Post GA GOP Convention Open Thread

Once again, Ron Paul supporters are expressing shock that majorities are required to win elections. I am assured via twitter however that they are still winning. Whatever.

Julianne Thompson, Kay Godwin, Pat Tippett, and Dan Becker are shocked to learn that they are either liberal media elites or subversive Democrats.  I’ll post the full text of the press release they sent over protesting Speaker David Ralston’s assertions that real Republicans don’t want ethics reform below the fold.  Welcome to the RINO! club, kids.

Randy Evans is the Georgia GOP’s New Committee Man.  Linda Herren was re-elected as National Committee Woman.

The 13th District Convention will have to hold a “do-over” to select delegates and alternates for the National GOP Convention in Tampa.

And we had a few drinks at the Peach Pundit Road Show the other evening.  Thanks to most who attended.  Others…

Discuss these and any other GOP/Convention related items below.  OPEN THREAD:

Conservative Groups Rebuke House Speaker David Ralston’s Comments at GOP State Convention Speech

Leaders call for Apology


Columbus, GA – Members of the Capitol Coalition of Conservative Leadership condemned comments made by House Speaker David Ralston at the State Republican Convention Friday afternoon.

The Coalition issued this formal response as a group:

“We strongly condemn the comments made by Speaker Ralston regarding ethics reform. Strong ethics and accountability are not a matter of right versus left. They are a matter of right versus wrong. His comments imply that voters and activists should hide our eyes from the realities of ethics violations and the need for reform, and stand by everyone no matter what they do, simply because they have an “R” behind their name. Rather than open his heart to the cries from citizens that we have the right to call for accountability, his comments reflect those of someone who seeks to divide our party by falsely accusing those who stand for our values of being divisive. His comments were arrogant and pompous and show an attitude that is anything but a humble public servant.”

The Capitol Coalition of Conservative Leadership consists of 31 conservative groups from across the spectrum, and includes Tea Parties, Georgia Right to Life, Georgia Conservatives in Action, Eagle Forum, and others…

Founding Members:

Julianne Thompson – Georgia Tea Party Patriots

Kay Godwin – Georgia Conservatives in Action

Pat Tippett – Georgia Conservatives in Action

Dan Becker – Georgia Right to Life



  1. Doug Deal says:

    The convention was handled extremely well, despite the cries of unfairness. If you don’t have a majority, you cannot win the votes, so what’s the point of continuing “debate”, except to disrupt the convention. It was good that they became active in the process, but the subset of RP supporters that will not accept that fact need to mature a bit and realize that you can’t win everything and are unlikely to win even half the time in a competitive process.

    In the end, the convention is about the primary voters, not the delegates. That’s why delegates are bound to a candidate elected by the voters.

    • Rick Day says:

      If you don’t have a majority, you cannot win the votes, so what’s the point of continuing “debate”, except to disrupt?

      Mind asking that question to the GOP Critters on Capital Hill™?

    • Jimmie says:

      What about the second round when they become unbound? Do we get in line like the rest of ya’s? Last time I checked GA voted overwhelmingly for Newt in our Primary. Why the hell should I listen to some suits who tell me who to vote for once I am unbound?

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      Well, to Evans’ credit, it wasn’t what I thought it would be. Particularly at the beginning, he seemed like he could mix in a little humor with the process.

      As far as debate goes, I don’t think anyone walked into that convention unsure of who they would end up supporting. But I submit that the purpose of a debate is not to stall; it is to try to make a compelling argument for a candidate or issue.

      As far as delegate selection goes, I didn’t expect much. But on the issues, I was rather interested in hearing the debate on the NDAA, but unfortunately, some committee somehow trashed the whole thing just as things were getting interesting. Whether or not that’s against the rules, I’m not sure. However, I do think it reflects poorly on the party when there was obviously support for the resolution in both the Paul as well as a portion of the Romney camps, and then some all-powerful committee suddenly acts like the whole thing was never mentioned.

      Heck I think the whole thing was worth it just to hear that sweet little ole’ lady tell the chairman that she ‘knew how to get up on that stage.’ That was awesome.

      And no chairs were broken.

      • seenbetrdayz says:

        NDAA fiasco, (poor quality video but I’m not responsible for that)

        I’ll have the GOP hardliners here know that any support you might have picked up from disillusioned Obama voters, just flew out the window. No one is going to support a party that pulls these antics, other than perhaps blind party loyalists. I don’t care if some people were booing from the upper level seating (from what I saw and heard, it wasn’t just those ‘troublemakers’ who were upset about the resolution being withdrawn by a committee); what’s more obvious is that the GA GOP just gave its opinion on the right to due process, by pulling even the original NDAA resolution from the floor.

        • Jimmie says:

          it was a very revealing moment when the committee all of a sudden tossed out the resolution that was overwhelmingly approved. The committee didn’t quite think it out fully before submitting it to 1800 delegates who supported the preserving of their natural rights as U.S. citizens. It was encouraging to see so many fellow Republicans understand how wrong Section 1021 is. Seeing as most of our Congresspeople and the chosen one, fully supports the NDAA they quickly realized they messed up and abruptly removed the resolution from the 1800 delegates. After all the convention truly belongs to the people on the stage, not the delegates on the floor.

          • debbie0040 says:

            Jimmie, after it was clarified what the amendment would do, the resolution would have been voted down by a huge majority and you know it. The resolution itself was never approved, only the amendment and once people found out what it did they changed their minds.

            • seenbetrdayz says:

              You mean, once it was realized that standing up for All-American principles would lessen the olds of ‘winning’ in November, people within the party changed their minds.

              I can believe that.

              The GOP is dead.

  2. Calypso says:

    Charlie, if this is an open thread, I have a question. Is the server which hosts PP running extremely slowly the past few days?

    Oh, and the moderate amount of respect I had for Ralston went down the crapper with his remarks about ethics, liberals and conservatives. He indicated that only liberals were for ethical government and gift caps. The unstated implication then must be that conservatives are for unethical government.

    I guess he paid a compliment to the left and told the right to shut their whore mouth.

  3. Rick Day says:

    Does this mean that you guys are finally going to separate the nuts from the felons, and purge the party of ideologues and criminals?

    Or will it be the other way round? Either way, we win!

  4. HisIdeas says:

    Georgia GOP party establishment is a DISGRACE to cave in on the only worthwhile resolution against § 1021 in NDAA ” … the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens”.

    Despite your glee on your backdoor deal win and your political machine against the grassroots conservatists in GA, you have lost your votes to strike an eventual win in November.

    Ron Paul supporters are not shocked. We may not have the 2/3 but it is also very questionable the rest is 2/3 = 66.67%. If Randy Evens dared to do a standing count as requested by the body, then it would have quickly revealed, he did not have the 2/3 = 66.67% he needs. At the very least 40% are in disgreement with the rest. It probably shocked the establishment more than it shocked Paul backers. Paul supporters are on the rise. We will see you soon!

    The only exciting and refreshing part of this experience is to be able to voice those objections and receive standing applauses by our true patriots!

    • AnubisMD says:

      The GAGop decision to pull the NDAA resolution shows the spineless resolve our current leaders have . This is why they need to be replaced . instead of standing up for what is right , to oppose the worst violation of our constitutional rights in my lifetime ,they demonstrated the kind of two faced RINO action that has caused the TP and Ron Paul to have gained traction . obama has stated he wants to be a dictator without dealing with the congress . the NDAA gives him the power to be a dictator . If we cannot get the leadership of the GOP to do what is right , our leaders will never called to explain their anti American actions

  5. Jimmie says:

    What part are you referring to with the 2/3’s? Only rule changes and Convention adjournment require 2/3 I believe. It was extremely refreshing to see the convention support for the resolution about section 1021 even the low lifes on stage ended up tossing it. Also how does a Tea Partier vote against repealing Section 1021? How is that being a Patriot? Ladies and Gentlemen. Exhibit A on why many no longer take the TP seriously. The Founding Fathers would have laughed them out of town.

  6. Doug Grammer says:


    You have no one to blame but yourself. You don’t know the rules or Roberts rules, or get enough people elected from the county level. If you did, you could have got more accomplished.

    You did not have 33%, let alone 40%. Had you known what to do you could have challenged a ruling of the chair. We did do a standing count several times. I commend Randy on being patient and allowing everyone who wanted to speak some leeway. Points of order were made that had nothing to do with ror. Calling the chairman names is not a good way to be part of the team. You want to run the convention? Bring about 6 times more people and learn what to do.

  7. HisIdeas says:


    You are right about not getting enough at the county level. I am talking about a “standing COUNT”, not just “standing”, OK?! When was a count conducted????? It is a subjective ramthrough. Don’t kid yourself. Show me the proof! Only a real count and double checking the real count and a recorded real standing COUNT can prove whether 2/3 was achieved. As subjective as Randy Evans’s conclusion Yay or Nay had it, I am here to tell you: Yes. It was at least 40%. You can use the vote for national committeeman as a gauge. Did he get over 1000? How many total seated over 1800? How many did not go along with Randy Evans? You can count on those who did not vote for Randy Evans as Paul or mostly Paul backers.

    • Doug Grammer says:

      And if you don’t agree with a ruling of the chair, you appeal a ruling of the chair. You don’t ask for the same ruling again by asking for a count again. Asking for a roll call vote is a tactic designed to get people to leave . Some people are just mad that others were too smart to fall for that. Roberts rules was cited by page number and line. I read the article…its accurate and reflects what I saw and agrees with what I have said.

      I voted to amend the rules to allow nominations from the floor. If some Ron Paul supporters had not shown great disrespect and booed Newt, perhaps others would have joined me. Some of you people are your own worst enemy.

      The only proof I HAVE to show you that the vote count was correct is to tell you you didn’t know how to object to a ruling if the chair and complaints now are not timely. It is over. The slate was elected. I was in line to make a valid parliamentry inquiry and didn’t get recognized. It wasn’t an act of malice and I know the convention is over.

      You can tell me it was 40% until you are blue in the face. I’m going to tell you it was less than 1/3. The convention minutes and history will show that I am right and you are wrong.

      • Jimmie says:

        You think that was anything new to Newt? everywhere he goes and speaks to GOP conventions he hears backlash from RP supporters. Newts a big clever boy and went right to his RP file during his speech to quell the outspoken people. This is America and people are still allowed to speak freely no? I wouldn’t say the dissenters were that outspoken while Newt talked. Tell me again why the GOP guard and the bankers chose Mitt over Newt? I know why they chose against RP, but Newt could make Obama look like a mindless fool in a debate.

        • Doug Grammer says:

          It wasn’t new to Newt, but the majority of people in the room voted for him. I’m saying it is stupid to boo thier candidate right before you may want their help in votes.

          Georgia voted for Newt. I’m not going to speculate on why Mitt won other states right now, but he’s going to be the nominee.

      • HisIdeas says:

        Gingrich to Romney: Court Ron Paul Supporters

        In his latest column for the conservative publication Human Events, Gingrich stated the following “these election results suggest the tea party movement and the support focused on Ron Paul is not a small development. It betrays historic discontent, and I doubt we have seen the last of it.

        If Gov. Romney succeeds in giving voice to that discontent in a serious discussion with the American people, he has a strong chance in the fall.”

        • Jimmie says:

          was thinking about this on the way home today. I hate Obama’s agenda and his actions with a passion. I don’t have faith in Romney changing anything either, look at his gross flip floppin past. If the GOP wants to beat Obama in November there is no doubt they HAVE to have RP people’s vote. It appears of late that Newt understands this. Does Romney? Does the GOP itself? How do they plan to garner that voting bloc?

          • HisIdeas says:

            They planned and succeeded in plotting and scheming againt a strong Paul base, from reducing Paul participants to Alternates (that is giving party regulars the delegates and throwing some bones to Paul as alternates at a much reduced number) at precinct and county level, up to not seating some Paul Alternates at the state convention (not all counties but some counties definitely).

            “It was decided as early as May 15th by Sue Everhart and her party folks that no Ron Paul supporter was going to be going to the RNC convention. BUT, they decided to keep that ultra-quiet because, in the words of Sue Everhart: ‘We need those people to come to the convention to help pay for it so we won’t lose money.'” This is from Political Vine, by the way.

            GAGOP’s number one goal is to shut out the Ron Paul supporters from their party machine. I am sorry. I cannot take this anymore. They say they can defeat Obama. Go figure.

            • Jimmie says:

              The whole Section 1021 bamboozle was worth the price of admission. The rest was expected from the Good Ole Boy network.

    • Doug Grammer says:

      I don’t have to read someone else’s comments to know what happened. It is their opinion and nothing more. I was there, so I don’t need to do so.

  8. debbie0040 says:

    Ron Paul represented 28% of the delegates in attendance . It was easy to look at the vote count for National Comitteeman and determine the precentages as a Paul supporter was nominated. Paul supporters were very well organized and had a great game plan and they just assumed the non Paul people would just lay down and let them execute it. When the non Paul supporters fought back and actually followed Robert’s Rules, the Paul supporters got upset and starting crying foul. They learned a lesson that if you have the numbers and know Robert’s Rules and GOP Rules you can shut down deliberate attempts to stall. If the Paul supporters had actually been involved with the local GOP parties since 2008, they would have learned the process and procedures and built alliances.

    Jimmy or whatever your real name is, please at least make an attempt to get your facts straight. Most people would have supported the original resolution that called for a repeal of section 1021 of NDAA. In fact, I stood and applauded when it was introduced. It was the amendment that was introduced people had an issue with. Most did not even realize what the amendment would do and that is why I went to the microphone to explain that it called for any elected official or candidated that voted for or supported NDAA would not be endorsed by the GA GOP and the GA GOP could not assist them in getting elected. .It was a sneaky attempt by some Paul supporters and it back fired as it angered most activists and the vote count was pretty one sided .

    • Jimmie says:

      simply not true. Section 1021 IS part of NDAA. The resolution was to repeal Section 1021 only if I’m not mistaken. If any elected official supports Section 1021 then they should not be supported, and in fact should be called a treasonous snake. The support for not supporting elected officials very large. The committee realized they had been bamboozled and quickly withdrew the resolution. Anyone U.S. citizen that supports Section 1021 and (1022), either does not fully understand it, or hates America and the Constitution. From what I heard the RP table was backed up all morning. The unofficial count of people who checked in was 800+.

    • Agreed. The convention ended up being a rout. The Paul delegates were 28%.

      In fact, that’s exactly why its leadership didn’t call for a standing vote count: a standing vote count would have confirmed it.

      • registrar says:

        The Paul people didn’t run anyone for National Committeeman, so your “count” is bogus. That guy ran himself at the last minute, apart from the Paul leaders’ strategy, because he wanted to make a speech (and a damn fine one he made, too). Ask the Paul leaders what their numbers on the floor were, and you’ll learn it was almost 700, and would have been more if many of their Alternates were not held back from being seated in empty Delegate slots, just because of their support for Paul.

        I personally know of Paul supporters who voted for Randy, ones who voted for Frank, and ones who voted for Alex. Stop making stuff up out of whole cloth when you don’t know the facts.

  9. HisIdeas says:

    Why would you insist on electing a candidate who supported NDAA? On the contrary, it should immediately disqualify a candidate by their support of 1021 of NDAA. If they cannot hold the lines and be held accountable on issues after issues, why reward them with your support?! You call this a “sneaky attempt by some Paul supporters”; I call this a testimony of Paul backers’ principled stance.

    The best thing to do is always vote your conscience. We do not owe the party anything. The GAGOP party resoundingly rejected Ron Paul supporters today despite of impressive 40%~ showing. By the way I will insist that your claim of 28% or 33% is an under-estimate. Be well it may, let me be clear, we are not interested in playing the good old boys and good old girls’ “go along and get along” game with no regard for what is right.

    The GOP party is not interested and able to keep the votes and enthusiam of the Ron Paul supporters. We do not want a candidate who will be bought and sold. We simply do not trust Romney who is controlled by the same globalists that control the Obama adminstration. Polls show Romney is not capable of beating Obama but Ron Paul will. The party need to put out candidates who never support bailouts, who is a strong advocate of economic and personal liberty, who have visionary understanding of monetary policy and the federal reserve, who are serious about cutting spending, and who has consistent small government records and Ron Paul is that very candidate. Ron Paul is the champion against NDAA but Romney publically supports NDAA. It is a shame GAGOP choose to not allow 40% of delegation to be represented.

    • Doug Grammer says:

      Short answer: speaking for myself, I rarely vote people out of office over 1 vote. I allow for the fact that they might know something more about it than I do. That doesn’t mean I don’t talk to them about it.

      I think some people are looking for an excuse to throw rocks.

      The primary is basically over. You are either going to vote for President Obama , stay home or vote for someone not President Obama. If it is someone not President Obama , then it had better be for Gov. Romney if you really want a new President. Anything else is a protest vote.

    • TheEiger says:

      I’m not sure what world you are living in, but here in the real world Ron Paul has zero chance of beating Obama. How will Paul beat Obama in FL, OH and Virginia? Do you honestly think that Paul will make Pennsylvania a commeptive state if he is on the ticket? No way. You should stop saying Paul has a chance of winning because it makes you sound crazy. Say he trying to change the party from within. That is respectable. I have the highest respect for Ron Paul himself, but his supporters on the other hand are loosing what little respect they had.

      • Jimmie says:

        The Section 1021 was a perfect example of what is wrong with today’s GOP guard. They put Party before Principle. I don’t care who the candidate is. Our purpose is more than RP. That’s the part you don’t quite get. Supporting Section 1021 or supporting anyone that supports any Bill or Law that has vague language infringing on Constitutional rights,and does not specifically exclude U.S. Citizens to protect those rights is wrong. There is no arguing that. To do so is unAmerican. These are the types of change we plan to bring to the Party.

        • Doug Grammer says:

          Well bring lots of people next year and be prepared to do the work if you win. Good luck with that. It must be nice to live a life where everything is either perfect or not acceptable.

          • Jimmie says:

            preparations are being made to bring a whole lotta people to the local levels. That’s where it starts. Proper organization is key.

            • seekingtounderstand says:

              Jimmie: If the tea party canidates fail to live up to promises and the republicans refuse to allow ethics reform you may find many more supporters.
              Don’t give up as our state needs all of us working!

  10. A Cobb Republican says:

    From Robert’s Rules of Order

    “Leave to Withdraw or Modify a Motion.

    “… [u]ntil a motion is stated by the chairman, the mover may withdraw or modify it without asking consent of any one… After the question has been stated it is in possession of the assembly, and he can neither withdraw nor modify it without the consent of the assembly. When the mover requests permission to modify or withdraw his motion, the chair asks if there is any objection, and if there is none he announces that the motion is withdrawn or modified in such and such a way, as the case may be. If any one objects the chair puts the question on granting the request, or a motion may be made to grant it.”

    There was an objection. It was ignored.

    • Doug Grammer says:

      Cobb Republican, feel free to cite by page number and line so the rest of us know you are using the most current edition of Roberts.

      MANY TIMES, WHEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT ALL OR NOTHING, YOU GET NOTHING. The maker of a motion has a right to withdraw it.

      If you look on the link at 10.05, the committee chair desired to be heard to with draw the resolution. This is BEFORE voting on the resolution as amended had started.

      If you get out your 11th edition of Roberts Rules of Order, turn to page 297 and read lines 8 to 14.

      It reads: “A request for permission to withdraw a motion, or a motion to grant permission, can be made at any time before voting on the question has begun, even though the motion has been amended, and even though subsidiary or incidental motion may be pending. Any such motions that adhere to the main motion cease to be before the assembly and require no further disposition if the main motion is withdrawn.”

      If you want further reading, ROR 11th, page 72, line 14 states that it is permissible to withdraw a motion after being stated by the chair and read pages 114 and 115. I’m not going read it all to you, but the rules of the convention and Roberts Rules were followed.

      • A Cobb Republican says:

        Robert’s Rules was NOT followed. (Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th Edition). Withdrawing a motion after the chair has stated it requires leave or permission of the assembly.

        Your page numbers and quotations from RROO above are correct, but contradict your conclusions. There is a huge difference between requesting the assembly’s permission to withdraw and simply withdrawing.

  11. A Cobb Republican says:

    28% of the delegates voted for the liberty candidate for national committeeman.

    However, many, if not most, of those who voted for Frank Strickland were also Ron Paul supporters. They voted strategically, trying to create a runoff between Evans and Strickland, thinking that Strickland would have a better chance head-to-head against Evans. They thought their own candidate was a long shot, but not Strickland.

    They just didn’t want Evans.

    • 22bons says:

      Paulistas voting strategically? For the lesser of two evils? Doesn’t sound like any Paulista I know.

      • A Cobb Republican says:

        The Paul supporters also voted for Linda Herren. Ginger Howard’s vote total was probably embarrassingly small.

        • debbie0040 says:

          A Cobb Republican, stop spinning with false accusations. Most of the Paul supporters I talked to were not voitng for Herren because they saw her as establishment.

          I was very impressed with the organization and dedication of the Paul supporters at the convention. Many jumped in to help pass out no T-SPLOST stickers. All Paul supporters are not like the ones you see causing

          They were very well prepared but there are some things that you only learn by being actively involved during off Presidental years. I think they had people like Bill Greene that were giving them wrong direction about what they needed to do .

          • debbie0040 says:

            ACR, the resolution would be non-binding.

            Why would activists at the GA GOP convention want to elect delegates to the national convention whose sole purpose is to go and cause disruptions and cause problems for Romney? Your strategy and purpose were very well known and you feign surprise that others wanted to stop that from happening? You think it was mean and not fair the way you were treated? How about the way you disrespected activists at the state convention that were there to help send Obama back to Chicago in November? You guys may want to spend all day sitting around and debating but most activists just wanted to do the business of the convention and go home . Your guys demaned standing counts on many of the votes and when you got it and were out voted you then began to complain that the standing vote violated the Americas with Disabilities Act. It was clear that you just wanted to delay and delay. You complain about the way you think you were treated, but you disrespected delegates by trying to stall and stall the convention.

            Would you guys welcome people in to the Campaign for Liberty whose sole purpose was to undermine and hurt Ron Paul? Would you honor them by electing them to important posts so they can cause problems for Ron Paul?

            I would love to see a debate between some Ron Paul supporters and the College Republicans over the importance of making sure Obama is a one term President.

            • Jimmie says:

              while disappointed at how the gestapo committee tossed the resolution, i was very happy to see it discussed at such a large open convention. At the very least 1800 GOP delegates heard or discussed Section 1021 at the State level. Small steps indeed.

              • Napoleon says:

                A Gestapo committee would have rounded up all Paul supporters, shot them in the back of the head and buried them in a mass grave. You might not like what they committee decided, but don’t diminish what the Gestapo was by comparing them to a committee that killed a resolution you supported.

                • freeman1 says:

                  Let me help you with your analogy.
                  I think what you’re referring to(shooting Ron Paul people in the back of the head, burying them in a mass grave) is a “CIA-like” commitee under bush. Kind of like how they’re working now in Pakistan?
                  OH! sorry, I probably lost you on that one as they arent running those stories on hannitty and faux news are they?

                  By the way, why would it be a mass grave? There werent that many Ron Paul supporters there right?

                  • Napoleon says:

                    “A mass grave is a grave containing multiple number of human corpses, which may or may not be identified prior to burial. There is no strict definition of the minimum number of bodies required to constitute a mass grave, although the United Nations defines a mass grave as a burial site which contains three or more victims of execution.[1]”


                    There were at least 3 Ron Paul supporters and none of them were executed and buried by the Resolutions Committee. As such, referring to it by either the “Gestapo Committee” or “CIA-Hit Squad Committee” would be a ridiculous exaggeration.

            • HisIdeas says:

              Stall tactic? Who is employing stall tactic? It looks obvious to me the most important part of the convention (delegate selection) was put off till the last couple hours, with the intent to ram through not allowing floor nomination. The party machine fills up the agenda with craps to exhaust the participants and appeal to the crowd who want to go home. Paul supporters are stalling the convention? Give me a break!!!

              And yes, we do not support Romney. We do not trust him because he is controlled by the same globalists that control Obama. Look at his donors. Look at Ron Paul’s donors. We are saddened that there is not enough resistance in the GOP party to the continued surrender to the globalist takeover, to the countless debt ceiling increases, to erosion of our freedom. If you want to ensure Obama to be a one term president, you include Ron Paul backers as delegates. Just the opposite, in every step of the way, you have just about tried every means to exclude them.

              • debbie0040 says:

                HISIDEAS, if you had attended a state convention before then you would have known that has been done that way for years. It was nothing new this time. In fact the procedures that were followed at the convention have been followed at state conventions for decades. There are Ron Paul supporters that were elected at the District level as delegates/alternates so get off your soap box.

                Paul’s foreign policy is not something I can support . His foreign policy was the main reason Paul only garnered 9% support among tea party activists.

                You wanted us to elect you as delegates so you can go to the national convention and cause trouble for the GOP nominee? You are naive. Romney was not my first choice. In fact, I really did not like any of the GOP candidates. I would rather President Romney choose the 2 0r 3 Supreme Court Justices than President Obama. If you believe in upholding the Constitution as written you would as well. Romney can get this country working again and will cut spending and help bring our fiscal house in order. Romney also believes in the Constitution. President Obama ignores it. I do believe Romney will keep his promises if elected.

                It was well known strategy among Paul supporters that if they did not have the votes to control the convention and delegates, they would attempt to stall until enough delegates left and they could control the convention and delegate selection process. If this had began to happen, there would have been a mass exodus of delegates so the convention would lose quorum and not be able to conduct business. If this happened, then the GA GOP State committee would select the delegates.

                • debbie0040 says:

                  We need to work to elect conservatives to the Senate and House to help hold Romney’s feet to the fire.

                  • registrar says:

                    What for, Debbie? You don’t believe in holding elected Republicans’ feet to the fire. You proved that when you got up and said, in essence: “If we vote for this, it would mean that elected Republican officials would be held accountable to conservative principles! WE MUST VOTE AGAINST THAT!”


                • Jimmie says:

                  If this happened, then the GA GOP State committee would select the delegates…..Which they basically did anyway no?
                  Which is more important?
                  Our debt, overspending by Gov’t on social and defense, a weakening dollar to the point that the World is no longer using it as a standard.
                  Protecting the world from an occasional bombing from a lunatic.
                  If you worry more about your subdivision than you do about your own house, your house will fall apart from within.
                  America first. World second. in my book. Ron Paul has never said he wouldn’t protect America. He said we’d do it the old fashioned way. With Congress’ approval

                  • Doug Grammer says:


                    You hold a minority opinion and outlook on life. Either try to change peoples minds, (you are not succeeding in that, by the way) or understand that you are in the minority and the majority does not agree with you. yelling about it won’t change anything.

                • timothyR says:

                  Excuse me debbie0040, but I would like challenge some of your ridiculous comments, such as: “It was well known strategy among Paul supporters that if they did not have the votes to control the convention and delegates, they would attempt to stall until enough delegates left and they could control the convention and delegate selection process. ” BTW I am a Ron Paul supporter and also a very involved GOP member. But I think this statement is going a LOT to far…In fact I am my county’s Coordinator for the Ron Paul campaign, and was a delegate at this years State Convention. And I can assure you that this is completely false…there was no well known strategy to disrupt and delay the process, there was no attempt to stall the “inevitable”. What there was, was a group of dissenters made up of known Ron Paul supporters but also people who had been establishment folks for many years…people that had been diehard Gingrich supporters as well as many Santorum followers as well…But who gets blamed for it all…Let me think…Oh those RP people sure must hate Romney so they have to be the ones booing and yelling. Well I can assure you from my seat in the very center of the convention, the ones booing were the diehard establishment people who all are supporting, (as a our good Senator Johnny Isakson put it at the 9th District convention this year) the Rominee!

                  The only thing I have seen coming out your mouth, is a bunch of garbage about Ron paul this and Ron Paul that. you obviously haven’t done a very good job looking at your organization, or have you? In fact the Tea Party was founded on December, 16 2007 by none other than…who else RON PAUL, gasp…how can that be? You who have headed up an organization dedicated to electing true patriot conservatives to high levels of government, have abandoned the very founder of you existance, you have trampled on the feet of your betters for far too long, and have now siad that the Tea Party cannot support Ron Paul for his Non-Interventionist foreign policy. How Dare you scorn the very man who gave you a cause to support, who brought people from all walks of life, and far reaches of ideas, to one culminating campaign: The Ron Paul Campaign of 2008. How Dare you forget the roots of your very founding, and deny membership to those who helped start your organization.

                  The Tea Party is a JOKE…it is made up of people like you who have no idea of what a true conservative is, no idea of what a true PATRIOT would look like…if you had said what you said the last few days to our founding fathers, they would have seen you as a deranged person…Don’t tell me about what right…I know…It doesn’t take a lot to figure out that you are just another establishment members that has been sucked into the GA GOP’s grasp…And IT’S YOUR FAULT!

                  • Jimmie says:

                    This is def. what most RP people think of Debbie’s Tea Party. No principled identity anymore. Especially after the Section 1021 charade. It will be awhile before that Team Player action will be forgotten.

          • debbie0040 says:

            Ginger gave a great speech and narrowly lost. I suspect that next time Ginger will be elected..

            • Jimmie says:

              I voted for her and the young esquire who laid it down very nicely. I had orig intended to vote for Strickland to keep Randy out, but the kid impressed me.

                • NorthGAGOP says:

                  Might be a first. I agree with Doug Grammer.

                  Ginger Howard HAS NOTHING TO BE EMBARASSED ABOUT she ran a great campaign.

                  Ginger is a valuable asset to the party. She has been engaged for years, and I hope this doesn’t discourage her from running again.

                  Ginger you ran a great campaign! Look forward to seeing and voting for you again!

        • CatyMac says:

          Linda won by ONLY 19 votes; 849 to 830. It would appear that many/most of the Paul supporters voted for Ginger Howard rather than Linda Herren.

  12. Nathan says:

    Spotted Bob Barr in the crowd as well. It looked like he had a delegate badge on…at least, it looked like it from where I was sitting.

  13. HisIdeas says:

    The GA convention result should be nullified. The delegation anointed in the state “convention” should not be allowed to be seated in Tampa. Yay and Nay were often times equally strong. Chair should not draw a frivilous subjective conclusion on Yay or Nay had it. Additionally the voice vote has no integrity because there was no assurance that those voise purely came from the floor. Different camps on the guest section joined the voice vote as well. There was a reason there was not a standing “count!!!” because there was not 66.67% to get what they want ramthrough passed.

      • HisIdeas says:

        We represent 40% convention goers who participated in good faith but did not have a voice. We were not represented in the GA convention, are you trying to silence our voice here as well? You do not dominate this forum.

        We know getting caught with truth does not interest you. Getting caught violating the rules is also humiliating.

            • Doug Grammer says:


              Send me your email address and when the convention minutes are typed and approved, I will send them to you. There were no rules violated at this convention that I am aware of. Even if you cite them here and now, the objections are not timely and the will of the convention will stand.

              Most members of the GOP like following the rules. That is why Clarke County was not seated and the 13th will have another convention.

              • HisIdeas says:

                I will consider that. But if there is a public forum you can put the convention minutes up for us to review, it might be preferred. Did the GOP convention organizers tape the entire convention? I know in 3rd district convention, we can pay $5 to have the recording of the entire proceeding. Is the recording available for the state convention?

                • Doug Grammer says:

                  I don’t know if video is available. Call the state GOP and ask. I have no idea if the convention organizers taped to convention but YOU had the chance to do that.

                  As far as a public forum, what did you have in mind? You and two friends at the nearest waffle house?

                  • A Cobb Republican says:

                    I would bet HisIdeas is referring to an internet forum, not a Waffle House.

                  • HisIdeas says:

                    By public forum, I meant something like in Once you have the minutes available for public scrutiny, post a link here to the document. It can be a document loaded on the GAGOP site. I am interested in how to get there. Yes. We have streamed the event.

        • debbie0040 says:

          You did not represent 40% of the convention delegates. Delegates/alternates are the only convention goers that count..

          • HisIdeas says:

            I am talking about 40% on the floor only (not guests). I have the numbers to prove. Where is yours?

              • HisIdeas says:

                This has been addressed in the above exchanges. Randy Evans had 59% vote. Due to the past treatment to Paul backders Randy has demonstrated, Paul backers were split in votes between Alex Johnson and Strickland. But that is not the sole source of what my basis of the 40%~. We have thoroughly checked the numbers in the registration system and what percentage of Paul backers are eventually are the floor. We also have guests at a vintage point high and above that undoubtedly saw the 40% that kept standing down on the floor.

                What is Randy Evans afraid of? Just give us the “count” and “recount” when there was doubt. It was done in the 3rd district every time there was any doubt. That was why all sides came away from 3rd district convention satisfied and agreed it was fairly handled. 3rd district allowed everyone on the nominating committee slate to be challenged.

                • Doug Grammer says:

                  That ASSUMES that NONE of the people who normally attend these conventions voted for neither Strickland OR Johnson. That is not possible, considering that at least 1 vote was Frank Strickland’s.

  14. A Cobb Republican says:

    From the convention call:

    No official business shall be transacted at any Mass Meeting or Convention while any of
    its Committees are in session.

    So the resolutions committee reconvened to vote to withdraw the resolution? While the convention was transacting business? And the convention didn’t recess for that?

      • Joseph says:

        Jimmie – I -believe- the chair of the committee may withdraw all or parts of their committee’s report as he sees fit at the podium without the committee actually reconvining. The committee report itself acts as the motion but may be broken into pieces so each piece of action may be dealt with separately as was done with the Resolutions Committee report.

    • Doug Deal says:

      The committee withdrawing the motion/report was completely wrong from a parliamentary perspective. Once made and the question put before the assembly, all motions become property of the assembly and may only be withdrawn by consent. However, it is a moot point and not a significant error, since it did not interrupt the majority consensus that developed after discussion of the ill conceived amendment. It would have failed anyway. So it’s all moot. Congratulations in mucking up a resolution that had wide support by playing petty games.

      • Jimmie says:

        it is false to say that there was a majority consensus that developed in opposition once people realized that Obamney supports Section 1021 (and most of GA Congressmen). Of course we’ll never know the truth behind that because the committee prevented the truth from surfacing. The video shows how large the ayes have it throughout the whole Motion. Right up to the last second before voting, it was going to have majority support. Wham. Committee comes to their senses and realizes they almost became Liberty Loving Patriots! In theory of course. I would love to hear who got in trouble for allowing that submission to hit the assembly floor. 😉

        • Doug Deal says:

          I would have preferred they just dispensed with it the “legal” way, but they didn’t it. No harm though since it was poisoned by a few delusional bad actors. If they were honest with the assembly they would have put a resolution that said “The Georgia GOP does not endorse Mitt Romney for President” which was the one and only point of the amendment. Thanks to leaders like Debbie Dooley, the assembly became aware of the sleight of hand and it was clear that it would have lost the floor vote. However, the confusion caused by the amendment resulted in serious delay, which lead to the unfortunate and out of order “withdrawal” of the amendment. It was not malicious, just a misunderstanding of parliamentary procedure.

          However it is hilarious for those same few RP supporters to complain about abuse parliamentary procedure when they were using points of order to debate closed questions.

          The hypocrisy is noticed by the rest of us.

          • Doug Grammer says:

            Doug Deal,

            It was not out of order to withdraw the motion even though it had been amended. See my citation from Robert’s in the comments above.

            • Doug Deal says:

              Doug, you are wrong here because requesting permission to withdraw a motion is not the same thing as granting it. The permission was asked, but was not granted by majority vote. In short, the decision of the chair was wrong, but moot, because it would not have passed anyway.

              • Doug Grammer says:

                I will say that we interpret Roberts differently, and I am no long 100% convinced that you are incorrect. As you stated it is a moot point.

                • Doug Deal says:

                  I feel very certain, but I am in no way 100%. I respect your study of the Rules and it is only with trepidation that I attempt to dispute them with you.

          • Jimmie says:

            Closed questions because ol Randy was, well…Randy. Wish we would have moved the National Committee election till after the delegate selection.

  15. Charlie says:

    40%, even if true, does not equal 50% + 1 vote.

    Which part of “You didn’t have a majority of the votes” is so difficult for you folks to understand and/or accept?

    • HisIdeas says:

      I agree we did not have 2/3. But passing the nominating committee slate requires a 2/3 standing vote count from the floor, it is my understanding, not 50%+1. But if we do not have 2/3, it does not mean the opposition have 2/3, because I can assure you we are clearly more than 1/3.

      Plus, it is just in good taste and out of respect for the participants who have called repeatedly for “count” to honor them that. It is also in good taste to refund the one night hotel expenses as a result of GOP not providing advance notice about cancelling the interviews. You talk about Ron Paul people do not “RESPECT”, reflect yourself in the mirror. You categorize us as “disruptive”. Think in terms of we are not satisfied with the status quote. And yes, I guess we are disruptive against the status quo and is there anything wrong with that?

      • NorthGeorgiaGirl says:


        I have attended many conventions over the last 10 years, and it has always been 50%+1 to pass the nominating slate and most everything else. After the convention, it is my understanding that the committee in question (county, district or state) may adopt or change rules/resolutions with a 2/3 majority, but I’ve never heard that one on nominating.

        Could you please provide the documentation that this is the case from either the convention rules or from Roberts’ Rules of Order?

        It has just never been done this way….so I’d like clarification…

  16. Jimmie says:

    Charlie are you referring to the Resolutions committee tossing the 1021 out? There is no way whatsoever that, that resolution would have been voted down in either form. initial or amended. I realize now I should have called the question when I saw all the scurrying up on stage
    .. Next time I shall. Watch the video posted above. It’s overwhelmingly supported in both forms. It was an assembly being run over by a few committee members.

    • A Cobb Republican says:

      And you can’t withdraw a motion once it’s before the assembly, without the assembly giving its leave.

    • debbie0040 says:

      After I took the microphone, people realized what the resolution passed as amended would do and no, it absolutely would not have passed the floor vote. The guests in the upper decks were mostly Ron Paul people and they were cheering loudly for the amendment and booed when I spoke against it.

      It would have received 28% of the vote but no more. I was about to make a motion for reconsideration of the amendment when the resolution was pulled.

      There were two resolutions that passed that Ron Paul supporters should be happy with – Agenda 21 related and opposing a Con Con

      If the resolution had not been amended, it would have passed with a big margin..

      • registrar says:

        Here’s a rough translation of what the TEA Party Patriots’ Debbie Dooley got up and said: “If we vote for this, it would mean that elected Republican officials would be held accountable to conservative principles! WE MUST VOTE AGAINST THAT!”

        THAT is what has happened to the TEA Party under the leadership of sellouts. The movement that was begun by supporters of Ron Paul in 2007, and expanded exponentially in 2009 with grassroots Constitutionalists outside of the Paul movement, has been co-opted by GOP “party over principle” Rombies. Oh, they still sound good on “issues” that change very little fundamentally (but sure do raise millions of dollars for them!) — but put forth a little test vote on a resolution that wouldn’t bind the GA GOP to *anything*, but only express the frustration that the majority of GOP delegates at the State convention feel towards our so-called “conservative” elected officials… well, we see who steps up and whines her way through making sure THAT doesn’t happen!

        All you will hear from now until November (if Romney wins the nomination – by no means a certainty any more), is: “MUST GET OBAMA OUT… SEND BACK TO CHICAGO… ONE TERM PRESIDENT… MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVER… ROMNEY IS CONSERVATIVE… ROMNEY WILL APPOINT CONSERVATIVES… ROMNEY IS BETTER THAN OBAMA…”

        Riiiiiight… that’s just the Rombies’ version of “BRAINS… BRAINS… BRAINS…”

        You KNOW I’m right. You SEE it happening. Georgia was not for Romney. Georgia was for Gingrich, just like Georgia was for Huckabee four years ago. And now you’re already starting to hear EXACTLY what I heard four years ago: “Well, he wasn’t my first choice; and he wasn’t my second choice; and he wasn’t even my third choice… but now he’s OUR choice!” And who are you hearing it from? Well, sure, from GOP establishment types — you *expect* that. But now… we hear the same words repeated over and over… from TEA Party “leaders”.

        Mitt Romney: the John McCain of 2012. What a great slogan to lose under.

        And TEA Party “Patriots” like Debbie Dooley are the ones leading the charge down that path. Thanks, Madame Queen. Thanks for selling out.

  17. MattPlacek says:

    Paul supporters shot themselves in the foot with the NDAA resolution. Ike Hall was Paul’s State Coordinator in 2008 and has put in the legwork to get involved in the party. I take it as a genuine olive branch that the resolutions committee even allowed it to be brought to the floor. It was a mistake to tack on an amendment that would have required the state party to not support four of the five congressman who spoke to the convention the same day. The amendment passed only because the assembly did not fully understand the implications; if they had, it would have been voted down because the 1,200 delegates who aren’t Paul supporters aren’t ready for that. Party leaders were right to have been cautious about it. I understand people want a party that actually stands behind their principles (wouldn’t that be nice!) but Paul supporters have to be realistic. The resolution as initially drafted would have passed and would have been better than nothing. As amended, it most likely would have been rejected after a full discussion. It was handled badly by claiming the resolution was “withdrawn by committee”- possibly contrary to proper procedure- confirming people’s fears that the party leaders were not willing to let the people have a voice. If discussion had been kept open, the amendment could have been removed and the original version passed, which would have been a better outcome for everybody. There are combative attitudes on both sides that need to be relaxed.

    • Doug Deal says:

      Well said Matt. I was disappointed in what had happened. It is not the majority of Paul supports but an extremely vocal minority who do their best to discredit the main stream Paul supporters with their extreme positions on everything.

      You get from point A to point B by moving through all the position in between. You cannot just dematerialize and reappear at the destination.

      I support a number of the positions that most Paul supporters take, as does the bulk of the grass roots of the party. You cannot make people with 90% overlap in opinion your political enemies, otherwise you are just going to be a lone crank living in basement somewhere.

      • seenbetrdayz says:

        Habeas Corpus is ‘radical’. In America? Seriously.

        You all have inspired me to stay in this party. I was so sickened by what I saw at convention, that I really doubted this venture into politics was something I wanted to press on with. If this is some sort of reverse-psychology, well done., well done I say. It has worked.

        I get it, you all really do value your rights and you’re just playing ignorant so that others will be inspired to join your party and take it back from those who don’t value your rights. Well played.

        • Doug Deal says:

          You chose to see a reality 180 degrees out of phase with that perceieved by the rest of us. There was overwelming (nigh unanimous) agreement on opposition to NDAA, but your guys turned it into an attempt to stretch that opposition into an out of context attack on the nominee and several members of Congress. This is why you lost.

          Grow up a little.

          • seenbetrdayz says:

            Man, you’re good. But you can drop the act now. I give up. I’ll help you all get your rights back.

            • Doug Deal says:

              Those who act as you are the biggest obstruction to liberty that we face, as you discredit the much more reasonable bulk of people who mostly share the same goal. You seem to forget the world is made up with more than attendees of their militia group’s weekly pow wow who need to buy into such things gradually and not at the point of a gun, which is ironically how you propose to “free” them.

              • seenbetrdayz says:

                I agree. Those Ron Paul supporters brought their guns to the convention and tried to manhandle the government out from under us, but reasonable mainstream republicans want to use the peaceful gun-shunning government to promote liberty. The federal government has never used deadly force on its citizens, but a bunch of vocal Ron Paul supporters showing up to a convention to express their frustration are the epitomy of violent behavior. Shame on them.

                (Is that good? I’m playing along with you so we can trick more of those angry people to join up and save the party from itself)

      • HisIdeas says:

        A lone crank living in the basement – are you talking about the person who attract 5000, 8000 and 10,000 crowds in his rallies? Or are you referring to the guy who has a few hundreds showing up. It is not nicety we refrain from giving. We are willing to work correctly within the system. We have yet to see a gesture from the establishment to honor the participation of zealous suporters. How would you expect us to react when you are excluded from this process that is supposed to be shared by all participants? It is not what America is all about.

          • MattPlacek says:

            I agree, Doug Grammer. It was encouraging to see that Clarke county was not seated and also that the investigation into the 13th district was thorough and detailed. The fact that the NDAA resolution got to the floor shows that party leadership recognizes the need to reach out to the Paul supporters. And HisIdeas, did you miss Newt’s speech entirely? As much as it pains me to say it, Newt Gingrich was magnanimous. I know he doesn’t hold any official position with the GAGOP, but he is very influential in Georgia and was clearly reaching out to Paul supporters. I think it’s safe to assume that he’s telling GOP leaders that they would be wise to do the same, and he set a real example in showing that there are probably better things to do than be petty and spiteful towards the only group that’s bringing new blood to the party in significant numbers. I’m sure many Paul supporters will see these things as worthless trinkets, but to me it is encouraging, and it’s a great deal more than we heard in 2008. I hear a lot of concern from the GOP about whether Paul supporters will “stay involved”. Whether Paul supporters stay involved will depend heavily on whether they feel they are able to have a voice in the party. There is a lot of bad behavior on the part of GOP old-timers, talking smack about Paul people and acting irrationally fearful and exclusionary. Evans wasn’t outrageously awful, but some of the calls that were at his discretion could have been more generous to the concerns of the Paulites. I know there is concern about dragging the convention out, but taking a count once may well have taken less time than dealing with the endless griping anyway, and being generous and asking people to stay an extra 10 minutes seems like a small price to pay to build political goodwill with a burgeoning movement. If you’re not willing to stay a little longer in order to help in the painful process of welcoming new people to the party, maybe you should have let somebody else take your delegate seat.

            • HisIdeas says:

              I think Newt Gingrich had an excellent speech. He touched on Gold standard, Federal Reserve and shrinking some of our bases. He was clearly reaching out to Paul supporters. I think he got a lot of applauses for that. It was not the first time he publically agreed with Paul on Federal Reserve. We should give credit to where credit is due.

            • HisIdeas says:

              I think Newt Gingrich had an excellent speech. He touched on Gold standard, Federal Reserve and shrinking some of our bases. He was clearly reaching out to Paul supporters. I think he got a lot of applauses for that. It was not the first time he publically agreed with Paul on Federal Reserve. We should give credit to where credit is due.

          • HisIdeas says:

            That was a good faith effort based on some feedback I heard, but I would rather see a reconvene with proper process so Clarke county does not lose their representation. Well, what about the state convention result where we justifiably feel excluded? I’d like to see the GOP walks the walks by genuinely including RP supporters as a good will to work with us. Do not treat Ron Paul supporters as your threat, treat us as an asset. If they can work with full dedication for what they believe in, they are a force to reckon with. Your feedback that we just show up every 4 years and perhaps stop being involved has been taken by a good portion of our supporters, who have subsequently become members of the GOP party and committed to stay involved.

            • Doug Grammer says:

              Reconvening for Clarke County was not an option. Too many people who might have made the trip that were not there would have been disenfranchised. It seemed obvious to me that the Clarke county convention did not follow the call, the gop rules, or Robert’s.

              Regardless of what I think of Ron Paul or his policies, the gop needs to conduct it’s business above board. I think there will be more fallout over this, but it will take time to unfold.

              As far as the state convention goes, you were not excluded. You were allowed to vote and participate. You just didn’t have the votes to get what you wanted.

              • registrar says:

                And yet… I believe two of the establishment GOP responsible for the FIASCO that was the Athens-Clarke County Convention, were selected to be Delegates to the Republican National Convention.

                Some things never change… until the are forced to change.

                • Jimmie says:

                  You mean the Good ol Boy Network took care of em anyway? Wonder how that backdoor deal went.

        • You were not excluded. You lost. It’s pretty simple.

          Your foreign policy and American military bashing nonsense repulses the vast majority of Republicans.

          You simply lost because 72% of Republicans at the Georgia Republican convention, as well as 90% of all Republican primary voters nationally (a literal statistic based on aggregated election results of all GOP primaries), disagree with you and oppose your views.

          Pretty simple, actually.

          • MattPlacek says:

            What 90% of republican primary voters nationally believe is exactly the problem *if* the Republican base is shrinking and you lose in the general election. Maybe that’s not the case, and then maybe you’re right to tell the Paul supporters to buzz off and go pound sand. But comments like this are exactly what will motivate Paul supporters to not stay in the party and go somewhere else. It’s amusing to me to hear all the talk about how awful Paul supporters are precisely because people suppose they’re not going to stick around- when so many (often the same people) are openly willing to tell them they’re not wanted.

            • Simply laying out the empirical facts won’t have any impact on whether you or any one else votes in November. There’s not really any serious debate around what I wrote, in fact. Republicans overwhelmingly disagree with isolationism; 90% of Republicans did disagree with you on this ostrich-like theory that rolls around each political party every 50 years or so; and 72% of convention-goers did not support your side.

              Like I said, I don’t think my laying out facts will have any impact on you.

              You have to want to win change in the White House. There’s only one way to do it. It’s your choice.

              • Jimmie says:

                Nice try on the spin. RP never said let’s turn the Country into North Korea.

                non-intervention policy— The doctrine that dictates that a country should avoid foreign entanglements with other nations while maintaining commercial and cultural intercourse. Thomas Jefferson said the U.S. should practice: “Peace, Commerce, and honest relations with all nations, entangled alliances with none.”

                isolationism–a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations

              • nicholastjohnson says:

                I agree with you, Mark. Isolationism is a bad idea. In fact, I’m surprised there are 10% of Republicans who are fans of it. Closing your country off from the rest of the world accomplishes nothing. We Paul supporters hate the idea of isolationism just as much as we hate the idea of global government, which is why we support Ron Paul. None of the presidential candidates, that I’m aware of, support isolationism, but only one rejects global domination and the expansion of the American empire.

                As far as numbers go, I want to make sure Debbie, Doug, Deal and others see this, so I’ll repeat myself in the morning in other areas of the comments.

                From a perch in the far end of convention hall, we had a high resolution video camera capturing every moment of the convention. My biggest disagreement was with not having a count, which I wanted (you mentioned earlier that the RP leadership didn’t want the count, but as a member of that group, I can assure that we did. We knew we didn’t have 50, but we new we had more than 33).

                I have freeze frames of the standing vote, and here are the numbers.

                Yay – 1079
                Nay – 688
                Neither – 17
                Total – 1784

                I was under the impression that there were a handful more than 1800 delegates, but this is the count of humans on the floor excluding the cameramen and police officers. The 17 didn’t stand for either vote. 688 is 38% of the total.

                I’m working up a document to send to the state party to show them this. Not because I think it will change the results, I just think they should see it for themselves. I’ll send it to you as well.

                • HisIdeas says:

                  Great report. Debbie, Doug, Deal and others take notes! The data presented here is consistent with my observation. Press on. I sure hope it will change the outcome. I have a vested interest in the effort I put in. I am very interested in pursuing.

                  • Doug Deal says:

                    I have no knowledge if the vote was 2/3 or not, but the point is moot, as it would not have changed the outcome either way. What part of needing a majority is so hard to understand? The only thing that could have happen is a delay in the proceedings to allow the same handful of people to cry at the mic. The biggest irony being that people who claim to be opposed to big government trying to evoke the ADA and also claim to be so worried about Robert’s Rules, yet repeatedly break them with improper use of privileged motions.

                    However, I also doubt the accuracy of the above frame capture method. For one, I have a 21 mega pixel digital camera and from the shots that I have it is impossible to make out such detail in a wide enough field of view to count people accurately in a still shot.

                    A video camera has a much lower resolution and also captures blurrier images since it is to be viewed at 30 or 60 frames per second. I would love to see a link to this evidence and also part of the live video to confirm it comes from the moment in question.

                    6% of the primary vote resulted in nearly 30% of the state delegates, and by my estimations 10% of the delegates and alternates. Yet all we hear is how you all were cheated. If they are going to be accused of cheating either way, maybe they should have actually cheated you guys and sat none.

              • MattPlacek says:

                Mark, I’m as interested in your opinions as I am in the facts, and “repulsive nonsense” clearly falls in the former category- so thanks for being open about where you stand. At any rate, I’m glad to see from your response to HisIdeas that you agree “there are changes that can and should be made” and as I said I’m pleased that Newt has shown the courage to acknowledge that we could benefit from a re-examination of our strategy on overseas bases. Perhaps there is some common ground that most of us can agree is sensible and will attract more people than it repels. I and many others are willing to work together on these things. Everybody here has choices to make.

          • troutbum70 says:

            That my friends is the correct form for a political “smackdown”!! Two thumbs up!

          • Jimmie says:

            Mark your foreign policy is bankrupting our Country. Your Trillion dollar illegal wars are extremely costly. 5,000 mothers, fathers, daughters, and sons k.i.a., tens of thousands mentally mind f***ed for life, just as many maimed, trillions of dollars in cost, and 2 third world countries that are no more secure than when we first went in. How is your foreign and military policy making us a stronger country? Please elaborate on the simplicity.

          • HisIdeas says:

            Ron Paul’s foreign policy is largely mis-represented. I would venture to say that if you really care about our national security, you ought to understand Federal Reserve is a foreign power that undermines our sovereignty. Ron Paul is right on the purse on this issue. Our fear is that Romney is controlled by the globalists. He is not going to touch the Federal Reserve. Woodrow Wilson signed into effect the Federal Reserve Act on December 23, 1913 who 6 years later said “I am the most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world — no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. ”

            I would like to have a strong nationl defense. But I do not understand why can’t we start by defending our borders? Spreading ourselves in 900 bases and 135 countries is not sustainable, right now.

            I hope you know the fact Ron Paul has 6 times as big of a military donation with all candidates (Obama included) combined. RON PAUL IS THE CHOICE OF THE TROOPS! Don’t pretend you respect the troops when you don’t care to hear their voice on the endless wars. Our troops are being mis-used to serve some “hidden” agenda and RP’s answer is to make it smaller.

            • His, we agree on much, actually.

              I certainly agree with much of what you wrote. Unfortunately, too many Paulists don’t think for themselves and realize it’s not an either-or situation. There are changes that can and should be made while preserving our strength overseas.

              • registrar says:

                “too many Paulists don’t think for themselves” — this is the funniest statement I’ve seen from the fingers of any mind-numbed robot-like lemming GOP establishment type Rombie, in quite a while. Thanks for making my day.

                • Happy to help make your day. You need a good day, after all. You’ve spun in what appear to be some pretty unhappy, dark, hysterical circles on this thread for days now…

  18. Jimmie says:

    Matt I agree on some parts. The issuer of the amendment was not given a chance to withdraw. Calling out the Congressmen present was exactly the point. I suppose it’s the difference between the RP people and whoever the (insert Bankers/Corp nominee here) people are. We stand on Principles no matter who the candidate is. The others stand on what’s best for the Party (Dems do it too), and Country be damned. Seriously. How some of these people are at peace with themselves after agreeing that Section 1021 (part of NDAA) is anti American and should be repealed, then turning around and refusing to support the amendment that opposes supporting the candidates and elected officials that DO support allowing suspension of Habeas Corpus for U.S. citizens. It’s hypocrisy at it’s best. Does the GOP Guard truly understand what they have with Mitt Romney being the nominee? Obamacare/Romneycare, Supports NDAA, Supports Bailouts. The difference between Obamney is very little. Good luck!

    • Doug Deal says:

      Why? Because the extremist in your lot did what they seemingly do to everything, crazied it up. You took an issue everyone was in agreement with, added language that was written to intentionally harm the presumptive nominee in a clandestined fashion which had implications that could not be adequately examined in a convention of 1500 delegates.

      Leadership and Politics are about compromise. Although everybody pretty much agreed on prinicple, that was not good enough, you had to make it about attacking Romney (Austin Scott and a number of others).

      • HisIdeas says:

        Compromise? No, leadership is not about compromise. Republicans lost its credibility with their compromises. They diluted their party principles by compromises. They had the opportunity to unite their front to say no to the debt ceiling increases. They caved in. Call Paul backers extremists. That’s all you have to offer. Do you not understand we do not want to send those compromisers to Washington?! We are “extremely” fed up with your compromises.

        If you can’t adequately examine an issue that apparently attracted valid concerns/tractions in our state convention, then what were you there for? Taking orders? Rubber Stamping? Oh, that was easy.

        • Doug Deal says:

          So in your family, do you always go out to eat or vacation solely where you want. “Your way or the highway”?

          Leadership is not getting your way every time, that’s called being a baby, which is the opposite of leadership.

      • Jimmie says:

        Doug I have to ask. I don’t the exact resolution in it’s orig. form before me, but didn’t it call for the repeal of the Section 1021? It met with large amount of support. So we could surmise that over 2/3’s of the assembly rejects Section 1021 of the NDAA. Can it be said from this event, that most of the groups that make up the GOP in GA want it removed from the NDAA? Going fwd, how can we make the GOP elected officials withdraw their support of Section 1021? Hold them accountable for not supporting the omission of Section 1021 (1022 for that matter) when they had the chance. I nearly fell off my seat when Romney said in the National Debate that he supported NDAA and would have signed it too. That same NDAA contained Section 1021. I was very encouraged to see over 2/3’s of our convention support the orig. Motion. , the amendment too actually, but that was before the Guard realized all of their politicians support Section 1021. So going forward how do get GA Gov’t to reject Section 1021? I see the positive from it, and would like to move fwd with it on common ground as a whole. Do the Congresspeople take notice of something like that? This was my first State Convention. I’ve been to County and Districts. Do they dismiss it and move on to the next Team event?

        • Doug Deal says:

          With the amendment the resoution moved from a reasoned statement of belief into a tool to help grind an axe. The scope of the action called for by the amendment was inappropriate without significant discussion on the ramification, even if we assume it was a good idea.

          • nicholastjohnson says:

            Doug, Doug, and Debbie –

            I’m curious of one thing. If you supported the original resolution on the NDAA, why wouldn’t you support adding the words, “or support any candidate who supports the NDAA”? I’m not sure if those were the actual words or not, but that was the general idea.

            Why would you support someone that supports something that you enthusiastically oppose? The resolution itself is meaningless. Its non-binding and has little to no effect on anything anytime anywhere. Why, then, was it so important for you all to oppose the amendment?

            By the way, I’m asking this genuinely. I truly don’t understand the motivation for not supporting the amendment.

            Original: We don’t support the NDAA
            Amended: We don’t support the NDAA or anyone who does.

            What am I missing?

            • Doug Grammer says:

              As Debbie stated and Ethan Underwood stated, just because we are opposed to an idea, that shouldn’t mean that we are prohibited from funding any candidate, Presidential or Congressional, that disagrees with that one issue. We are not going to tie our hands behind our back. This resolution went from telling others what we think to keeping us from funding them. It’s kind of hard to influence your candidates into voting a certain way if they are no longer in office.

            • seenbetrdayz says:

              Well, actually, there WAS motivation for supporting the amendment. The amendment had majority support at the convention. But then, ringleaders of the circus realized that holding our politicians accountable (in the ONLY terms they know, which is, political defeat) would mean we couldn’t support most of the currently serving GOP politicians or candidates.

              That’s why no one wants to join Doug’s fu**ing party anymore. There’s no limit to what the GOP will give up in order to win.

            • Doug Deal says:

              My problem was that it was not thought through. That’s how things fall prey to the law of unintended consequences. A lot of the people screaming about the issue were taking many people out of context.

              If you have a fly on your foot, one way to get rid of it is to shoot it. If you chose not to do this, it does not mean you support flies, it means you don’t want to shoot yourself in the foot.

        • Joseph says:

          Jimmie – while I agree a resolution from the State Convention would send a strong message, it’s not the only venue to advocate change – grass roots messaging probably sends an even stronger message. I would encourage you to stay involved in your County & District Party, while I know that might be frustrating at times, things do change if you will stick to it.

          I would also submit to the group that both sides have a place in coming to meet in the middle. “Establishment” has to be open to folks who participate in the process correctly AND have to manage fair and open meetings/dialogue/etc. “Paul-supporters” must also work within the system we have, realize people have faults, and support the process throughout the entire cycle. I hope the Paul-supporters will participate beyond the August convention, your involvement and voice is important.

          There is also a third group which I believe has a role and I find myself there personally, that is that I find value and merits in both sides. While there is a time and a place to deal with those who violate the rules (Appeals and Credentials), it is more important to “fix” our problem – which is the divide. If spent as much time fixing the problem as we do affixing blame – where would we be?

          So – again, I appeal to you and the other Paul-supporters to stay involved and connected if you truly believe the GOP is your venue to effect change.

        • jstjoan says:

          You asked: “So going forward how do get GA Gov’t to reject Section 1021? ”

          We tried to do exactly that yesterday but the RP folks stopped it from happening with the amendment.

          If the resolution had passed as written, then, yes, the “Congresspeople” from Georgia would have definitely taken notice of it to work to repeal that section of NDAA.

          But that didn’t happen. Instead, you demanded the entire GA GOP renounce the presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney over it and by doing so you may have very well damaged all of our abilities to get the section repealed by not accepting the amendment as written.

          • Jimmie says:

            Attempts by Rep. Jeff Landry h.r. 3676 and your favorite villain Ron Paul’s h.r. 3785 for anyone that really cares about Section 1021 and the 5th Amendment. Both are stuck in committee without much support from any of the treasonous congressmen who passed it through as the NDAA.

          • seenbetrdayz says:

            No you are incorrect. The amendment passed. The only people who stopped it were the ones who initially supported it, but then sacrificed their dignity and principles when they realized that it could mean some silly politician might lose a race. I believe the amendmended resolution STILL would have passed, even after this was realized, but it was withdrawn.

            I give republicans credit for having some ‘gut feeling’ of what they are supposed to be supporting to keep government from becoming abusive, but that’s not nearly enough credit to counteract the disdain I have for people who would sacrifice everything they believe in order to win.

    • debbie0040 says:

      I am far more comfortable with Romney as the nominee than I would have been with Ron Paul as the nominee..

      • registrar says:

        And that, Queen Debbie, tell everyone all they need to know about just how “TEA Party” you really are.

        “Fiscal Responsibility… Constitutionally Limited Government… Free Markets…” NONE of which Romney can hold a candle to Paul on, and YOU KNOW IT.


  19. wishbone says:

    what is most disappointing is that people had to be instructed by a [email protected]#$% in a white ballcap holding up green and red signs on how to vote. if these folks didn’t come to the convention to vote their beliefs, they shouldn’t have come at all. In any regard Georgia GOP has been a real disappointment, we are supporting a candidate who wasn’t chosen by our state voters and that can’t win in November. it is short sighted by hose who are afraid of change. MIT will lose republican votes and fail to pick up any independens or democrats. so pat yourself on the back folks, way to go.

  20. PegM says:

    On a lighter note…during Ginger’s speech I was waiting for her to wish “for world peace and that everyone get along” before she got her crown and walked off the stage to the tune “There she goes, Miss America…”

  21. This was my first time as a delegate in the GAGOP convention process and I certainly had a great time! It was great to see friends from all across the state. Despite the parliamentary delay tactics used by some, I believe the convention was efficiently run. Randy Evans dealt fairly with all delegates and kept his cool where many would have undoubtedly lost it. Ultimately, the GAGOP walks away from the convention stronger. Congratulations to Randy Evans on his well-deserved election to National Committeeman and Linda Herren on her reelection to National Committeewoman. And, of course, congratulations to all delegates and alternates to the National Convention. The list of names assures me that Georgia will be well represented in Tampa.

    On that note, while I haven’t had the opportunity to know him as long as some had, Alec Poitevint has done a phenomenal job as our National Committeeman. I’m certain we’re going to have a fantastic National Convention thanks to his hard work and commitment.

    • registrar says:

      Kyle, you have a great future in the Georgia Republican Party, as long as you keep that nose nice and brown like you’re doing here.

      At least, you have one for the next couple of years. By the best counts, the Paul supporters had 20% four years ago, 40% this year… well, that’s an interesting trend line there… maybe you should brown your nose in a different direction…

  22. NorthGAGOP says:

    The good thing about the Ron Paul supporters is that they are very diligent and very loyal.

    At some point they need to realize that Senator Paul took 6% of the vote in Georgia. That doesn’t mean that they get to comtrol the convention, the delegate selection process or anything else.

    Everyone involved in politics has won some and lost some. When we loss we need to lick our wounds, step up and support the winner.

    At this point we have one focus ensure that Obama is a one term president.

  23. debbie0040 says:

    Rep. Gomert is a strong tea party conservative and he lists his reasons for originally voting for NDAA. He introduced an amendment to NDAA that was adopted by the House. The amendment offered by Ron Paul supporters was wrong and out of line.

    “Rep. Gohmert’s Amendment to the NDAA Adopted
    May 18, 2012

    … Washington –
    Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) released the following statement today after the Gohmert-Landry-Rigell-Duncan-Barletta amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act was adopted by a vote of 243-173.

    “It’s a good day –seeing that the Gohmert-Landry-Rigell-Duncan-Barletta amendment was adopted in the House. Supported by the House Armed Services Committee and the Heritage Foundation, the adoption of this amendment is a great victory for the Constitution and all American citizens. It insures that nothing in the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) would any longer allow a President, executive branch agent or the judiciary to treat a person lawfully in the United States with any less than all of his or her rights possessed before the 2001 AUMF and the NDAA that amended it.

    In opposition to the competing Smith/Amash amendment, which granted foreign terrorists or foreign soldiers rights our own military do not have, the Gohmert-Landry-Rigell-Duncan-Barletta amendment’s approach is the better option. This amendment protects our constitutional rights; however, it does not grant them to foreign terrorists, who have been fighting for a decade to tear this great document apart.”

      • Doug Deal says:

        You needed to take advantage of the specials. 2 slices of pizza and an ice filled drink was only $12.50.

        The fact that you can get that at Johnny’s Pizza for lunch at $5.50 is beside the point.

        • seenbetrdayz says:

          LOL. Ouch. Here’s a tip. The next time they host a convention in southwest GA, maybe they should keep in mind that you could probably scrape together all of our wealth in this area in the state and still come up short of $12.50 (I say that jokingly — I bet we’d have $13.00)

          Did anyone check out that Burger King right down the street from the Civic Center, though? I think that was the King’s palace!

            • Jimmie says:

              As I was driving the hours long trip to get to Columbus, I couldn’t help but wonder who the hell was the genius that made 75% of the Convention drive all the way to the West side of GA?

              • Napoleon says:

                Jimmie, the convention rotates between Atlanta, Savannah, Macon and Columbus. The truth is, the GAGOP typically loses money on Atlanta and Savannah conventions and makes money on Macon and Columbus. Over that four convention cycle, the Macon and Columbus conventions helps the party break even. If the Party only did Atlanta and Savannah, the delegate fees would have to rise dramaticly to cover the cost and it would price a lot of people out of participating.

  24. GOPObserver says:

    I understand from supporters of both Linda Herren and Ginger Howard that the race for national committeewoman was decided by only 19 votes. Ginger Howard has a very bright future within the Georgia GOP.

  25. freeman1 says:

    Evans is a liar. Let me help you gops with the logic.
    Randy Evans for 2 hours straight: “I cant see, I cant see. you have to wave your hands. I cant see!!”. The glare!!! oh my gosh, the lights arent good, the glare, the . . . . ummm. I cant see”!!!

    Randy Evans when the Ron Paul supporters needed 2/3 vote: – I can see!!! my son’s graduation must have CURED my blindness, parise God I can see!!!! oh, and no you didnt have 2/3 during the standing and no we wont have a count. WHAT?!! Do you doubt that the God of the GOP cant cure my blindness??!! Im telling you I can see a mouse turd at 200 ft. in the grass. Take my word for it”

    • Calypso says:

      You and registrar are precisely why the vast majority of rational people think Ron Paul supporters are nuttier than squirrel sh!t.

      Keep up the good work.

      • freeman1 says:

        of course no comment on the truth I just bestowed on you. What I depicted IS what happened.
        You can call me names like an 8 year old, but what I depicted above DID happen.
        And you gopers thought only obushma was corrupt. LOL.

          • freeman1 says:

            Well AMB, heres your opportunity.
            educate me on the differences between obama and bush.
            oh, and I dont mean what rhetoric they spouted that always attracts folks like you. I mean in what they did. actions taken, things accomplished.

            no child’s behind left, obamacare, medD,big drug plan, started wars and killed people,
            oh ya!! and when the SHTF in 2008, they BOTH, correction, they ALL(obushmccainma) said “we didnt see this coming, do the bailout, cause were all gonna die if we dont!!!!” just ask our buddy hank.

            • Charlie says:

              Here’s your opportunity, and you will only get it once.

              You’re new here, like a lot of other Paul supporters who have found our blog about Georgia Politics.

              We aim for a civil tone, and 8th grade name calling isn’t something we look kindly upon. Those that have been around a bit may get a little leeway. Those who show up all pissy and think we haven’t heard this crap for the eternity that Paul has been running for President don’t get the same courtesy.

              You want to waste your time here making the same circular argument, so be it.

              You want to waste ours with stupid name calling? We won’t miss you.

              As for anyone else who wants to join the blog and add the same talking points: The pool is full for now.

              We’re well aware Ron Paul can win the internets. Until you guys can demonstrate that you can win an election, you’re wasting all of our time.

              • Jimmie says:

                Until you guys can demonstrate that you can run a legit Convention we’ll still try to instill Principles and Integrity into the Party.

                • Charlie says:

                  I didn’t run the convention. I am running a blog. And our rules will apply. We don’t have an appeals committee. Please make a note of it.

              • HisIdeas says:

                There is a revolution going on in our country led by Dr. Paul and you are missing out. It is the reality check. Ron Paul has won the majority delegates of 11 states including Romney’s own turf Massachusetts. Some of the states he has had majority delegates are Minnesota, Corolado, Virginia, Nevada, Louisiana and Vermont. And yes. In Louisiana, his popular vote was as low as in Georgia but he won 70% delegates. You are not told the real news because your source of news is the mainstream media who have made concerted effort to blackout Paul, just like concerted effort of GAGOP to shut out Paul’s delegate at the state convention.

                Gingrich went on Hannity yesterday and said Ron Paul is the biggest force Romey has to deal with and suggested Romney court Ron Paul supporters. We want civil tone. But your blog – the most active, more participated posts are where Dr. Paul was being discussed and ridiculed for that matter. I think my posts have been civil. But the more we review how the GA state convention was conducted, the more uncondonable it becomes. To use a word that 8th grade may not have in their vocabulary – It was a TRAVESTY!!!

                  • HisIdeas says:

                    Charlie, what part of the above post is delusional? Those are hard facts: Paul has won majority delegate in all these states! Research for yourself!

                    And a heary-felt “Thank you” to Charlie as at least you have not taken the action to black us out yet. I promise, we will make your blog more spirited and interesting.

                    • Charlie says:

                      “You are not told the real news because your source of news is the mainstream media who have made concerted effort to blackout Paul, just like concerted effort of GAGOP to shut out Paul’s delegate at the state convention. ”

                      You didn’t win 50% +1. None of the rest of this matters. That’s why no one else will spin themselves into orbit following the pig paths you guys keep creating so you can find victory.

                      50% +1. Until you get there, or attempt to actually work with like minded people, none of the rest of these pixels you guys spend by the hourfull matter.

                      With that, I exit this unending circular loop of conversation unless further moderation is warranted. Best of luck in 4 years.

                    • Calypso says:

                      HisIdeas May 22, 2012 at 10:27 pm

                      Charlie, what part of the above post is delusional?

                      The delusional part exists between the words “The is a revolution…” and finishes with “…It was a TRAVESTY!!!”

                      Everything else seems ok.

            • AMB says:

              Educate you? Learn proper capitalization and grammar. Learn some manners. Then we can talk.

  26. georgianerd says:

    Generally Speaking, Ron Paul supporters are not interested in the Republican Party, supporting its candidates, or improving its overall strength. They are interested in Ron Paul. When Ron Paul passes on, so will they…

    • freeman1 says:

      thats right nerd. I’m not interested in any party. I’m interested in freedom and liberty.
      Better get a good candidate in 2016, cause without Ron Paul, the gop already lost this election. so sad. two in a row. pretty bad when you cant even muster a candidate that can beat a communist.

    • A Cobb Republican says:

      1. Only as a means to an end… LIBERTY
      2. Fair enough.
      3. Ha! We are here to stay. Most of those who oppose us have caught on to that by now. Ask them.

  27. HisIdeas says:

    May 21st, 2012 | For Immediate Release

    Tea Party Groups of New Jersey endorse Ron Paul for president. Not trying to put anybody down here in Georgia, but I have to say I did travel to a few states to campaign for Dr. Paul and received so much warmer reception from the general public than here in Georgia. It is honestly not a good sign as it shows our state is more close minded.

    Monmouth County Tea Party Coalition | Ocean County Citizens For Freedom | Bayshore Tea Party Group | Tea Party of Middlesex County

    “No longer will we be forced by both political parties and the media to choose between the lesser of two evils. We say, not on our watch will we ever give in to this sort of tyranny again. This game ends right here, right now! Endorsing Mitt Romney and his record of left-leaning policies would be a complete hypocrisy that collides with everything the Tea Party Movement stands for.

    So, it is with great pleasure and honor that We of the above mentioned Tea Party Groups of New Jersey, announce our full endorsement of Dr. Ron Paul for President of The United States of America 2012. Dr. Paul’s 20+ year voting record as an ardent constitutional conservative speaks profoundly of his integrity both as a representative of the people and as a human being. Dr. Paul’s message of Limited Constitutional Government and Individual Liberty is what motivated the Tea Parties into action to begin with and this message will continue to resonate within our movement until America is restored to her former glory and is once again a beacon of freedom.

    We choose to stand by our principles rather than to sell our souls to the game of politics because this is what Ron Paul has done consistently his entire political life and we expect nothing less of ourselves.

    We are committed to serving our communities by demanding accountability and responsible governing from our elected officials and restoring our country to a constitutional, limited government”.

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      Yeah, well, that’s not all that surprising. Judging from what I saw at convention, the Tea Party is pretty much the same old Republican Party now. ‘We cannot support resolutions . . . yadda yadda yadda . . . vote republican no matter what.’ It was made up for, though by a young man who stood up right afterwards and said quite plainly, “Any nominee who would oppose our constitutional rights, should NOT be supported.”

  28. HisIdeas says:


    Can you cite the source of 10% tea party support Dr. Paul? I know when Santorum was still running, he and Newt took some Tea Party votes. But I am uncertain there is a consensus of 10% for Paul. I consider myself a Tea Party. I consider all Paul supporters to be Tea Party. I have heard comment about Paul base as “tea party on steriod”. After all, it is Dr. Paul who advocates our rights to keep the fruit of our labor, 0% income tax and repeal of the 16th amendment. I appreciate you giving acknowledgement to Dr. Paul’s fiscal conservative positions. I understand you have reservation on his foreign policy.

    I want to say this, Ron Paul supporters do very much want to find common grounds with GAGOP grassroots at large.

    In the mean time, I think the endorcement from Tea Party Groups of New Jersey does represent our view well. It is this type of open support of Paul that inspires me. I would like to imagine you could agree with a lot of what that message is trying to convey.

    • It’s actually pretty simple.

      If you aggregate all votes taken in the Presidential primaries so far this year, Paul has earned 10% or less of them.

  29. debbie0040 says:

    Tea Party Patriots had a straw poll the end of January and Dr. Paul polled 11% There have also been national polls that showed 10%. Georgia is a state that has a huge amont of tea party activists that vote in the GOP Primary, yet Dr. Paul got only 6% of the vote.

  30. oompaloompa says:

    I hope each county party understands and educates its members on what almost happened and what can happen at state convention.

    • Calypso says:

      I trust you’re not refering to the incident that happened in the suite at the Hilton. I heard it took three firemen, a police negotiator, and a dog-trainer to separate the parties involved.

  31. Jane says:

    The Tea Party is broader and more sophisticated then the Ron Paul movement. Many of the Ron Paul people, especially the young people are are more interested in legalized Drugs then cutting taxes or the size of government. In fact many are also active in the Occupy movement, Green party because on the limited libertarian issues that the Younger RP people agree on; the Occupy movement and the Green party also agree. To say that the RP movement is the same as the Tea Party is a slame on the Tea Party.

    • timothyR says:

      Oh, come off it Debbie!!! Go follow the link and watch the video, also you might want to check the date? 5/15/12???? Come ON!!!!

  32. Charlie says:

    I will re-interate what I said up in the thread earlier.

    The pool is currently full. No new comments for members who were not part of the Peach Pundit community prior to yesterday are being approved for this thread.

    We are a blog about GEORGIA politics, not the latest venue for disgruntled Ron Paul folks to attempt to win the intenets.

    Spend the time trying to figure out how to get to 50%+1 vote, not trying to rehash this battle that you lost.

    • HisIdeas says:

      Don’t need to worry what we are spending our time on next. I thoroughly enjoyed the participation on this topic. Thank you for not censoring us! By the way, before you adjourn the discussion, check to see if you have 2/3. I will vote with you with this time in good spirit of working together.

      • Charlie says:

        In Georgia, if you’re going to win an actual election, you’re going to eventually need 50% + 1.

        But it’s clear you would rather try to win an argument than do what it takes to win an election.

Comments are closed.