    Greene, you need to take a chill pill on your black helicopter crap and your attacks on the GOP. It’s getting old already and I’ve just only barely been paying attention to you, something I don’t intend to do much more of as it is quite tedious.

    Now, having put the issue of the PETITIONS to bed and demonstrated that your obviously ignorant view of the law is just that, I will shed a bit of light on what DID occur in the credentials committee, of which I was the chairman so I think I have a fairly good idea.

    12 individuals came before the committee. NOT 24. 4 of them were granted their requests — note… that is 33% of them. No really calculate it. Then again, given your 40% math above I guess the 4 out of 12 that were granted it might be something like only 1% or maybe it is 500%…. let me know.

    Anyway, 4 out of 12 were granted because they were able to justify it. I will NOT discuss details of those that were granted vs. those that weren’t granted so don’t even start that discussion.

    I would also add that those that came in from your little group of friends from the lunatic fringe also were not there simply to participate in the convention. Besides the fact that the majority of them had no idea why they were there and had never attended anything else within the Party except for the previous convention events…it also became quite obvious that their intentions were simply aimed at disrupting the convention and the convention process.

    I had to actually have police officers come into the committee to have one of your friends removed. When he went running out of the room, the majority of the rest of the crowd outside that were waiting in line to request a welfare style waiver of their fees simply left.

    The incredible thing to me in all of this is your desire to depend on the Marxist philosophy of “from each according to his ability, to each according to their need(s).” Or maybe in this case not even needs…. wants… which to me is even more sinister than Marx’s original philosophy.

    Maybe that is what all of us should be most wary of in all of this.

    Your REAL motivations in trying to bring all of these people into the convention will be addressed in another post… shortly…

    People need to know what you are really all about…. i.e. the lining of your pockets with OPM.

    Bring it on!

  46. A Typical White Person says:

    I want to see more of the ultimate fighting match of Bill Greene vs. Bill Simon.

  47. Bill Greene says:

    B.J. van Grumpy, I considered not responding to you idiotic tirade, but I guess I have no choice. You’ve put your fallacious — and childish — accusations out there for all the world to see, so they can’t go unanswered.

    Let’s start at the beginning.

    Yes, that’s a lovely definition of the word “petition.” Now let’s look at the RULES, based on the LAW, which you and your RINO buddies are so quick to either IGNORE or ABUSE so that you can retain your petty power plays.

    The RULES, based on the LAW, state: “The Georgia Republican Party’s convention process is a legal voting activity defined by Georgia Election Law and governed by the Rules of the Georgia Republican Party. As a voting activity, no poll tax may be charged, however, registration fees may be charged to cover meeting cost. Anyone wishing to participate and is unwilling or unable to pay the registration fee may sign a petition for waiver of the fee.”

    NOTE THE KEY WORDS: “UNWILLING OR UNABLE to pay.” You and your little buddies IGNORED that part — especially the UNWILLING part — and focused on the definition of “petition” instead (as you just showed). Maybe you should consult some OTHER lawyer friends besides Randy Evans — like maybe a Republican who BELIEVES in the rule of law and the validity of rules — and ask THEM if it’s okay to focus on “petition” and IGNORE “UNWILLING or UNABLE”.

    If someone was “UNWILLING” to pay, you do NOT have a “right” to simply deny him or her based on his or her “ability” to pay. ALL he has to do is say, “I’m unwilling to pay,” and if you deny his request, guess what? Your own rules have just declared you GUILTY of imposing a POLL TAX. Now, you might not think it’s one, and I might not think it’s one, but the LAW of the State of Georgia and the RULES of the Georgia Republican Party make it quite clear that it CAN BE VIEWED as one. And you’re traversing some very thin ice there, Mr. Moustachio. Very thin.

    Yes, everyone knows that you were the chairman of that committee; it’s something you’ve been very proud to let everyone know about, because it’s such a grand and powerful position to be appointed to. And I’ve heard directly from people inside your little circle of “friends” (didn’t think THAT would happen, did you?) about all of the orders from on high, that NOT ONE PERSON who was identified as a “Ron Paul supporter” was to be granted a waiver, NO MATTER WHAT. (What a joke that they thought taking the link off of the GA GOP website would stop people from trying to do what the LAW and the RULES allowed!) We’re not talking straw men like your “black helicopter” crap here, baldy. What happened in that committee room was pre-planned and pre-determined, and your publik-ejicashun math skills notwithstanding, I personally saw to it that the remaining dozen-to-dozen-and-a-half people standing in line in the hallway at 9:45 a.m. LEFT your travesty of a committee “meeting” — NOT because you called in Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane to “handle” someone who was actually willing to call a spade a spade to your face — and came into the registration room before they had those doors slammed in their faces, too. At that point, for those who really WERE unable to pay — despite your IRS/Gestapo Inquisition that declared people without jobs and cars “able to pay” — I made sure that their way WAS paid, so they COULD participate in the democratic process of their party, in spite of their party’s leaders doing everything they could to DENY them that opportunity.

    And it’s real nice that you can rattle on about who was unable to “justify it,” but then hide behind your little lace curtain of “not discussing details” so we don’t find out what REALLY went on in there. (I already KNOW what went on in there, because at least 8 people gave identical reports about it.) But hey, let’s not “start that discussion,” right?

    You are a fine one to talk about “attacks on the GOP,” B.J. (if that IS your real name) — your entire political “career” the last few years has consisted of attacking every truly conservative, constitutionalist Republican you could in Gwinnett County and beyond, all for the sake of advancing you and your ilk’s own political fortunes. I have been active in the GOP for twenty years, and have used both running for office and leading national PACs to stand up for TRUE conservative values, even when I’ve had to oppose so-called “Republicans” who carried that mantle in name only. You, on the other hand, have been more than willing to Drink The Kool-Aid (TM) and kiss up to every liberal “Republican” necessary so you could claw your way up the political ladder. No doubt now you’re just waiting for John Linder to retire so you can grasp for that title as well, eh?

    You obviously know nothing about the intentions of the 20-25% of state convention delegates — who you disparage as a “lunatic fringe” — and why they were there. The vast majority of these couple of hundred people had voted Republican for years, but had never been interested in actually getting involved in the political process itself until this election. But this time, they DID get involved, holding signs, making phone calls, going to rallies, running for party positions, and trying to effect change in their party, to bring it back to its conservative roots, and maybe turn this country around again. These are the people you belittle by claiming that “the majority of them had no idea why they were there and had never attended anything else within the Party except for the previous convention events.” Like I said, you obviously know NOTHING about why they were there (despite your protestations that it was just to “disrupt” the set-in-stone plans of you and your little friends); and to say that they were somehow worthy of less respect just because they had not attended conventions before… well, you should be ASHAMED of yourself, you pompous donkey.

    It’s people like YOU, B.J. van Gundy, who are going to KILL the Republican Party if you aren’t stopped, or if you don’t change your ways. The Democrat Party is being inundated with fresh, young, never-before-active left-wingers, who are incredibly excited by a single candidate to get involved and make their voice heard in a political process that they never thought cared about what they had to say before. The GOP, on the other hand, is graying and shrinking (just compare primary turnout across the country this year, and take a look at the make-up of McCain’s “rallies”); but when fresh, young, never-before-active staunch conservatives, who are incredibly excited by a single candidate to get involved and make their voice heard in a political process that they never thought cared about what they had to say before, come into the GOP by the hundreds of thousands, what do you and YOUR compadres do? You do everything in your power to marginalize, ostracize, and demonize both them and their candidate, letting them know in no uncertain terms that they aren’t welcome in “our” party, because “our” party doesn’t want to hear about Constitutional, limited government any more — we’re too busy kissing the butts of liberal “Republicans” who push amnesty for illegal aliens, “solutions” to a non-existent “global warming” that will bankrupt our economy, unconstitutional restrictions on political free speech during elections, gay marriage “if there’s a ceremony kind of thing,” the killing of the unborn if it’s for “legitimate scientific research,” ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

    That “lunatic fringe” you are so quick to disparage never had any intention to “disrupt” the convention and the convention “process” — unless (as is apparent) your definition of “disrupt” is to insist on actually adhering to Robert’s Rules Of Order, GA GOP rules, and GA law, in both the letter AND the spirit. RROR was designed to protect the rights of the minority at formal meetings, NOT to enforce the will of the majority down the throats of the minority just because they disagree with the minority. I know for a fact that the national GOP told Sue Everhart, Randy Evans and the rest of the 2DeadCrew that they did NOT want the rules changed at the state convention, but our glorious leaders decided they knew best and changed them on Friday afternoon anyway (without bothering with those pesky little “quorum” things, etc.).

    Again, don’t think I don’t know everthing you and your cronies — and your masters — are trying to do, including trying to find any excuse you can to remove me from the Georgia delegation to the Republican National Convention. Not because I’m going to fulfill some black-helicopter nightmare of YOURS by “disrupting” the convention — I’ve made it clear over and over again, that I will OBEY THE LAW (unlike SOME people) and vote in the presidential nominating process EXACTLY the way I was elected to vote, and to fulfill EVERY duty a delegate ought to fulfill — but because I’m willing to say, “The emperor has no clothes, and our GOP leaders have no conservative principles.” I have been that way for a long, long time, B.J. — anyone who knows me or the work I’ve done for years knows that I am a Christian first, a conservative second, and a Republican third. But I AM a Republican, regardless of your minions’ whisper campaigns against me (do you think I don’t hear all about that, too?), and like all of these many thousands of newly-activated and involved conservative Republicans across America, despite the best efforts of your kind, I am not going away any time soon. It’s time to do what Barry Goldwater told the fresh, new conservative Republicans in 1960 when they were beaten back by the liberal RINO establishment: that they had lost that round, and that they should pull together, go home, take over the party, and come together again in 1964 with a true conservative platform AND nominee. “If we want to take this Party back, and I think we can some day, let’s get to work,” he said. Well, we’re getting to work — and we’ve learned how from people like YOU.

    Finally, B.J., just the fact that you would dare accuse ME of Marxist tendencies shows what a complete and utter dolt you are. You won’t find a stronger conservative — a TRUE conservative, like the GOP used to have, not power-drunk RINOs like you — than I am. But, based on your actions lately, YOU are showing very strong fascist tendencies. And believe me, I don’t throw words around like that lightly. I have degrees in political science, international relations, and history, and I know what a fascist is. So people need to know what YOU are really all about… i.e., the filling of your head with dreams of power and glory for a master race of RINOs.

    Now, I await your dripping-with-intrigue second post (you show up here about as much as you show up at Gwinnett GOP events) — although I already know what it’s all about, and what it’s going to say. A “little bird” told me, and I’ve already got every answer to every scurrilous charge that you’re about the hurl my way, all about my greedy ways (the New York Times said so, so it must be true), ready to roll.

    So let’s roll.

  48. abouthadit says:

    C Farris said: A petition is a request, not an automatic gaurantee. I can petition the government for a regress of greivences, that doesn’t mean I’m entitled to a regress.

    It is reDress and if you knew your Constitution, you would also understand how incorrect this statement is. You know not of what you speak on either point.

  49. A Typical White Person says:

    Wow! I don’t think Van Gundy has to spend one moment identifying the “lunatic fringe.” Bill Greene just demonstrated it by his response.

  50. Bill Simon says:

    Poll tax, schmoll tax…Bill, your excerpt from the LAW/RULES you cite state the following: “however, registration fees may be charged to cover meeting cost.”

    Fees. Registration fees. Do you even know what a “registration fee” is?

    If your folks didn’t want to pay the registration fees or even were unable to pay, GUESS WHAT? You can get DENIED entrance in a very legal way.

  51. Bill Greene says:

    Except for one thing, B.S. — if you make a declaration like that, you have completely NULLIFIED what the RULE says in the first place. Why allow for someone who is “unwilling to pay” to use a waiver, if you never intend to LET him use a waiver?

    Once again, Bill Simon = Idiot.

  52. BJ Van Gundy says:

    Bill Greene,

    As I said, and I believe you have demonstrated. Tedious. Just tedious.

    I must also say that, contrary to your bragged about education, you have taken the route of the very uneducated with your ad hominem attacks as well as your attacks regarding my physical characteristics… really Bill, it isn’t like I pointed out that you were fat… did you really need to attack the fact that I am follicly challenged?*

    You forgot to point out that I also am a “four-eyes” and somewhat overweight like you. Oh yeah. And I have zits. Any other childish attacks I have forgotten… I’m sure you will provide.*

    However. I will once again point to Chris Farris’s point and also do something with you that you obviously never learned how to do in whatever school you went to. You obviously never learned to diagram a sentence.

    I believe that anyone else that read my post probably understood why you are wrong about your interpretation but I will endeavor to make sure that it is perfectly clear.

    The sentence reads as follows:

    “Anyone wishing to participate and is unwilling or unable to pay the registration fee may sign a petition for waiver of the fee.”

    The subject of that sentence is “Anyone wishing to participate and is unwilling or unable to pay the registration fee”. That is, the “wishing to participate and is unwilling or unable to pay the registration fee” portion of the sentence is the modifier or adjective, if you will, describing the type of “Anyone”. I know. It is a long sentence and probably confusing for you but hang with me.

    The verb of the sentence is “(may) sign.” That is, they have the right to sign something.

    The word “may” as used here is known as an “auxiliary verb.” The appropriate definition of the word “may” for this context from the dictionary:

    ‘used to express opportunity or permission’

    That something that the verb has extended permission to sign is “a petition.” This is called the Direct Object of the verb.

    The rest of the sentence, “for waiver of the fee.” is a prepositional phrase that describes the type of petition that is allowed to be signed…

    Here is where it gets tricky Bill. The bottom line is that no one denied anyone the right to sign the “petition for waiver of the fee.” They signed it. They had the right to.

    Let that sink in. The only right extended to the individuals in question was the right to sign the petition.

    The sentence in no way could be interpreted as doing as you wish it did. That is, that it would extend these individuals the right to not pay but be admitted.

    For the sentence to do that it would have to read something like:

    “Anyone wishing to participate and is unwilling or unable to pay the registration fee may be seated without paying such fee.”

    See how that works? Please don’t make me diagram this sentence as well. Hopefully you have caught on by now and that won’t be required.

    Oh yeah. And contrary to the huge amount of text that you spent your time penning to attack my political beliefs and call me a RINO, I will simply say that you would find that my political beliefs are ~95% IDENTICAL to yours.

    Thank you for your time. And just so you know. I really don’t feel like rolling.

    *Attacks on both the intended target of the message as well as self-attacks on the writer of this message are added for humorous effect and were in no way intended as a debate tactic but a demonstration of the silliness of the intended targets childish attack in his previous post.

  53. Will Bradley says:

    Name calling B.J. is the last refuge of a losing argument..

    I am a life long GOP voter who is tired of the mess the likes of the GOP leadership and their ilk have done to our country.

    But what happened in Columbus?
    The forced suppression of debate is the definition of Fascism.
    Since we are fond of dictionary definitions here to make our points, lets have a go.

    Fascism is a government, faction, movement, or political philosophy that raises nationalism, and frequently race, above the individual and is characterized by a centralized autocratic state governed by a dictatorial head, stringent organization of the economy and society, and aggressive repression of opposition.[1] In addition to placing the interests of the individual as subordinate to that of the nation or race, fascism seeks to achieve a national rebirth by promoting cults of unity, energy and purit.

    Fascists promote a type of national unity that is usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, national, racial, and/or religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, economic planning (including corporatism and autarky), populism, collectivism, autocracy and anti-liberalism.

    Unite behind the preselected nominee!
    Support the war plan or your a traitor!
    Unite behind the preselected representative slate!
    Discuss? Debate? Its already been figured out by greater minds than ours.. UNITE or lose!

    That is what we saw at the state convention.
    This is what I see with those that promote violence to spread our “goodness” around the globe..

    And yes this is the first year I did anything other than vote.
    I donated money for the first time to a candidate, I canvassed, I waved signs, I got involved..
    Sorry I wanted to participate in a system that is supposed to represent me.

    No longer will I let the bands of unemployed retired circus clowns represent me. Either by simply waiting for the blue hairs to drop or ousting them by majority, a change to this disasterous period will end.

    Party power over principal is the compass that guides you correct?
    The needle points straight to hell and we are now at its gates.
    I fear if McCain gets the amnesty bill passed we will have 25 million new “show me the money” voters.. Obama’s push for the same thing will get crushed..

    Unite behind that train wreck?
    Not this conservative.

    You can claim the majority of RP supporters are kooks to make that security blanket feel softer and that binkie taste a little better, but 90% of us were, up until now, silent GOP voters.

    By the way my presidential candidate delivered 4000 babies, yours killed 167 of his own men horsing around “wet starting” his jet on his aircraft carrier.. Yeah give that guy another button to play with….

    Standing in principle,
    Will

  54. Bill Greene says:

    B.J., I responded to your attack in the same manner as you attacked me. If you don’t like it, stop attacking me. “Can’t stand the heat,” and all that…

    So, you’ve explained it all so very well to me now. I’ve “caught on,” indeed. I finally DO understand EXACTLY what you mean. You and your little friends interpret “Anyone wishing to participate and is unwilling or unable to pay the registration fee may sign a petition for waiver of the fee” to mean, “Anyone wishing to participate and is unwilling or unable to pay the registration fee may sign a petition for waiver of the fee, BUT WE WILL DENY HIS OR HER PETITION any time his excuse is that he is unwilling.”

    How very clever of you.

    Seriously, B.J., all “parsing” aside, do you REALLY not see the inanity of what you’re saying here? As I said to Chris regarding his original post
    that you came on here to “defend,” “what is the purpose for having the waiver at all, then? You have just nullified it altogether. Kinda silly, dontcha think?”

    Well… dontcha?

    And just so YOU know: I really don’t feel like “bringing it on.”

    * The commentary in any of these postings by B.J. are not meant to be taken any more seriously than his claim to have “political beliefs” that are “~95% IDENTICAL” to mine, and yet be willing to “drink the kool aid” that will drive our Party into irrelevance and oblivion. I don’t care what someone claims his “political beliefs” are, I want to see if he’s willing to STAND UP for those beliefs he claims to hold… when the heat is on, and he is in danger of losing his “power” if he DOES stand up.

  55. Bill Simon says:

    Bill G,

    What if EVERYONE declared they were unwilling/unable to pay? Is it then the duty of the Georgia GOP to go completely into the RED (i.e., pay for the Coliseium rental, pay for security, pay for the sound system, etc.) in order to let EVERYONE petition to be given a pass into the convention without paying any money?

    THAT, apparently, is what you believe could be feasible, and should be allowed to accommodate YOUR interpretation of the “rules.”

    Bill, you are a COMPLETE MORON! I do not have to use any other adjectives to describe you.

  56. Bill Greene says:

    B.S., your posting shows once again who the “complete moron” is.

    What a ridiculous question/argument, and one that completely ignores the issue at hand: What do the rules SAY, and are they going to be followed in both letter and spirit? If you are never going to actually ALLOW anyone to declare they are “unwilling” to pay, what is the purpose for having the waiver at all? You have just nullified it altogether.

    What a maroon.

  57. BJ Van Gundy says:

    Bill Greene,

    First I will answer your second question (as I can do it with little effort) with the short answer to it:

    The very fact that four of the twelve that “petitioned” for the waiver received it explains “the purpose for having the waiver at all”. Duuhhhh.

    It appears that your argument comes down to:

    1. Those that were “unwilling” to pay
    and
    2. Your desire that “the spirit” of the law be followed.

    Let’s take each of these individually. First, those that were “unwilling”.

    In this country, Bill, we have a lot of people that are “unwilling” to, let’s say “participate in the economy”.

    That is to say, that they are “unwilling” to get a job and they therefore live in public housing and receive food stamps and the other 50 or 100 handouts that government has decided to provide for them. All because the “may” due to the fact that they are “unwilling”.

    You “may” not agree with me, and may think that the ease with which all of these people who are “unwilling” to pay their share is OK by you and your comfortable with all of them not participating in the economy and pulling their weight.

    Well I simply disagree with you. My conservative values feel that individuals should take personal responsibility for their lives a pay for that which they receive.

    We have to agree to disagree on this point since you obviously feel that their are others that should pay for the benefits of those that are “unwilling”.

    Let me be what you probably will label me as politically in correct by going so far as to say that it demonstrates a character flaw in that they have the ability but are just “unwilling” to pitch in and pay their way in life.

    Do you see the parallel with this group of “unwilling” individuals that wanted to participate in the convention. I do. But then again, if you are comfortable with this I guess we will have to agree to disagree as I stated before.

    Provide me some insight Bill. If it isn’t a character flaw (as described above) that made these individuals desire to participate in the REPUBLICAN CONVENTION without paying… what was their reason for being “unwilling”? Seriously. Please tell us all what the reason was that they were unwilling. I look forward to that.

    *****A side note here to everyone. Not a single solitary one of the 8 that were denied their waiver expressed that they were “unwilling” to pay. In fact! They ALL, to a man and/or woman, said that it was a financial hardship. Every single one of them. Something that their answers to the questions asked in the credentials committee meeting contradicted…and they were therefore denied their waiver… BASED ON THEIR OWN STATEMENTS…. but I digress from where we were going with this post*****

    I think that about covers the issue of those that were “unwilling”. All I have to say is Thank God for all of us that are willing to participate in the national economy as well as those micro economies such as events that we wish to attend. I for one am thankful for all of you that were “willing” to help pay for the convention.

    OK. Now for the second part of your wishes for interpretation of this law.

    Isn’t it the methodology of the LEFT in this country (are we back to that Carl Marx thing again with you?) that is always wanting to interpret the “spirit” of the law for their own purposes? I think it is… Let me know.

    To go a bit further into this “spirit” thing… isn’t it the LEFT that tells us that the 2nd Amendment does NOT provide the individual’s right to bear arms… I think it is….

    Rather than seeing the commas in the 2nd amendment as they were written originally, and following the metamorphosis of the Second amendment from its original form:

    ***
    “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
    ***

    which CLEARLY shows an intent to have the individual right to bear arms,

    to it’s final form:

    ***
    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    NOTE THE PROPER FIRST COMMA WHICH IS LEFT OUT FOR CONVENIENCE BY THE LEFT
    ***
    the LEFT chooses to only look at the final version, ignore a comma, and come up with the “spirit” of the 2nd Amendment to mean that only those engaged in the militia (and they’re talking about the National Guard… not some Montana crowd) should have the right to bear arms.

    I have to say, this whole “spirit” of the law makes me uncomfortable as a way to approach the laws and the Constitution. I simply cannot stomach having the judiciary interpret the laws of this country based on what they feel is the “spirit” of the law.

    I may have to agree with you after all that we may not match up 95% of the time. I consider it a quite significant difference in our philosophies that I believe that the Constitution and laws should be followed to the letter… and you have proclaimed that laws should “be followed in both letter and spirit”.

    That has me a bit squeamish, and honestly, quite scared of what other laws you feel should be followed in “spirit” rather than to the letter.

    You sir can run around and call me whatever names you wish… but I will NEVER suggest that I think that laws should be interpreted for outcome rather than followed to the letter.

    Good Day to you.

  58. BJ Van Gundy says:

    One more note on our little debate here over the “unwilling” and “the spirit” of the law/rule in question.

    A fine site that many of you would likely enjoy visiting with regard to debate tactics can be found here:

    http://www.johntreed.com/debate.html

    I know. I know. I committed numbers 3 and 12 during this little exchange. And a bit of number 1, but it was tongue in cheek and mostly aimed at myself.

    For that I apologize to all. I shouldn’t have questioned BG’s motivations in my first post nor should I have brought of the Black Helicopters.

    In fact. From Bill Greene’s first response to me where he seems to insinuate that there were video feeds from the Credentials Committee room and that he has spies everywhere telling him everything I say and do and what my next plan is, I AM THE ONE THAT SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT BLACK HELCOPTERS!

    However. I think I scored well (low as in golf) in this regard when I count up and compare those objectionable debate tactics exercised by BG.

    Let’s see now, I seem to recall BG’s tactics including numbers 1-6, 8, 10-12, 15, 17 (sort of), 18, 19 and 21.

    That makes the score 2 to 15.

    Bill, you may run out of objectionable tactics from that site so you might read the very bottom paragraph of the page as well and go learn some more from the links provided.

    Cheers.

  59. voice of reason says:

    “The vast majority of these couple of hundred people had voted Republican for years, but had never been interested in actually getting involved in the political process itself until this election. But this time, they DID get involved, holding signs, making phone calls, going to rallies, running for party positions, and trying to effect change in their party, to bring it back to its conservative roots, and maybe turn this country around again.”

    Greene’s main point seems to be focused on “unwilling” – these wonderful people don’t sound like people that would be “unwilling” to me.

    “That “lunatic fringe” you are so quick to disparage never had any intention to “disrupt” the convention and the convention “process” ”

    Actually, Mr. Greene, I personally heard someone say “the fun is about to start… we’re about to get started”. Now that does not mean you were involved in it, but there were definitely people there that did intend to disrupt things.

    “regardless of your minions’ whisper campaigns against me (do you think I don’t hear all about that, too?),”

    If you don’t want to be included in the “lunatic fringe” accusations, sir, I recommend you avoid paranoid statements such as that. It sounds a little “conspiracy theorist”. I’m very active in the republican party, and you should feel a little better to hear I’ve never heard a “whisper campaign” against you.

    I’ll give the match to Van Gundy.

  60. Bill Greene says:

    B.J., you MUST be a politician. That’s some pretty good sleight-of-hand and dancing around the real issues that you’re doing there. Obama would be very proud.

    Let’s take your argument piece by piece, shall we?

    You really can’t use the fact that four of your friends successfully used the waiver, when your cronies on the committee were acting on orders to ONLY grant waivers to people “unable” to pay, and ONLY if they were NOT supporters of Ron Paul. If you avoid the ENTIRE rule, and only selectively apply PART of the rule — in other words, If you are never going to actually ALLOW anyone to declare they are “unwilling” to pay, what is the purpose for having the waiver at all? You have just nullified it altogether. “Duuhhhh.”

    And you have pulled your little smoke and mirrors trick in announcing to all what it “appears” my argument comes down to. As I’ve just shown once again, you have AVOIDED my actual argument entirely.

    Despite what you and your little old girlfriends behind the registration table want others to believe (because you surely can’t be stupid enough to actually believe it yourself), obeying a GA GOP rule, based on GA laws against poll taxes, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with lazy Democrats who refuse to get a job and want to sponge off of the rest of us through welfare. It’s not about “participating in the economy” (nice stretch there, B.J.), it’s not about receiving “handouts from the government,” it’s not about “paying your fair share” (what a LIBERAL concept, B.J. — can anyone say, “progressive taxation”? Obama would be so proud), it’s not about “pulling their weight” (“let’s soak the rich! let’s impose windfall profits taxes! come now, B.J.); it’s about obeying a GA GOP rule, based on GA law. And the rule — the rule put there by OUR Party, B.J. — does NOT just say “unable.” It says UNWILLING. Am I typing in big enough letters for you, B.J., or do you need to increase the font?

    You may feel that it’s okay to ignore rules (or selectively enforce them), but “my conservative values feel” that our Party should be a party of law and order, NOT a party like the Democrats. We have to agree to disagree on this point since you obviously feel that it’s okay to decide that you don’t want to hear from a particular group or point of view, so you are going to do whatever it takes — including ignoring or twisting rules and laws — to make sure they are not seen or heard in your sham of a “process.”

    And B.J., you can ask me all day why people might be “unwilling” to pay, but I’m not those people, so I would only be speculating. But it’s not the point, is it? The RULE says they can use a waiver, and it does NOT require that they even STATE a reason. So look forward to it all you want, B.J. It’s beside the point — which you just keep on missing.

    ***** A side note here to everyone, which you would have already caught if you had bothered to read the posts above this one (which B.J. apparently only skimmed, in true Congressional fashion). As I wrote earlier, there were a dozen-to-dozen-and-a-half people standing in line in the hallway outside of your closed and guarded at 9:45 a.m. They LEFT and avoided your pre-determined and pre-decided committee “meeting” and came into the registration room before they had those doors slammed in their faces, too. At that point, for those who really WERE unable to pay — despite your IRS/Gestapo Inquisition that declared people without jobs and cars “able to pay” — I made sure that their way WAS paid, so they COULD participate in the democratic process of their party, in spite of their party’s leaders doing everything they could to DENY them that opportunity. The rest, who were UNWILLING for whatever reason and had been fooled into thinking that you would abide by GA GOP rules and allow people besides your buddies to use waivers, either coughed up the money or went home. So get over yourself, already. *****

    I think that about covers the issue of how you and your buddies tried to make sure that people you disagreed with were excluded from participating in the political process of THEIR party. (And for your own public image, you might want to consider quitting trying to use big words like “micro-economics,” B.J. You have to learn what they mean and how they’re actually supposed to be used before trying to use them.)

    Before getting to the other one of your “smoke and mirrors” attempts to distract our dear readers from the actual issues here, I just have to take a moment to try and stop laughing about your “Carl Marx” statement. It could only have been funnier if you had brought up “John Lenin”. LOL!

    You obviously don’t have anything of substance to say regarding the ACTUAL ISSUE AT HAND, so you decide to lazily float down a distributary (oooh, one of those big words, better go look it up) and begin a discussion of how liberals view the Second Amendment. Again, I have to laugh, not only at your blatant attempts to avoid and cloud the actual issues, but at trying to associate ME with ANY liberal idea, of any kind. The reason you think your political beliefs are “95% IDENTICAL to” mine is doubtless because my political beliefs are 100% conservative. So where does that leave your other 5%?

    You know very well that NO ONE here is saying “that laws should be interpreted for outcome rather than followed to the letter.” Hey Sandra Day van Gundy, try very, very hard to read what I actually wrote, and what YOU even wrote in this wandering and pointless tirade you engaged in. You say that I “have proclaimed that laws should ‘be followed in both letter and spirit’.” Then you immediately say that you’re “scared of what other laws [I] feel should be followed in ‘spirit’ rather than to the letter.” Do you not see the inanity — in fact, the idiocy — of saying those two things one after the other?

    Actually, I think you DO. You are pulling a classic Democrat trick — trying to get others to believe that I said what YOU say I said, even if you had JUST said that I said something completely different. Confusing? Welcome to the new GOP, led by folks like B.J. van Gundy.

    Good Day to YOU.

  61. Bill Greene says:

    And B.J., I looked over that list of “Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics” you so kindly provided. And I realized that, lo and behold, you had given away your playbook!

    By my count, the tactics you have employed so far are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21; and maybe 22, if I look a little harder. So, what was that score again?

    Cheers, indeed.

  62. Game Fan says:

    The Republican establishment has really “hunkered down” against RP supporters. Meanwhile the Obama camp is chock-fulla young folks. This of course lends credence to the “tinfoil hat” theory of the “establishment” which is ready to hand the White House over to the Dems. Only problem is the “establishment” had already coronated Hillary (the STRONGER of the 2 candidates)
    http://tinyurl.com/453pzd
    As far as contributing to “establishment” resources the RNC just got done making a commercial for Hillary. Go figure. As a lifelong Republican I’ve got similar misgivings about “misallocation of conservative resources” myself.
    http://tinyurl.com/4v5kdr

  63. Bill Greene says:

    vor – they’re not unwilling to sacrifice a LOT in order to participate in the political process. But, if I HAD to guess as to why they would be unwilling to pay the Convention fee in order to participate in the voting process as a delegate (otherwise defined as a “poll tax” under GA law and according to GA GOP rules), I would think it might have to do with something like the report that “Some of that [GA GOP] money may wind up going to help Republican presidential candidate John McCain.” If the GA GOP was reported to give money to the Ron Paul campaign, and you were given the option under the law to waive giving them your money so that you could still participate in YOUR party’s voting process, what would you do?

    You may question their tactics, but my guess is that their motives were based on principle. Unlike the motives of certain other people posting on this thread.

  64. Bill Simon says:

    BG says this: “What do the rules SAY, and are they going to be followed in both letter and spirit? If you are never going to actually ALLOW anyone to declare they are “unwilling” to pay, what is the purpose for having the waiver at all? You have just nullified it altogether.”

    BJ says this:The very fact that four of the twelve that “petitioned” for the waiver received it explains “the purpose for having the waiver at all”.

    FOUR of TWELVE received the waiver. Therefore, the rule was followed and the waivers were considered by the Credentials Committee, and exceptions were granted.

    But, Bill Greene presumes/ASSumes that those 4 were merely “buddies” of BJ so that’s why they were allowed in without being charged a fee.

    HAD BJ and the Credentials Committee not allowed anyone in, Greene would have an argument. But, since 4 were granted the waivers of paying fees, Greene DOES NOT have a leg to stand on other than his apparent need to relive a time when he spent his college days debating bullsh*t policies for his “poly-sci” major.

    For a true example of just how far (and, how f*cked-up poly-sci majors can make society), one merely has to point out the incredibly moronc job Kathy Cox (bachelor’s and master’s in poly-sci from Emory) has made the state of the Georgia public school system.

    But, hey, Bill Greene, I’m sure that because of her stance on pro-life and gay marriage, she is not a “RINO” but a “HERO” to you.

  65. drjay says:

    The rest, who were UNWILLING for whatever reason and had been fooled into thinking that you would abide by GA GOP rules and allow people besides your buddies to use waivers, or went home.

    “either coughed up the money”

    so a goodly portion of them were IN FACT- WILLING to pay when their bluff was called–you lose a lot of the purity of your argument based on that little tidbit–no???

    sort of like my point about “selective conscientious objectors” not liking a specific war or president etc…does not get you out of a draft–nor does not liking the presumptive nominee in this case…get you out of paying the registrtaion to attend the convention…

  66. Game Fan says:

    Can anybody argue that this WASN’T a national directive from the “top down”? The delegates include Romneyites, Hucksters, ect… and there was no similar action toward these delegates. Not to mention they’re broke and dropped out of the race. Of course SOME RP supporters can be a little obtuse and SOME are new converts. And Romney supporters are true blue conservatives?

  67. Chris says:

    wow! I managed to hit a nail. You don’t know how hard that is for a spaz like me. 🙂

    To answer Bill (G)’s question:
    “what is the purpose for having the waiver at all, then? You have just nullified it altogether. Kinda silly, dontcha think?”

    I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t even watch TV – but I’d say they reason that language exists it to establish a process by where those unable or unwilling can petition to be seated with out paying. It says there must be a petition, and that the party must review the petition, but I agree w/ B.J. in that if the intent of the law was to allow anyone to be seated then the would not have used the term petition.

  68. Bill Simon says:

    Game Fan,

    The answer to your question depends on whether or not any of the FOUR who were granted waivers were, in fact, Ron Paul supporters.

    If just ONE of them was, your point is DOA.

  69. Chris says:

    While I don’t subscribe to Bill Greene’s interpretation of the GA Law, let me say that _if_ the state of Georgia (or the Federal Voting Act where I suspect this comes from) wishes to force the GA GOP to seat people unwilling to pay the reg free, then the State (or Feds) should foot the cost of the State Convention. Otherwise this is little different from the Feds saying a restaurant owner should allow anyone who doesn’t want to pay to eat free.

    The GA GOP is a private organization and should be able to determine how and who is seated at their convention.

  70. Game Fan says:

    The establishment is going to do what it wants. And their Golden Boy is to campaign finance what Bill Clinton is to sexual harassment laws.

  71. voice of reason says:

    Well said, Chris. We republicans like to use the term “slippery slope” to explain why things shouldn’t be allowed.. you start down a path you shouldn’t go down. If we allow some people to not pay to cover convention costs due to “conscientous objector” status (good example, drjay), we’d have to let anyone and everyone not pay for the same reason.

    I have never been a McCain supporter… but I have always been a republican party supporter and will pay to participate in my party’s happenings.

    The people “unwilling” to pay because their candidate didn’t win sound like the definition of RINO to me!

  72. BJ Van Gundy says:

    Quick note to Will Bradley,

    You are correct regarding your statement: “Name calling B.J. is the last refuge of a losing argument.. ”

    But I think that I had already made that statement at the very beginning of the post immediately before yours.

    Please review MY post and BG’s just before it and let me know where I was calling names vs. where he was calling names.

    I would suggest that if you keep score and use your statement above that you would end up having to come to the conclusion that BG is the one taking “last refuge”.

  73. BJ Van Gundy says:

    For the record, NONE of the 4 of those that were extended waivers did I know.

    Not a single one of them.

    Also. 1 of them expressed his support of RP during the interview.

    He was seated.

    This wasn’t about ideology. It was about individuals who had a desire to use a vague interpretation of the law to abuse a privilege and demand that it be a right.

    Also. there was no directive “from on high.”

    No one in the past has come to the convention process with an organized effort to abuse the privilege as described above.

    However. This was an organized effort by a group who had obviously shared this form via email and had a plan of subversiveness organized.

    The form was buried in the back of a convention planning manual. These people didn’t find it on their own. They blogged about it and emailed each other. Evil little laughs about it were probably enjoyed as well…. you get the picture.

    At the end of the day, this is a group of about 10% of the right side of politics in this country (or just ~%5 if you go based on the Presidential Primary) that have determined that they want to take things over and claim that they are the saviors of the party while at the same time they are working to subvert the party they claim to be a part of.

    I welcome everyone to the party. It is the only way that we get a 50%+1 victory in November.

    However. The intended hijacking of the party by some small part of the party will not make us more successful in November but only serve to put Obama in office.

  74. Icarus says:

    “I want to see more of the ultimate fighting match of Bill Greene vs. Bill Simon.”

    I want Andre and DecaturGuy on the undercard match.

  75. BJ Van Gundy says:

    Bill Greene,

    Your concerns over me “nullifying” a portion of the law by not allowing those that were “unwilling” of which there were none is even more hollow given the fact that you now solely refer to the fee as a “poll tax”.

    The rest of the law reads:

    “As a voting activity, no poll tax may be charged, however, registration fees may be charged to cover meeting cost.”

    The $70 fee was a registration fee. Not a “poll tax”.

  76. BJ Van Gundy says:

    Bill Greene,

    Without going into detail, as of this date it is simply a lie being stated when you say that you paid for those 8 delegates. You haven’t yet paid for a single one of them… care to discuss here? Up to you.

  77. BJ Van Gundy says:

    Game Fan,

    About 1200 paid. 16 TOTAL over Friday and Saturday petitioned for a waiver. 8 had their fees waived.

    1 I know to have been a declared supporter of RP but he had good reason to have his waiver granted.

    2 others were wearing RP supportive paraphernalia but their support of an ideology or Presidential candidate was not an issue in waiving their fees.

    The other 5 I do not know or recall any details about.

  78. BJ Van Gundy says:

    Bill Greene,

    Claims of illegality without actually filing charges are vacant and childish as well. Put your lawyer where your mouth is or take a chill pill.

  79. Bill Simon says:

    8 had their fees waived? Correct my previous statement to say that 8 of 16 had their fees waived.

    Don’t know about you folks who have “poly-sci” degrees, but 50% having their fees waived is a significant percentage.

  80. Game Fan says:

    re:
    there was no directive “from on high.”

    I’m sure that the “States’ rights conservatives for McCain” folks will be happy to know that Georgia decides it’s own fate. And now if we could just get our National Guard back, get rid of NCLB, and forget about that silly national I.D. thingee.

  81. Annoyed Dawg says:

    Are all GOP conventions this contentious?

    I’m glad to have President Carter behind Obama! Things are looking good for November!

  82. Annoyed Dawg says:

    I do have a question for Bill Greene. Sir, if you’re so unhappy with the GOP, why do you go to conventions?

  83. BJ Van Gundy says:

    Annoyed Dawg. No just those where the supporters of a Presidential candidate that received less than 5% of the vote wish to demand that they control it.

  84. PinkPatriot says:

    My comment is addressed to BJ VanGundy.
    Sir, did it occur to you that the reason some of the state convention delegates were “unwilling” to pay was because they had been so marginalized and pushed aside at their county and district conventions? It has been quite a few years since I studied civics, but isn’t the whole point of becoming politically active to have a voice in the political process? What I observed at the county and state conventions was an overt attempt to prevent participation by all but the party insiders, the RINOs. Why should people pay to be labeled as “outcasts”, “kooks”, or worse? The GOP is fast becoming an endangered species. Walking around at the evening reception was like walking into the social activities room at my grandmother’s nursing home. The party is in trouble and has only itself to blame.
    Christine Rainwater

    P.S. I hope you enjoy the copy of Ron Paul’s best-selling new book that I sent to you. Here’s a suggestion…READ IT.

  85. Bill Greene says:

    AD, first of all, most conventions have at least some contention. Especially the one held at the Cobb Galleria in May 2001, where Ralph Reed was elected chairman of the state party — thanks, by the way, to the “Confederate Republican Caucus,” a block of almost 500 activists who came to the convention as a protest against the removal of the Confederate battle emblem from the State Flag. So that sort of blows B.J.’s last statement out of the water, doesn’t it?

    But most conventions are run fairly and according to established rules, not just so the people in charge can ramrod what they want down the throats of attendees. That’s what made this one so… special.

  86. Bill Greene says:

    And AD, I go to my party’s conventions because I truly believe it is supposed to be the party of limited government, low taxes, little spending, and Constitutional rule. The GOP has veered off-course, as every grassroots conservative knows, and it needs to be brought back on course before it shipwrecks on the rocks of liberalism and statism. If I can have a role in that, no matter how small, then no matter what the so-called leadership tries to do to stop me and mine, I’m not going away any time soon, and I will do everything in my power to see to it that REAL conservatives are brought back to power in this party, and in this country.

  87. Bill Greene says:

    B.J. says that one of the four who were granted waivers was a Ron Paul supporter. He has no proof, of course. But it sure does make him look good, doesn’t it? (By the way, the Ron Paul people insist that NONE of them were granted waivers.)

    B.J., between the two of us, you are the only one who is “keeping score” here. You must be a politician. All I want is to arrive at the truth. All you want is to “win.” Welcome to B.J.’s GOP.

    B.J., how would you know there was an “organized effort” to follow the GA GOP rules, to use the waiver? Should *I* be concerned about BLACK HELICOPTERS??? LOL. I’ll tell you how you knew: because, despite your protestations to the contrary, there WERE meetings and conference calls that discussed the devious devices of those awful Ron Paul people, and discussed how to block their every move, shut them up, and shut them down, whatever it took. The National Party didn’t want you guys to do what you did, but you did it anyway. I know people who were AT those meetings and ON those conference calls, and if you claim they didn’t happen, you are either kept in the dark and fed manure more than I thought you were (kinda like a mushroom), or you are just a liar. I hope you’re just a mushroom.

    You received your orders, and you followed them like a good little soldier.

    Now. Your deprecatory characterizations of the Ron Paul supporters remind me of how the Barry Goldwater supporters were characterized in 1960. They were shown to be the true conservatives, they stuck around, got involved, took back their party, and returned it to its conservative roots. History is a wonderful thing. Fun, too.

    As for paying those delegates’ fees, I certainly did. Your little old girlfriends behind the registration table apparently don’t know how to enter credit card information into one of them thar newfangled computer-thingies, however. Which gives us an end result of me having to play phone tag with Rick Richardson for weeks on end, for something that should have been as easy as 1-2-3. So I’m not the liar here. Hmmm… where shall we point the finger…

    B.J., I really do wish you hadn’t meandered onto here and blustered through your initial post. If you hadn’t, all of this would have died and been forgotten (like everything else on Peach Pundit); instead, by attacking me personally the way you did, you forced me to respond in like manner, both to defend my name and expose yours.

    This could go on and on, but seeing that you and I both run political consulting firms, we should return to our clients now, for whom I am raising hundreds of thousands of dollars so far this cycle, as I have no doubt you are as well. I simply can’t afford to take this time off any more, and get work done for them too. Plus, as you know, I head up a conservative organization that oversees several million emails per week to grassroots members, and hundreds of thousands of resulting messages to Congress, the President, and whoever else needs to “feel the heat” in order to “see the light” this week. I’ve done my best here, in more words than was maybe necessary, to refute your scurrilous charges and show the world (meaning the couple dozen readers of Peach Pundit) what it REALLY is that you’re trying to defend. A RINO is not just someone who holds to non-Republican ideas, B.J. — it is also one who supports so-called Republicans who hold to those non-Republican ideas. Sound familiar?

    Looks like YOU are the one who needs to take a “chill pill,” B.J.

    Anyway, I’m going back to work.

    And I’m just plain ignoring Bill Simon. Which I’m sure will make him cry, girlie-man that he is.

  88. BJ Van Gundy says:

    Thanks for letting me have the last word Bill.

    There were a couple hundred RP persons in attendance at the convention. As important as BG is within this organization it is doubtful that he has spoken with every single one of them regarding the waivers. It is a fact that cannot not be refuted simply by stating the opposite that at least 3 of the RP persons were admitted with a waiver.

    Bill, it was obvious that the waiver effort was organized by some group. The form came from a document that was not widely distributed and the form obviously became so. Maybe you aren’t on the inside circle of this group but somebody made sure they all got the form.

    I participated in not a single solitary conference call, email communication or any other such effort as BG accused so I guess he would classify me as a mushroom. Just more name calling on his part due to his weak argument.

    BG. If you know so much about these meetings provide some proof of such, i.e. attendees, schedule, any materials handed out. You simply saying such occurred doesn’t make it true.

    I have not made any negative statements about the RP individuals other than they were disruptive. They were new to the process and and thought that that was how they were supposed to be in order to get their points across. It was unfortunate but I believe that now that they have seen that the convention allowed them the ability to voice their opinions that they will participate in the future more appropriately.

    Please provide one more post though with something that attacked you personally. I haven’t attacked you personally. You on the other hand started right off with calling me bald.

    Like that hurts. Please.

    You’ll have to bring on the sticks and stones if you want to hurt me Bill.

  89. Bill Greene says:

    *sigh* Fine, B.J. But last one.

    In your very first tempestuous post, you called me ignorant, a fool, an advocate of “black helicopter crap,” a member of the “lunatic fringe,” a Marxist, and more. I can’t believe you actually thought I wouldn’t counter your fatuous claims with the truth.

    Bye, B.J. See you at the next Gwinnett GOP meeting — as if. I forgot you don’t come to those.

  90. wgadget says:

    Wow, THAT was interesting!

    A couple of questions and some comments:

    1) How much did the convention cost? I know that with the gas/motel costs plus
    the “registration fee,” it cost me about $200. And all I got was that
    lousy red GOP totebag. (On second thought, due to the PAUCITY of delegates that
    actually showed up, maybe they really were desperate for registration fees…LOL)

    2) What is their excuse for REMOVING the form or permission slip or whatever they
    want to call it? If there was supposed to be a separate “petition,” as
    opposed to the actual waiver form, why was it not supplied?

    3) Not a question, but Mr. BJ absolutely started the name calling. Maybe not like
    saying, “You’re a fat slob,” but indirectly, by calling Ron Paul supporters
    “fringe,” etc. in his original rant.

    4) Quoth BJ: “You sir can run around and call me whatever names you wish… but I will
    NEVER suggest that I think that laws should be interpreted for outcome rather than
    followed to the letter.” How does he explain the subsequent actions of the
    WHOLE CONVENTION on flagrantly rewriting the rules based on “outcome?”

    5) When WILL this be challenged in court? It seems that a wave of lawsuits are
    starting all around America regarding the disenfranchisement of Ron Paul supporters
    by their very own party. I’d love to see these guys writhe around a little
    bit.

    THANKS FOR PROVIDING THE WONDERFUL READING MATERIAL. It was fun.

    Tara

  91. voice of reason says:

    Wow… and we wasted “Sore Loserman” on Gore Lieberman… seems like the Ron Paul people are up there with them!

    Ok, so some RP people FEEL they were “kept out” of the convention (although $60 would have gotten them in)… but what kept them out of the polls on primary day??? Ron Paul lost due to lack of support on primary day, as did Romney, Huckabee, Guiliani, Keyes, Tancredo…

    Ron Paul lost. Sorry, but going to GA State convention was NOT going to change that. Voting “NO” on resolutions was NOT going to change that.

    My candidate did not win, either… but I’ve licked my wounds and moved on… McCain is CERTAINLY better than Obama.

    I think it’s time for some people to move on!

    Stay focused, people! Focus that energy and anger on defeating Obama PLEASE!

  92. wgadget says:

    VOR,

    I’d say it’s the principle of the thing. I’m happy that I went through the delegate process, mainly for the learning experience. I and my compatriots will be better prepared next time around.

    However, I must also add that when taking into consideration the shady practices of the GOP in running the convention, it would not surprise me an iota should someone tell me the primary elections were rigged. Honestly, how many people do you know that actually voted for John McCain?

  93. Bill Simon says:

    WG,

    McCain didn’t win Georgia, but he won enough of the other states. I, for one, do not know many Republicans in other states to ask directly, do you?

  94. wgadget says:

    BS,

    I fear that Republicans are a dying breed this year. Seems to be the Year of the Donkey.

  95. Bill Simon says:

    BG says: “Plus, as you know, I head up a conservative organization that oversees several million emails per week to grassroots members, and hundreds of thousands of resulting messages to Congress, the President, and whoever else needs to “feel the heat” in order to “see the light” this week.”

    YEAH, well, those “millions of e-mails” BG claims that were sent over the past however many years sure had a BIG impact on changing the minds of the members of congress (headed-up by his big heroes Tom DeLay and Bill Frist) in 2005 and 2006 when they voted for all of those lovely, RINO-spending bills.

    I think Bill Greene may be the biggest fraud since Bob Barr in what he claims he “does” for the “conservative cause.”

  96. Bill Simon says:

    WG,

    This “dying year” as you term it didn’t just happen. It STARTED happening back in 2005-2006 when the GOP majorities voted for the Highway Spending Bill, NAFTA/CAFTA, and got loosey-goosey with the hands-off monetary style of managing the Treasury.

    Heck, it may have started with NCLB and the Part D Medicare Prescription bill.

    WHEN is Bill Greene going to start rightfully assailing Bush on his RINO activities?

    My guess is never, the wuss. He’d rather spend his time accusing people like me of being the cause of the demise of the GOP than show his guts to go after the REAL RINOS: His neocon buddies.

  97. ikester8 says:

    VoR says: “Ok, so some RP people FEEL they were “kept out” of the convention (although $60 would have gotten them in)”

    Full disclosure: I was the Georgia State Coordinator for Ron Paul 2008.

    The vast majority of the RP supporters at the Georgia GOP Convention paid their $60. A few supporters really were unable to pay. Some were unwilling to pay. I’ll admit, when I heard that some supporters had applied for the fee to be waived, when I knew good and well that these individuals could probably afford it, my heart sank a little. However, when I heard of the embarrassing means-testing interviews to which the applicants I talked to were subjected, I changed my mind. BJ van Gundy’s sentence-parsing aside, it seems to me that the reasonable interpretation of “unwilling or unable” includes someone unwilling to pay the fee should be treated the same as someone unable to pay the fee. However, it’s not really worth the legal fees to find out, as satisfying a moral victory that may be. The GAGOP learned their lessons from other conventions well, and adapted. Bully for them.

    As VoR so eloquently points out, we simply did not have the numbers. But we, like our candidate, wanted to be heard. And from the discussion on this page, it looks like we struck a nerve.

    Peace.

  98. ikester8 says:

    VoR says: “Ok, so some RP people FEEL they were “kept out” of the convention (although $60 would have gotten them in)”

    Full disclosure: I was the Georgia State Coordinator for Ron Paul 2008.

    The vast majority of the RP supporters at the Georgia GOP Convention paid their $60. A few supporters really were unable to pay. Some were unwilling to pay. I’ll admit, when I heard that some supporters had applied for the fee to be waived, when I knew good and well that these individuals could probably afford it, my heart sank a little. However, when I heard of the embarrassing means-testing interviews to which the applicants I talked to were subjected, I changed my mind. BJ van Gundy’s sentence-parsing aside, it seems to me that the reasonable interpretation of “unwilling or unable” includes someone unwilling to pay the fee should be treated the same as someone unable to pay the fee. However, it’s not really worth the legal fees to find out, as satisfying a moral victory that may be. The GAGOP learned their lessons from other conventions well, and adapted. Bully for them.

    As VoR so eloquently points out, we simply did not have the numbers. But we, like our candidate, wanted to be heard. And from the discussion on this page, it looks like we struck a nerve.

  99. ikester8 says:

    VoR says: “Ok, so some RP people FEEL they were “kept out” of the convention (although $60 would have gotten them in)”

    Full disclosure: I was the Georgia State Coordinator for Ron Paul 2008.

    The vast majority of the RP supporters at the Georgia GOP Convention paid their $60. A few supporters really were unable to pay. Some were unwilling to pay. I’ll admit, when I heard that some supporters had applied for the fee to be waived, when I knew good and well that these individuals could probably afford it, my heart sank a little. However, when I heard of the embarrassing means-testing interviews to which the applicants I talked to were subjected, I changed my mind. BJ van Gundy’s sentence-parsing aside, it seems to me that the reasonable interpretation of “unwilling or unable” includes someone unwilling to pay the fee should be treated the same as someone unable to pay the fee. However, it’s not really worth the legal fees to find out, as satisfying a moral victory that may be. The GAGOP learned their lessons from other conventions well, and adapted. Bully for them.

    As VoR so eloquently points out, we simply did not have the numbers. But we, like our candidate, wanted to be heard. That was all.

  100. Kendall says:

    BJ: “Regardless of your ignorance of what actually occurred in the credentials committee meeting the fact is that Chris Farris has hit the nail on the head.”

    BJ, what did actually occur in the credentials committee? Perhaps you can tell us at what point in the convention the “membership” was defined?

    Also, perhaps you can comment as to the veracity of the state Republican Party. Do you think that the convention was a “grass roots” event – or, was it a “top-down” ordeal?

    I’m just curious about your opinion.

    Kendall

  101. A Typical White Person says:

    Dear Bill Greene,

    According to your blog, it says you’re a “Licensed Minister.”

    Did you do apprentice work under Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Wright?

    Your vicious attacks on van Gundy and Sue Everhart demonstrate the typical hypocritical demeanor demonstrated by the “Christian” Right for the last 20 years.

    Perhaps we should designate people like you to be CINOs (Christian In Name Only).

    Bless your heart, Bill Greene. Or, should I say “Reverend Bill Greene?”

  102. GTpeach says:

    To those of you here at PeachPundit who continue to refer to RP supports as kooks, nuts, wacko’s and all the other names that have been used. I am a christian, RP supporter and republican. I am disgusted with all the labels and name calling. I have been a republican since I was old enough to vote. I am sick of the republican party!, and I will not vote for JM just because the party says to. Ron Paul is the best candidate to lead this country but because of people like what we have in the GA GOP this country may miss that opportunity.
    To the GA GOP I say thanks for helping in the distruction of this country!

  103. micah4 says:

    Gundy: “I believe that now that they have seen that the convention allowed them the ability to voice their opinions that they will participate in the future more appropriately.”

    I can say with some confidence that *none* of the RP supporters feel that the convention allowed them the ability to voice their opinions. This is true of many non-RP supporters as well, I am sure.

    But to BJ’s credit, he’s identified the critical issue here, even if his conclusion is wrong. There were hundreds of new faces at that convention: young, energized, motivated, and willing to work for a party and a leadership they can believe in. Yes many of them are new to politics, and many were, I’m sure, getting involved with the Republican party somewhat reluctantly.

    Which is precisely why the manner in which the convention was handled was such a tragedy. Here you have an influx of new people who could energize the party’s base for years to come- and what they’ve seen and experienced during their tentative involvement in the GOP conventions is likely going to determine whether or not they’ll be supporting the GOP- or some other party- in the future. These people came to the conventions hoping against hope, willing to give the GOP a chance. Maybe for the first time and maybe for the last time ever, they were giving the GOP the chance to let them know that they *can* have a voice in the Republican party.

    But the GAGOP leadership completely misjudged this situation. Turning the convention into an us-against-them battle wherein all opposition must be quashed no matter the means or the consequences sent *exactly the opposite* message which BJ supposes was heard. The message came across loud and clear: No, you will not have a voice in this process. Even if you have a majority, you will not have a voice- not as long as *we’re* the ones holding the gavels.

    In nothing was this more evident than the debate over the resolution which was stifled with a strong arm by “the opinion of the chair.” The actual impact of adopting, not adopting, or amending this resolution is, I’m sure, so mind-numbingly irrelevant that it is only more incredible that the chair would choose to turn it into an opportunity to power-play his position against the strong and clearly voiced opinion of the assembly. That attitude- epitomized in that debate, but undoubtedly reflected by many other proceedings- strongly demonstrated a leadership that was determined *not* to give ear to any of the voices from the floor, but was only concerned with getting through their agenda.

    And yet the old guard here criticizes hundreds of concerned citizens who, never having been involved in the process before, have now come to make their voices heard. “They want to just show up and take over”.

    No, that’s the very sad mistake which the GOP leadership made. To be sure, the RP supporters would like nothing more than to see to it that RP is nominated as the Republican presidential candidate! But I think almost every one also knew that just wasn’t going to happen.

    So why did they show up? BJ got the reason right, for sure. They wanted to see the sausage being made. They wanted to know whether the Republican party is a place where they *can* have a voice.

    But BJ also got the conclusion dead wrong. The actions of those running the convention made it clear that this was not going to be a proceeding that had anything to do with people’s voices being heard. Sure, these people are new to the process. But you know what? You shouldn’t *have* to be a party insider for years and years just to have a voice in the political process! So what if these people aren’t “party loyalists”? They’re citizens! They *are* the governed from which the government derives its consent. It’s ridiculous for the party to be arrogantly dismissive and outright combatitive when such a large segment of the population feels so strongly about the direction of their government that a groundswell of support rises up and motivates large numbers of people to get involved in a political process with which they’ve never gotten involved before.

    Sorry, but BG is right on at least this point: What I saw at the Party convention was a party of geriatrics. And it will continue to be that as long as the attitudes demonstrated at the convention prevail. And one of two things is necessarily going to happen: either those attitudes will disappear, or the Republican party will.

  104. micah4 says:

    Gundy: “I believe that now that they have seen that the convention allowed them the ability to voice their opinions that they will participate in the future more appropriately.”

    I can say with some confidence that the manner in whichthe convention was chaired pretty well guaranteed that *none* of the RP supporters feel that the convention allowed them the ability to voice their opinions. This is true of many non-RP supporters as well, I am sure.

    But to BJ’s credit, he’s identified the critical issue here, even if his conclusion is wrong. There were hundreds of new faces at that convention: young, energized, motivated, and willing to work for a party and a leadership they can believe in. Yes many of them are new to politics, and many were, I’m sure, getting involved with the Republican party somewhat reluctantly.

    Which is precisely why the manner in which the convention was handled was such a tragedy. Here you have an influx of new people who could energize the party’s base for years to come- and what they’ve seen and experienced during their tentative involvement in the GOP conventions is likely going to determine whether or not they’ll be supporting the GOP- or some other party- in the future. These people came to the conventions hoping against hope, willing to give the GOP a chance. Maybe for the first time and maybe for the last time ever, they were giving the GOP the chance to let them know that they *can* have a voice in the Republican party.

    But the GAGOP leadership completely misjudged this situation. Turning the convention into an us-against-them battle wherein all opposition must be quashed no matter the means or the consequences sent *exactly the opposite* message which BJ supposes was heard. The message came across loud and clear: No, you will not have a voice in this process. Even if you have a majority, you will not have a voice- not as long as *we’re* the ones holding the gavels.

    In nothing was this more evident than the debate over the resolution which was stifled with a strong arm by “the opinion of the chair.” The actual impact of adopting, not adopting, or amending this resolution is, I’m sure, so mind-numbingly irrelevant that it is only more incredible that the chair would choose to turn it into an opportunity to power-play his position against the strong and clearly voiced opinion of the assembly. That attitude- epitomized in that debate, but undoubtedly reflected by many other proceedings- strongly demonstrated a leadership that was determined *not* to give ear to any of the voices from the floor, but was only concerned with getting through their agenda.

    And yet the old guard here criticizes hundreds of concerned citizens who, never having been involved in the process before, have now come to make their voices heard. “They want to just show up and take over”.

    No, that’s the very sad mistake which the GOP leadership made. To be sure, the RP supporters would like nothing more than to see to it that RP is nominated as the Republican presidential candidate! But I think almost every one also knew that just wasn’t going to happen.

    So why did they show up? BJ got the reason right, for sure. They wanted to see the sausage being made. They wanted to know whether the Republican party is a place where they *can* have a voice.

    But BJ also got the conclusion dead wrong. The actions of those running the convention made it clear that this was not going to be a proceeding that had anything to do with people’s voices being heard. Sure, these people are new to the process. But you know what? You shouldn’t *have* to be a party insider for years and years just to have a voice in the political process! So what if these people aren’t “party loyalists”? They’re citizens! They *are* the governed from which the government derives its consent. It’s ridiculous for the party to be arrogantly dismissive and outright combatitive when such a large segment of the population feels so strongly about the direction of their government that a groundswell of support rises up and motivates large numbers of people to get involved in a political process with which they’ve never gotten involved before.

    BG and Christine are right on at least this point: What I saw at the Party convention was a party of geriatrics. And it will continue to be that as long as the attitudes demonstrated at the convention prevail. And one of two things is necessarily going to happen: either those attitudes will disappear, or the Republican party will.

  105. A Typical White Person says:

    Micah,

    So, based on your logic, anytime someone drops-in out of nowhere to run for a position, they should instantly be given equal consideration for the job at hand as someone who has spent 2 or more years demonstrating they don’t care who is in charge, but wish to help move the ball to the goal line.

    Some of the Ron Paul supporters are, quite literally, not on the “fringe” of lunacy, but actually lunatics.

    First, I have seen several RP supporters wearing the “9-11 Was An Inside Job” T-shirts.

    Second, one woman at the state convention had her chance at “equal time” and spent it yelling about how abortions were (in her words) “the murder of millions of American citizens“.

    If she had happened to bother checking the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, she would have discovered the definition of an “American citizen” as one who was born here or was naturalized.

    “Born” has a distinct definition in the biological timeline.

    While I’ll grant you that the lunatics who are RP supporters do not constitute the majority of them, the fact is if the Republican party was to allow ANYONE to just walk-up and take leadership roles without any question as to their true motives, then we would be falling down on our duties as much as perhaps the American government would be if they stopped checking passports from people coming into this country and just assume that anyone coming here is a good-intentioned soul.

    Whatever internal energy Ron Paul ignited in people like you and the 5% or so other Americans to support him is great…but, the way some of his supporters act makes it appear that there is more of a cultish personality associated with Ron Paul.

    And frankly, that scares people like me as much as the members of any cult (political, religious or whatever) does.

  106. BJ Van Gundy says:

    Very briefly I appreciate the new tone of this discussion. I only continued with the tone of accusation due to accusations being made that something somehow “illegal” took place at the convention.

    This sort of accusation going unchallenged will typically lead to a frivolous law suit so I went through the annoying process of parsing the language.

    Now. that being said. I have for many years expressed my frustration over the Libertarian Party’s insistence on running a candidate that tended to pull votes from the GOP side of the ticket. But many of you may be surprised (but those close to me over the years won’t) what my solution was.

    My solution was to encourage LP individuals to join the GOP and work for change from within the ranks of the GOP. The key here though is that I wanted them to JOIN and the WORK for change.

    Not show up for their first time ever and then demand loudly their desire for their point of view to be the dominant view simply by yelling louder… which was the methodology both at the District Convention I attended and the State Convention in Columbus.

    Just because 200 people out yell 800 people it doesn’t make the 200 people’s vote win.

    Hence when division was called at the convention that it showed a 80/20 or 70/30 kind of split of the votes.

    Look. At the end of the day I WELCOME THE NEWCOMERS TO THE PARTY. However. The problem that we have is that those newcomers want to have a 5% vote getter be the nominee rather than the person that won.

    JM wasn’t my first choice either but he’s my only choice now and part of being part of the Party is understanding that and not running home with your ball.

    Over the years of my involvement I have heard from many, many, many newcomers phrases such as “You know what needs to be done by Congress, the President, that State Legislature, etc…. WELL I’LL TELL YOU!…..”

    What we’ve had this year is a bunch of newcomers yelling that in unison. Probably not a bad thing in the long run as attention is being received.

    But I would ask that everyone understand that IN THE SHORT RUN it is something that may not be so well received.

    As cooler heads prevail and all work together for the betterment of this country from the conservative side of things I hope we can all see that if we all help push and pull the wagon the same direction we can get this country back on track. However, if some decide that they are going to try to pull that wagon faster than the pushers that have been pushing for a long time that the wagon may leave behind some of the pushers over time and come to a complete stop as well.

    Maybe a weird analogy but I tried.

    Cheers and welcome.

  107. Harper says:

    First, I’d like to state that the woman who stood up and spoke about the right to life was not, as far as I know, a Ron Paul supporter.
    Second, the resolution that was presented that had everyone so up in arms was passed because the chairman wouldn’t allow an actual vote on it. I was there and it was clear to me that there were many others outside of the Ron Paul group that were adamantly opposed to that resolution. We were, as a whole, clearly in the majority and once again, because it didn’t “fit” into the old guard agenda, it was simply railroaded through.
    As time goes on, I think that you’re all going to find that a lot of ‘old timers’ were offended by the behavior of the GOP towards the Ron Paul supporters during the state convention. It was echoed throughout the room and into the halls as we were leaving. Many people took the time to come up to many Ron Paul supporters and actually apologize on behalf of the Grand Old Party establishment.
    The truth of the matter is that the Ron Paul supporters behaved themselves like adults, following the rules and not speaking out of turn. The old guard resorted to such childish tactics as turning off the mics and then berating the speaker for not speaking into the mic when it was clear to everyone that it had been purposely turned off. The fact that BJ and others are all proud of that type of behavior speaks volumes about the prevailing attitude of the GOP leadership.
    As for us all being lunatics, well, have your fun at our expense. I would say that to blindly support someone simply because you are told to is madness, foolish and dangerous, all definitions of lunacy.
    The sad fact is that a group of people who have already worked their tails off for the party by campaigning for Ron Paul, a Republican, are being told that they haven’t worked for the party yet. The GOP is turning away a group that have already proven themselves. I have been walking door to door campaigning for 2 Republicans and making calls on their behalf and yet, I have not been made to feel anything but disdain from the party. I am not alone.
    If you want us to work with the party, don’t you think that you should at least meet us halfway? Instead, we’re all being ostracized and demeaned. The back slapping and chuckling that went on at the convention as a result of “beating the RPres”, was disgusting.
    I FIRMLY believe that the GOP thought that after the convention the Ron Paul folks would just go away. Well, most of you were wrong about us from the start and you’re wrong about us going away too. I think THAT”S what really scares you all, that we’re here to stay.

    Kathy Harper

  108. A Typical White Person says:

    Kathy,

    I specifically pointed out 2 types of lunatics. I did not define the whole group of RP supporters as being “lunatics.”

    Be careful about projecting.

  109. Harper says:

    You may not have, but we both know that that’s the agenda being put forth by many of the old guard. It’s a common thread running through the party across the country.
    Also, even though I don’t beleive the woman who was pro life was a Ron Paul supporter, I’m curious as to why you would call her a lunatic. She was simply voicing her opinion and she was very well spoken. Is no one supposed to voice an opinion that is outside of the “GOP ordained” mantra? Oh, wait, the pro life stance is part of the GOP mantra, isn’t it?

  110. A Typical White Person says:

    It may be a plank, but that does not mean every self-identified “Republican” agrees and supports that plank, or every other plank.

    Planks are dreamed-up much like “resolutions”…by a bunch of people that have nothing better to do than to devote their time in coming-up with what often appears to be THE most outlandish junk they can possibly come-up with.

    And, in case you haven’t noticed, not every elected politician who says they are “Republican” adheres to the planks either.

  111. Harper says:

    Of course they don’t adhere to the planks, they often sidestep the issue, kinda like you just did with my question.

  112. ikester8 says:

    BJ: I appreciate the welcome. And sure, yeah, we’re passionate about liberty. And angry that our birthright, as Americans and as human beings, has been consistently taken from us by Leviathan. And saying that it’s better here in America than it is most other places in the world doesn’t make it better, or right.

    No wonder, as all of us came together under Dr. Paul’s banner and realized that we weren’t alone, that we were loud and enthusiastic. I have to ask, though, why aren’t the other candidates’ supporters (with the exception of Obama’s and possibly Huckabee’s) loud and enthusiastic? BECAUSE THERE’S NO THERE, THERE. No heart. No principles. And no record to prove they stand for something besides their own powerlust.

  113. Chris says:

    I think much of the issue at the convention was mistrust of the RP people by the party “establishment” and distrust of the party leadership by the RP people.

    I can attest, sitting the the Gwinnett Delegation, that a large number of the NOs to the American Solutions Resolution did not come from the Ron Paul supporters. Randy Evans has done a lot for our country, state and party, but in this instance he was wrong not to call for division.

    When every elected official who spoke was begging the assembled delegates to support our Presidential nominee, it was unwise to ignore the voice of the minority. I don’t think the motion would have failed on a division – but it would have taken up a lot less time than all the motions of reconsideration and other parliamentary inquiries that occurred afterwards. It would have also clearly demonstrated that while the limited government/ libertarian faction of the party is a minority – it is a sizable minority that cannot be tossed aside.

    Finally to the person above who asked that RP supporters not be referred to as kooks, I ask the same courtesy and that those of us who support Senator McCain not be called neo-cons.

  114. micah4 says:

    Typical White: “So, based on your logic, anytime someone drops-in out of nowhere to run for a position, they should instantly be given equal consideration for the job at hand as someone who has spent 2 or more years demonstrating they don’t care who is in charge, but wish to help move the ball to the goal line.”

    I’m not at all sure how you got that from my post, in fact I’m not clear on what exactly you mean when you say ‘…demonstrating they don’t care who’s in charge’. At any rate, I’ve not said that somebody who shows up out of nowhere should automically receive equal consideration, that would be foolish. What I am saying is that when a sizeable number of people are suddenly motivated to get involved in the political arena when they’ve never been motivated to do so before, it’s going to go better for the party to recognize and accomodate those concerns rather than to try to quash the voices of the concerned. It’s particularly self destructive to use questionable tactics to do so, which only adds fuel to the fire, and then even over issues which are really of minor import! It’s just doesn’t seem very bright to me.

    Typical White: “The fact is if the Republican party was to allow ANYONE to just walk-up and take leadership roles without any question as to their true motives, then we would be falling down on our duties…”

    Honestly I agree with you. We’re also falling down on our duties by using our power to silence people’s concerns rather than hearing them.

    Typical White: “…but, the way some of his supporters act makes it appear that there is more of a cultish personality associated with Ron Paul.”

    From the limited experience I’ve had with Ron Paul supporters, I have to disagree. I see a distinct difference between the enthusiastic movement gathered around Dr. Paul and say, that behind Barack Obama. I think a “cult of personality” charge may be warranted in the latter case, where the movement *is* largely about the person and the personality, while few really seem to be sure what principles he stands for.

    But what I find with Paul’s camp, is that the motivating influence is not Dr. Paul himself, but rather the principles, values, and philosophy of government that he stands for. And that’s why I think these people are not going away. Dr. Paul won’t stay in politics forever, but people will continue to rally behind the principles of freedom, liberty, and constitutional government.

    The question is, will the GOP be the party that will stand for these principles with the same integrity with which Dr. Paul has? Will it rise to the challenge and once again exalt the principals that make our country great, or will these greater values continue to be lost from view in a morass of petty local politicking?

  115. ikester8 says:

    Chris: Consider it done. I just read David Foster Wallace’s “McCain’s Promise” (originally published as “Up, Simba” in Rolling Stone), which was the only surprising entry in the Barnes&Noble current events section.

    When one reads about McCain’s choice to stay in that Vietnamese prison for four more years, certain to endure more torture and possibly death, in honor of his fellow POWs and a code of fairness, one can’t help but marvel. Surely no one could make that kind of decision with a political future in mind.

    But does it mean he is any less the politician for his suffering? The essayist says no, and I’m inclined to agree with him. But there is strength there, no question.

  116. Kendall says:

    PeachPundit

    DRJAY (6/4/08): “i find it just as lame as the folks in augusta a couple of years ago making “pauper declarations” to get on the ballot for mayor w/out paying the qualifying fee for that either.

    …later

    “that’s why i would be curious to know the actual cost of putting on the convention b/c if the money collected was actually used to hold the convention that is a moot point and that “unwillingness” would then be invalid–there has to be some arbiter of unwillingness or every delegate could claim unwillingness and the party would be helpless to stop them.”

    drjay: I’m starting with you because it is you that first use the word “pauper” in this supposed open discussion. Yes, wouldn’t it be nice to know whether the money collected was actually used to hold the convention. I doubt that very seriously. Let’s consider:

    1. The facility that we met in was already paid for, I assume. I mean, I hope that we were not paying for it’s completion.
    2. It is fair to expect that our occupancy for the two-day event would have at least paid for operating costs. Well, maybe even a fraction above to cover maintenance, which I will assume is included.
    3. It seems to me that any receipts that might have exceeded operating costs for the day could be construed as “operating revenue” to the local jurisdiction.
    4. It also seems to me that the Republican State Party has a balance sheet that we can view. (You can be sure that I will be requesting it.)
    5. I would have expected that “the party” would have had the resources to pay for it’s own state convention.

    Thus, doesn’t it seem appropriate to you that “someone” would be “unwilling” to further the coffers of the party without any expectation that their voice would be heard and amplified by the State Party?

    Kendall

  117. Kendall says:

    BJ,

    You made a statement at the Gwinnet County Convention that I both admired and abhorred at the same time. (Mostly I abhorred it because of my perception of the state of political affairs.)

    You might even have lost recollection of the statement; but, I doubt it. It went something along the line of: “The delegation is a ‘reward for service’.” Since you are presently the Chair of the Nominations Committee, I have to tell you that I do not see you in that position very much longer. In any case, “delegation” is an action of “the people”. It might change from time to time.

    I observed you at the County Convention. I did not observe any evidence that you are truly committed to the people. My thoughts were: “He’s a plant from the RNC.”

    By the way “BJ,” nicknames and initialisms are passé. I’m afraid that you’re going to have to actually use the name that your Mother and Father gave you. I hope you’re not ashamed of it.

    Kendall

  118. PinkPatriot says:

    Dear RINOs:
    Your National Convention is going to be as irrelevant as your future in the Republican Party. You may have no use for us at your convention; but quite frankly, we have no use for you in OUR FUTURE.
    http://www.dailypaul.com/node/51939
    Christine Rainwater

  119. Kendall says:

    To all:

    I’ve looked over this blog and I have to admit: I do not understand where the division begins. Many of the posts refer to some ephemeral entity as “RP.” Well, let me take a little license: “RP” means “Republican Party. I.e., “Limited government, non-intervention foreign policy, sound money.”

    If this is the “RP” revolution, “Let the revolution begin!”

    Kendall

  120. drjay says:

    kendall,

    since you addressed me speciically i will respond

    http://www.mightyeighth.org/word/index.php?page_id=55

    it costs $1300 a day to rent the rotunda of this museum for an event in my little ole hometown–i’m guessing the rent for a municipal civic center for 2 days is somewhat more, not to mention all the registration material, prgrams, paid staff, set up and other ancillary costs associated w/ putting on the event–even if the party literally had the money in the bank to pay for these things before the event was held–it is reasonable to be hoping to recoup that money w/ the registration fees charged. any “fundraising” associated w/ the event would have come from the vendor booth rentals, ads in the program, and banners in the rafters.

    and i’m not sure why the “pauper” thing made you so edgy–i was just saying this whole event reminded me of that incidence in augusta a few years ago when more than one mayoral candidate wanted to make pauper declarations to avoid the qualifying fee–oh and that i thought both situations were pretty lame…

  121. Bill Simon says:

    Kendall,

    In your last post you said: RP” means “Republican Party. I.e., “Limited government, non-intervention foreign policy, sound money.”

    Just a question on your “non-intervention foreign policy” presumption: Does that mean any or all of the following:

    1) A hostile nation invades a peaceful nation and the US should not get involved under any circumstances.

    2) A/Many hostile nations take threatening actions against a country/countries who are allies of the US…but, the US does not get involved in any way in their problems.

    What say you? Does the US stay out of these situations and just tend to their own issues?

  122. Harper says:

    Only when Congress declares that we need to go to war, should we go to war. Congress should not declare war unless it is something that the American people want and only if the USA is threatened or if Congress feels that the USA is threatened.
    There should not ever be a pre-emptive war. The President can go to Congress and ask that we go to war but should do so only for the reasons stated above.
    So, to answer your question, I think every situation would necessitate that Congress determine how to proceed. I personally believe that we should tend to our own issues, as you put it, because our issues include the fact that we’re broke.
    The Fed is printing money with nothing to back it up. We’re spending billions on the war and on keeping troops stationed in countries that we are not at war with and we need that fake money here at home to repair our own infrastructures.

  123. Bill Simon says:

    How will the government measure “what the people want?” By polls? By surveys?

    By what Ron Paul or the Libertarians want?

    We live in a representative democracy that does not operate according to what the “American people” want or don’t want.

    The American people elect OTHER people to make decisions without the requirement that all decisions made at the top pass muster at the bottom before going forward with the decision.

    Or…would you like for the US Constitution to be re-written so that we are a pure democracy, and decisions are made only by polling the entire populace first?

  124. Taft Republican says:

    All:

    Take a look at ” Notes From a Convention,” by Butler Shaffer:

    He wrote about his first party convention since Goldwater ’64. And if he hadn’t said he was in Minnesota, I would have sworn he had sat right beside me at the Georgia convention:

    If there was one sentiment that dominated this convention, it was the stark fear, by the party faithful, that Ron Paul’s message might actually be heard by the delegates. It was not so much, I think, that the GOP establishment feared the kind of conversion that would lead the convention to select a slate of Paul delegates to attend the national convention in September. The concern, rather, was that Paul’s message might remind Republicans of the importance of policies driven by moral principles; that ideas do have consequences; and that the party and its officials now languish in a lifeless cesspool. While it was clear to all that John McCain would become the party’s nominee, it was also evident that the party regulars did not want to be reminded of just how morally and intellectually bankrupt they had become. In place of the principled behavior advocated by Ron Paul and his supporters, the GOP regulars offered the flimsy substitute of “common sense,” an amorphous standard that can be used to rationalize anything a speaker favors.

    He also wrote about how the GOP leadership apparently no longer thinks conventions are supposed to mean anything:

    A GOP party spokesman went further to utter one of the most witless of all comments: “From our perspective, John McCain is the nominee and Ron Paul lost. It’s time to move on and unite as a party.” If “McCain is the nominee,” then what purpose was served by this convention, or primaries later to be held in other states? For that matter, why have a national convention at all, if the nomination of McCain is fait accompli? This is doubtless what motivated the befuddled John McCain to propose beginning the McCain-Obama debates now, making the national convention a meaningless ritual which could only lead to mischief (i.e., Ron Paul getting to address the convention with alternative ideas that could disrupt the establishment script).

    The GOP needs to wake up, before it’s too late.

  125. Harper says:

    How will the government measure “what the people want?” By polls? By surveys?
    Answer: It supposed to start with the house of representatives since these are the people’s representatives, the people’s house of government who should know how their constituents feel about the issues.
    The people need to see debate and see who has voted to send their families and country to war.
    By what Ron Paul or the Libertarians want?
    Answer: Certainly not.
    We live in a representative democracy that does not operate according to what the “American people” want or don’t want.
    Answer: I agree, however, we are supposed to be living in a republic where the people have a voice.
    The American people elect OTHER people to make decisions without the requirement that all decisions made at the top pass muster at the bottom before going forward with the decision.
    Answer: This is correct.
    Or…would you like for the US Constitution to be re-written so that we are a pure democracy, and decisions are made only by polling the entire populace first?
    I would like to follow our constitution as it was originally written, as a Republic. The word “democracy” is not mentioned in the constitution.
    Of course, we’re discussing what color pail to use when we should be simply bailing the water out of the ship. I’m trying to use the “red” pail, but you’re making it very difficult for me.

  126. Bill Simon says:

    Harper,

    For the record, I have been against Bush ever since his speech in February of 2003 to the Congress and the nation. There was so many bad vibes about, not what he was saying, but HOW he was saying things and trying to prep the nation to go along with him on the decision to attack Iraq.

    Truthfully, I read him as someone who was bullshi*ting us on their “proof” of why it was of immediate importance to attack Iraq.

    Did I say anything publicly at the time? No, I just watched and talked to the TV (my dog was present, so he will be able to verify this) about how I felt Bush was lying to me.

    In the presidential election of 2004, I completely skipped voting for either candidate for President because THAT’S how disgusted I was way back then with Bush.

    Through the years after that, I was bitching a lot about the Bush regime to my fellow Republicans and was accused of being a “liberal” and a “RINO.”

    NOW I’m being accused of being a “RINO” by the likes of Bill Greene whom (I have no doubt) VOTED for Bush in 2004 and supported him throughout that year and next two years as long as Bush yakked about the immorality of abortion, gay marriage, and how important it was for the ENTIRE Congress and Executive Branch to stop what they were doing to involved themselves in a state-based case involving the case of Terri Schivao, et al.

    Is the Ron Paul campaign the first campaign that has inspired you to say “Hey…ya know what? The last 7 years have been more crap than I can take…I think I’ll get involved this year”?

    Just curious of your interest in the political landscape before this year.

  127. Bill Simon says:

    Bill, Bill, Bill…YOU were the one who BACKED the President and Congress and Jeb Bush’s attempts to inject their friggin’ noses into a state court matter that was decided by the Florida court system.

    YOU and your fellow nutcase-in arms, Lou Sheldon, were nothing but sleazebag con artists when you set-up RightMarch to raise money under the auspice of helping save brain-dead Terri Schiavo’s life.

    Did you raise some good money from that effort? From what I understand, you extended that campaign so long as to cause the parents of Terri Schiavo to issue a statement that you were not representing their interests as YOU HAD CLAIMED in your fundraising e-mail blasts to your “faith-based” financial prospects.

    Here is a refresher of your activities:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/25/politics/25fund.html

    Greene, you are NOTHING but a scumbag who preys on gullible people (like, by the way, plenty of the Ron Paul supporters) in hopes of generating enough heat to get them to DONATE MONEY to your coffers under the auspice of “conservative values.”

    Some people would call you a con-artist. That’s a nice definition. A more realistic term to describe you and your fellow “faith” snake-oil salesmen (insert Lou Sheldon, Ralph Reed, etc.) would be to term you as crooked.

  128. Bill Simon says:

    Bill, Bill, Bill…YOU were the one who BACKED the President and Congress and Jeb Bush’s attempts to inject their friggin’ noses into a state court matter that was decided by the Florida court system.

    YOU and your fellow nutcase-in arms, Lou Sheldon, were nothing but sleazebag con artists when you set-up RightMarch to raise money under the auspice of helping save brain-dead Terri Schiavo’s life.

    Did you raise some good money from that effort? From what I understand, you extended that campaign so long as to cause the parents of Terri Schiavo to issue a statement that you were not representing their interests as YOU HAD CLAIMED in your fundraising e-mail blasts to your “faith-based” financial prospects.

    Here is a refresher of your activities:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/25/politics/25fund.html

    Greene, you are NOTHING but a s*umbag who preys on gullible people (like, by the way, plenty of the Ron Paul supporters) in hopes of generating enough heat to get them to DONATE MONEY to your coffers under the auspice of “conservative values.”

    Some people would call you a con-artist. That’s a nice definition. A more realistic term to describe you and your fellow “faith” snake-oil salesmen (insert Lou Sheldon, Ralph Reed, etc.) would be to term you as crooked.

  129. Bill Simon says:

    And, finally, there’s this (which I’m certain Greene will claim was a “left-wing lie” told against him, but, sounds exactly like him, and any other religious fraud out there):

    “This is not the first time that William Greene and RightMarch.com have exploited Terri Schiavo in order to raise money for their own causes. In February, attorneys for the Schindler family told Greene to stop using Terri’s name in his solicitations.

    Greene claimed that he was raising money for a political action committee known as Terri’s List, inferring that the Schindler family was supportive of his efforts when in fact he hadn’t secured their permission, did it without their knowledge and continued even after the family asked him to stop doing so.”

    Source: http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/090206ShamefulSolicitation.html

  130. Bill Simon says:

    Bill Greene,

    You are no different a person than Ralph Reed was when he was working to rouse-up Christian activists in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas to fight against casinos when, in fact, it was Ralph Reed who was being paid under the table by Jack Abramoff to stop those casinos by casino operators who had HIRED Abramoff to stop the competition.

    You use, abuse, and exploit other Christians to enrich yourself. Making a living is one thing, Bill, but knowingly preying on the ignorance of others to enrich yourself is quite another matter.

  131. Bill Greene says:

    B.S., I know I really shouldn’t respond to your rant — I always advise others not to — but I will say one thing: every single one of these old web articles have been answered and debunked. Every one of them. From the smear of a woman who was shown to be mentally unstable — make that deranged — to the New York Times actually making stuff up whole cloth (wow, I’m surprised that a “Republican” would rely on that paper), they were ALL answered and debunked.

    You seem to be a whiz at Google, B.S. Maybe you should try using it to find the truth. I’m certainly not going to take the time to help anyone that believes it’s OK to kill babies, kill disabled persons, or marry their 6-year-old nephew. Right, B.S.?

    By the way, why do you REALLY bring up the issue of gay marriage in post after post after post? No one actually believes it’s to tick ME off, B.S. No, I think we all know the REAL reason.

    RINO.

  132. davidinflowerybranch says:

    So Bill Simon.

    What you are saying is that it isn’t surprising that at the Gwinnett GOP breakfast on Saturday morning, June 7, 2008 that Bill Greene of RightMarch.org and delegatesforronpaul.org didn’t have anything for the good of the Party to say when Greg Howard let him get in front of the crowd to speak. He only just asked for MONEY!

    I didn’t know about the Schiavo stuff. This guy is just an opportunist looking for the next right wing based opportunity to send out emails to his list that he has gotten through dishonesty telling them to send him money so he can make his mortgage payment (and from looking at him pay his grocery bill!).

    Keep it up Bill S. I don’t know you but you seem to have some pretty good resources for finding dirt! What more can you find on this scam artist?

    Bill Greene of Rightmarch.org and delegatesforronpaul.com is obviously no better than Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton when it comes to morals and taking advantage of the ingnorant.

    Dave

  133. Bill Simon says:

    Bill G, Part 2

    With regards to the “gay marriage,” I honestly don’t give a crap about the issue itself because, you know why?

    While you religious fanatics (at least 50% of whom are either divorced or cheating on their own heterosexual spouses at any one time) were spending all of 2004 and 2006 election cycles ranting and raving about gay marriage and abortion, you didn’t bother to check the fiscal conservative credentials of who you were trying to ensure stayed in power.

    You “social-conservatives-and-nothing- else-matters” are the cause of the defeat and wiping-out of both majorities the GOP held in Congress in November 2006.

    As far as people like you were concerned, the US could turn into a totalitarian state as long as abortion was banned and homosexuals were driven out of society.

    Well, guess what? God has a funny habit of punishing morons and arrogance. If Barack gets elected this November, that will seem to indicate that God “blesses” America in a vastly differently way than clowns like you (and that moron we have in the White House right now) THINK He should.

  134. Bill Greene says:

    To those who are spreading misinformation and downright lies about me, which had originally been posted (and debunked) 2-3 years ago:

    First of all, shame on you. If you have a problem with me, you need to call me or meet with me directly (as some have already done). If you are a Christian, you are being directly disobedient to the command of Christ in Matthew 18:15 — look it up. If you are not a Christian, you are engaging in shameful conduct by ANY reasonable standard — rumor-mongering, gossiping, and all assorted activities.

    Again, let me say: If you have a problem with me, you need to call me or meet with me directly. My number is in the book. I live in Braselton. Tell me where you want to meet near there. Because anything else… is just plain wrong.

    And if you SEE or HEAR someone engaging in this shameful behavior, TELL THEM exactly what I’ve just said, and give them my contact info. And if they say they won’t do that, then tell them the truth: that they should be ASHAMED of themselves.

    Now, to the issue itself that is being spread around:

    An article is being circulated that was an attack on Randall Terry, a friend and former client of mine, and on me, for fundraising that was done on behalf of the Schindler family – the family of Terri Schiavo. That article, by June Maxam of the “internet newspaper” North Country Gazette, was from several years ago, and has been well-debunked. Nevertheless, as they say, nothing ever dies on the internet. So let’s debunk it again.

    No matter what you think of Randall Terry himself – and really, you either love him or hate him – he never, EVER “exploited” the Schindler family. He was called in by Bob Schindler himself to represent them to the public and elected officials (just as was called in 2003 and helped save Terri’s life then), and to whip up grassroots support for saving their daughter from being starved to death by her estranged adulterous husband.

    Here’s the note that Bob Schindler WROTE HIMSELF and sent out to the public:

    “Our family has asked Randall Terry and his staff to once again coordinate the efforts to rescue Terri from the clutches of death by judicial homicide. We ask you to help my daughter, Terri, by following Randall’s lead, and cooperating with and supporting the efforts we have asked him to undertake. We thank you with all our hearts for your concern for our daughter, and for your help in trying to save her.”

    Knowing my expertise in this area, Randall asked me to help him with using the internet for grassroots activism, to let the pro-life community know exactly what was going on there in Florida, and to try to raise money to help cover the Schindlers’ mounting expenses in this struggle.

    A number of groups, such as National Right to Life, to their discredit, had already been doing fundraising off of this situation, but the funds all went to those groups, NOT to the Schindler family. The family was going broke. And then I stepped in to help.

    That was three years ago, so I don’t remember how many tens of thousands of dollars we raised for the efforts to save Terri’s life. But I remember well when Randall put that first check, for $12,000, into Bob Schindler’s hands; he began to weep, because this was the FIRST time the family had EVER been given ANY money from ANY of these fundraising efforts. And we continued to deliver checks to him every week, which paid for food, lodging, gas, and legal costs; some of the money also went to pay for the associated grassroots activities and lobbying efforts, including bus rentals (busing hundreds of supporters from the hospice where Terri was being held to the state capital in Tallahassee to lobby Senators), airplane tickets (bringing in Jesse Jackson, Larry Klayman, Alan Keyes, and others to meet personally with Governor Bush, the Senate President, and others), and other similar activities.

    We worked our fingers to the bone trying to save Terri Schiavo’s life. And while the loss we felt when they starved her to death could never compare to the loss in the Schindler family’s hearts, we were ALL deeply pained when we lost our battle — and she lost hers. It was devastating to have this happen here in America of all places, and words simply cannot describe what I felt as I drove home from Florida, and the overwhelming depression as I realized the slippery slope our country was now sliding down.

    One of the main instigators of the legislative drive to kill Terri was a state Senator named Jim King. I don’t apply this label very often, but Jim King is simply an evil man. Senator King made it his personal mission to make certain that Terri was starved and dehydrated to death, and he successfully recruited eight other Republican senators in his mission. If we had had just 3 of their votes, Terri could still be alive. To him, this was all about politics, and he was going to do whatever it took to keep us from stopping the judicial murder about to take place.

    Jim King came up for re-election the following year, and providentially, Randall Terry lived in his district. Randall decided to run against this man, and I was more than happy to support his efforts.

    Randall asked Bob Schindler to sign onto a fundraising letter for his state senate campaign, and Bob willingly agreed. The letter was discussed and vetted between them, Bob said to go with it (as long as a disclaimer was included reading, “This opinion is made in my own name, not in the name or with the funds of any organization with which I’m affiliated”), and Randall asked me to start online fundraising for his race.

    By the next day, thanks largely to the negative reaction of family attorney David Gibbs (the attorney who lost every case filed to save Terri’s life), Bob was forced to retract his endorsement letter, so the family’s Foundation wouldn’t look like it was involved in any political activities. Randall agreed to pull Bob’s name from any further fundraising solicitations, and that was the end of it. (If there had been any “malice” involved, you can be SURE that Randall would have been sued. He was NOT.)

    June Maxam, the author of the article that is being circulated to discredit me, is well-known in the pro-life community for using rumors, innuendoes and outright lies against people she just doesn’t like (not unlike certain “Rumors”-mongers in Georgia). Maxam feuded with former partner Ginger Berlin when the two ran the Empire Journal, the predecessor to the North Country Gazette where Maxam has attacked me. They fought about a familiar topic — the ownership of news stories and money — and were embroiled in a legal battle over it.

    Berlin broke with Maxam over how and what was being reported on this website, and Maxam then began a smear campaign against her, too. Even the renowned pro-life leader, Steven Ertelt of LifeNews.com (which has been around since 1993, starting as the clipping service called the Pro-Life Infonet), has made it clear to all that Maxam has “problems” in many areas. See the following link for info on this woman who attacked me so viciously — and who went on to attack EVERYONE in the pro-life community:

    http://www.lifenews.com/bio2293.html

    And at http://www.lifenews.com/stevenerteltjunemaxam.html Ertelt writes:

    Maxam prides herself on making money reporting on Terri Schiavo and has publicly indicated on numerous occasions that she is not pro-life (and has Google ads touting Planned Parenthood on her web site). As we have documented in the article listed above, she attacks anyone reporting on Terri as well despite requests from Terri’s family to stop.

    At least LifeNews.com can enjoy knowing that we’re not alone. A quick Google search yields numerous results from others who she has viciously attacked, including her former newswriting partner.

    This is the woman who, in the attacks she has written on me, has decried the fact that I am good at fundraising for conservative and pro-life causes, candidates and organizations; but, as Ertelt also has written, she has also “decried the fact that web sites covering Terri Schiavo have advertisements or accept donations from readers to help cover the cost of reporting the news. Yet, Maxam’s web site contains dozens of advertisements that appear to pay her based on the amount of traffic her site generates… She also touts the sale of a book of her articles concerning Terri Schiavo and the top of the NCG web site and includes a link soliciting ads.” So, when it comes to baseless attacks by June Maxam, I’m in very good company there.

    Similarly, other website have reported on Maxam’s lies, attacks, and more, such as in the article “Conspiracy Theorist June Maxam Trashes IPowerWeb Hosting Company, Begs For Money To Support Website Plastered With Pay-Per-Click Advertising Images And Links” here:

    http://shurl.org/maxam1

    (That’s a pretty “rough” site, by the way, but it really lays out the truth about this woman who attacked me.)

    Maxam now claims that mysterious and anonymous “death threats” are being made against her, causing her to “lose advertisers” and possibly shut down her infamous website.

    So much for the “reports” being circulated about me, originating from June Maxam and the NCG.

    I believe it is obvious to most people that the recent attacks and “whisper campaign” against me are not factually-based, but politically- and personally-motivated. And while I don’t like having to answer scurrilous charges that were already answered and dismissed 3 years ago, I simply cannot let them “float” out there just to damage my name.

    If you have any questions, give me a call. Thanks.

  135. davidinflowerybranch says:

    Hey Bill Greene of delegatesforronpaul.com and rightmarch.org:

    Before you go accusing anyone of spreading lies about you and quoting the Bible and acting truly Holier than Thou…

    How about you turn that finger around and point at yourself for spreading a rumor that someone is gay! You yourself attempt to spread a rumor just a few posts back and then turn around and quote the Bible???!! Here’s a rumor for you: You’re a piece of crap!

    How can you point a finger any ANYONE immediately after you yourself insinuated that someone was gay (with the intention of damaging them) .

    I just wonder, did you ever call Randy Evans, Sue Everhart or BJ Van Gundy, or any of the others that you have “had a problem” with and as Matthew 18:15 states: “go and show him his fault, just between the two of you”?

    Bet you didn’t but you came on here describing all of their faults and claiming that they did illegal things and accusing them of all kinds of things. Bet you haven’t done much of that “go and show him his fault, just between the two of you” in your whole stinking life but your going to come one this blog and tell everyone else that that is what they must do to live up to some standard that YOU have set.

    You are the definition of and poster child for “those that live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”.

    Take your own advice and be ASHAMED OF YOURSELF. BE VERY ASHAMED.

    Based on your own posting you will go to Hell for your own lack of following Matthew 18:15.

    And tomorrow wouldn’t be soon enough!

    P.S. And by the way. yes. I’m making sure that Your name appears close to your two scam web sites so that google will find this page when people go to look you up. I hope that Bill Simon, Buzz Brockway, BJ Van Gundy and anyone else that is exposing you for being a false Christian or for that matter a false ‘decent human being’ will do the same in their posts. (Just a thought you guys).

  136. davidinflowerybranch says:

    Oh my.

    Bill Greene. delegatesforronpaul.com scam site and rightmarch.org scam site.

    I went and reviewed the web site that you put the link up for. Read the whole page.

    First of all. It doesn’t “debunk” a single thing regarding the accusations that were made against you in the Schiavo case. It just trashes the author of SOME of the accusations.

    Second. It appears that the “Bad Cop News” web site has a personal vendetta against the author/blogger, June Maxam. It is NOT an objective discussion regarding her.

    In fact, they have a long running string of stuff regarding her that doesn’t actually debunk what she says (I’ll admit here that she does appear to be a bit of a nut with some of her stuff) but is intended solely to trash her.

    HOWEVER. THAT IS NOT THE WORST OF WHAT BILL GREENE HAS NOW DONE!

    All those that click on Bill Greene’s link above should note that his statement that “That’s a pretty “rough” site” is an understatement of disgusting and pornographic proportion!

    WARNING WARNING WARNING
    The web site that Bill Greene provided a link to has a link ON THAT PAGE that takes you directly to video that is the most disgusting and pornographic thing you could accidentally trip over on the INTERNET! I’m not exaggerating!

    Bill Greene has now provided a link to a web site here on this board that goes to a pornographic video distributor.

    My suggestion to you Erick is to BAN Bill Greene IMMEDIATELY for this.

    Bill Greene the PORNO Distributor should not be allowed to continue to post on this board! I am deeply offended that he put this material here. It is disgusting.

  137. Bill Greene says:

    David, (AS IF — isn’t anonymity a wonderful thing?), if I am attacked based on false reporting by a mentally-disturbed woman, who has been debunked by numerous people on numerous websites, I will post the links to the debunking. If I were to quote the entire articles, I would be accused of plagiarism; but if I link to the articles themselves, you accuse me of be a “porno distributor”.

    Don’t be such a rube. Erick’s not dumb, and he’s certainly not going to do whatever YOU say.

    By the way, Erick – check the IP address of “David”, I think you’ll discover who it really is, and can take appropriate action at that point.

    (And, just what is “rightmarch.org”?)

  138. Bill Greene says:

    By the way, B.S., it’s really funny how you keep calling me a “social-conservatives-and-nothing- else-matters” Republican.

    Why don’t you ask your “business” partner B.J. the REAL reason he and his co-conspirators want me off of the delegate slate?

    It’s not for being a “social-conservatives-and-nothing- else-matters” Republican. It’s for being a “follow the Constitution and be a true conservative” Republican.

    Like I said, B.S. You keep proving, over and over again, that you actually know NOTHING about me. And the things you THINK you know, I keep showing how WRONG you are.

    Trash talk me all you want. It’s obviously all you got. And even that ain’t much.

  139. Bill Simon says:

    Bill G,

    One minor correction to your presumption of a “whisper campaign” against you: Writing publicly about you on this blog is not a “whisper”, Moron.

    (oh…do call me “RINO” again…I miss it when you don’t sign-off that way on a post…)

  140. Bill Simon says:

    Ah, but, Bill…you have inspired me, actually, to do research about your “organization”, and your methods.

    When I get a free 4 hours or so to write, I will issue a SPECIAL, documented report on you, and let others judge the kind of character you possess. (I know, the thought of that will actually make your chest swell with pride at the thought of being highlighted in my newsletter)

    Ta-ta for now!

  141. davidinflowerybranch says:

    Bill Greene of rightmarch.com (whatever),
    once again… you violate Matthew 18:15… or have you called BJ Vangundy?

    Erick doesn’t have to be a “rube” to click on your link in your post above and then click on one of the links in the story on that page to be utterly disgusted by the porno that appears. It is disgusting and the fact that you posted that link makes YOU disgusting.

    Let us all know. Have you called Sue, or Randy or BJ in an attempt to follow your edict that Mathew 18:15 be followed? Have you Bill? Have you?

    Or is that only applicable to anyone that has a problem with you?

    Tell us Bill. Let’s revisit Matthew 18:15 as originally cited by you… Have you called those that you should “go and show him his fault, just between the two of you”?

    Actually, it doesn’t matter if you called them… you already didn’t do the “just between the two of you”.

    Bill Greene is a false Christian that uses Christianity only as a weapon or a shield. Actually acting as a Christian escapes him.

    Let us know Bill how it went when you called Sue and randy and BJ and had your “just between the two of you” conversations.

  142. Bill Greene says:

    “David” (as if),

    I have never had anything against Sue, or Randy, or BJ, to the point where I believe they have “trespassed against” me, as Matthew 18:15 requires. I have never accused them of engaging in a campaign of spreading lies or rumors behind their backs. I have never accused them of sending emails to several dozen GOP leaders talking trash about me. So where does Matt. 18:15 come in to that? Are you saying THEY DID do those things, and so I should go to them? On what do you base your accusations against them? Those are serious charges against those individuals, “David”. Be careful of your accusations.

    I specifically addressed my comments to those who were engaging in such practices. I have been forwarded those emails multiple times by multiple people, and I have contacted them personally to ask for meetings with them, along with their and spouses and their pastors (and mine). Only one has done so.

    So if you are engaging in such a campaign, “David”, I extend that request to you as well. It would appear that you claim Christ as your Lord, or else you wouldn’t be basing your appeals to me on His Word (a non-Christian would have no claim to His Word, in order to appeal to it). Please stop hiding behind anonymity, let me know your real name, the name of your church, and your pastor’s name, and let’s get together this week, if you are indeed trespassing against me. Or even if you feel I have trespassed against you, since (if you are a Christian) you would need to follow Christ’s instructions in this matter. OK?

  143. Bill Greene says:

    B.S., I’m sure your “special documented report” on me will be nothing new. First, you will repeat the charges above that I have debunked. Then you will repeat false charges you made against me elsewhere on PP that I also debunked. Then you will quote from other people’s charges that have also been debunked. And then, you won’t have the nerve to offer me the opportunity to show everyone on your website and email list exactly how I debunked all of your claims, because you’re scared to actually be proven wrong to your own “peeps”.

    I dare you to publish your lies in your “newsletter” (LOL). But only if you dare to INCLUDE my rebuttals when you send them out.

    You won’t do it. You’re scared to be shown up by someone who can actually show your entire “readership” what a lying cad you are. You’re one of those kitty-cats you keep calling everybody else. Right?

    (and where do you find the time to write all the crap you write, here and elsewhere? do you have NO life at all? we all wish you would get one…)

  144. davidinflowerybranch says:

    Bill Greene…

    What do you call making accusations as you have of illegal activity against those that ran the Convention?

    The entire beginning of this current discussion is that you were rumor mongering and spreading accusations about GOP leadership without first going to them and following His word to “go and show him his fault, just between the two of you”.

    Instead you came on here and made accusations. That is what I am talking about Bill Greene.

    YOU making accusations. You rumormongering. All rather than going to those that you have a problem with and following His word from Matthew 18:15.

    You have now twisted the meaning of Matthew 18:15 so bad some are likely confused as to what it says. It says: “If your brother sins against you,[a] go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.”

    The problem here is that you have run around accusing people of sinning against you (and others you feel you must protect) but I have doubts that you have contacted them as instructed by His word.

    If you have contacted those that you feel are accusing you of things and causing you harm (which you accuse Vangundy of above) then I am wrong. I just doubt that you have called any of those you accuse of efforts against you.

  145. A Typical White Person says:

    Isn’t it time to kill this thread yet? I’ve never seen such rambling back-and-forth…

  146. BJ Van Gundy says:

    ATWP:

    YES! I agree. Tired having to keep coming back to see if there is anything worth reading or worrying about. But since this has now turned into a Bible study group I think the time has come, especially considering that it is nowhere relevant to the title.

    BG, let it go, I have.

    David, it would have died if you would have just kept your nose out. Please don’t bring me into your arguments in the future.

    Cheers to all!

  147. rugby fan says:

    Thank goodness they G.A.Y.S. weren’t able to get married until today. Otherwise Carter wouldn’t have made up his mind.

    Do you think if the G.A.Y.S. were able to wed earlier, Huckabee would have one some more primaries?

Comments are closed.