An Open Letter To RNC Reince Preibus: Do The Right Thing With The Florida Delegates


Posted by billknowles (Diary)

Saturday, February 4th at 12:28AM EDT

17 Comments

Recommenders: Common_Cents (Diary), paladin1 (Diary), papabear (Diary), jdaman (Diary), dinorightmarie, edintexas, chrysostom15 (Diary), fpete13527 (Diary), mikeymike143 (Diary), libertus

 

Dear Chairman Preibus,

I am writing an open letter to you in hopes that you will do the right thing and make the Florida Republican Party abide by the rules of the Republican National Committee. 

The state of Florida deliberately snubbed its’ nose at the party and the rules several months ago when it voted to hold the Florida primary early, which has already cost if 49 delegates out of the original 99 delegates allocated by the RNC.  Now they further give the party the middle finger by allocating the remaining delegates as  “winner-take-all”, instead of the proportional allotment that is defined in the RNC rules for any state that wishes to hold its’ primary prior to April 1st. 

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who finished second in the Florida balloting has petitioned the Florida Republican Party to reverse the “winner-take-all” allocation and award him delegates based on the proportional vote he obtained.  I don’t think there will be any surprises here and Florida will not change its’ mind. 

I am asking you to step in and do the right thing by holding a rules committee meeting prior to the Republican Convention in Tampa to overturn the Florida decision and either strip the delegates completely away from the state or make them award the delegates proportionally as per the RNC rules.  Why am I asking for the RNC to decide this now instead of at the Convention?  It’s simple.  If the RNC does not act on this immediately, it will affect the delegate count in an unfair manner toward the ‘leading’ delegate holder as of date, Governoe Mitt Romney.  

National Public Radio has applied the proportional formula to the Florida delegates and as of today, instead of Governor Romney receiving all 50 remaining delegates, he would only receive 23 while Speaker Gingrich would receive 16.  This would change the cumulative total from Governor Romney leading Gingrich 59 to 23 to Speaker Gingrich leading Governor Romney 39 to 32.  As you know, political campaigns are all about momentum, or lack there of.  The RNC’s failure to act on this is affecting the momentum off the GOP primary race, something that I would hope you would agree, the national party should have no reason to do.  By affecting the momentum, this shift of delegates to where they rightfully belong, could allso affect the race for the nomination as a whole.

I, as a Republican, urge you to take action immediately should Florida rule not to overturn their decision.

Respectfully Submitted,

Bill Knowles
Publisher
WeArePolitics.com


Confessions of a Neocon


Posted by billknowles (Diary)

Friday, January 13th at 10:58AM EDT

No Comments
The first time one of Ron Paul’s supporters called me a Neocon I was insulted and hacked off which was exactly the response the name caller was looking for.  However since then,  the more times I have been called that the more enamored to it I have become.   Yes….I admit it…I am a Neocon.  Thank you for labeling me as such, all you napalm spreading Paul-ites who are the self-proclaimed ”Defenders of the Faith”, “Proclaimers of the Truth” and “The Founding Fathers Favorites”.  Your name calling has finally produced something meaningful.The American Heritage Dictionary’s definition of  neoconservativism is “an intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s” and Wordnet 3.0 defines it as “an approach to politics or theology that represents a return to a traditional point of view (in contrast to more liberal or radical schools of thought of the 1960s)”.  Guilty on both charges.The early Neocons of the Sixties themselves were a radical group indeed.  According to James Nuechterlein in an essay titled “The End of Neoconservatism” written in 1996,“Neoconservatives differed with traditional conservatives on a number of issues, of which the three most important, in my view, were the New Deal, civil rights, and the nature of the Communist threat. On the New Deal, neoconservatives wanted not to dismantle the welfare/regulatory state, as did most traditionalists, but simply to prevent its infinite expansion, as in the programs of the Great Society. On civil rights, all neocons were enthusiastic supporters of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965, while the National Review was suspicious of King and opposed to federal legislation forbidding racial discrimination. “

Well, I can certainly see how calling someone a Neocon by a Paul supporter might be considered a derogatory term in their thoughts.  (See the famous newsletters.)  As for the New Deal, there were aspects of it that were despirately needed at the time, such as the creation of the FDIC and the Rural Electrification Association, but I do heartily agree that the Great Society of LBJ was certainly a lot more detrimental to society than the beginning of the entitlements that FDR brought us, which were held largely in check by Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy.

In more recent history, Neocons are highly supportive of Israel and opposed to the current regimes in Iran and Syria,  Hezzbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood.  Again….Guilty as charged and I am unashamed to say so.  Israel has been one of the United States most loyal allies.  Why should we not show them the same loyalty that they have shown us?  Especially since they are our last allies in the Middle East.

Irving Kristol, who’s been called the “Godfather of Neocons” and the real father of Bill Kristol who is pictured above with me, wrote in a 2003 article for The Weekly Standard called “The Neoconservative Persuation“ that Republicans cannot be “blind to the fact that neoconservative policies, reaching out beyond the traditional political and financial base, have helped make the very idea of political conservatism more acceptable to a majority of American voters. Nor has it passed official notice that it is the neoconservative public policies, not the traditional Republican ones, that result in popular Republican presidencies.”

The main policies Mr. Kristol wrote about are cutting taxes as well as foreign policy.  A Neocon, according to Kristol, feels that the divide between the ‘haves and the have nots’ lessens when there is economic growth for all, even if that means an increased federal deficit which is a necessary evil if it will help spur the desired economic growth.  Kristol continues, “It is a basic assumption of neoconservatism that, as a consequence of the spread of affluence among all classes, a property-owning and tax-paying population will, in time, become less vulnerable to egalitarian illusions and demagogic appeals and more sensible about the fundamentals of economic reckoning.”  In other words, sharing the wealth through growth and hard work also means sharing the tax burden throughout society, as opposed to President Obama who just wants to give the ”have-nots” what the ”haves” have.

In foreign policy Kristol wrote that patriotism is “a natural and healthy sentiment and should be encouraged by both private and public institutions”, that a world government is a bad idea, that we should be able to tell our friends from our enemies and that we should have military superiority.  What novel ideas!  Does this sound like the exact opposite of President Obama?  It sure does to me.

I confess that I am a proud Neocon and I would like to thank all of the Ron Paul supporters who have given me the label that I now completely embrace, although I don’t completely embrace everything a traditional Neocon believes.    Just do me a favor in the future please?  Capitalize the N in Neocon.


Is Ron Paul A Republican or a Libertarian?


Posted by billknowles (Diary)

Thursday, December 22nd at 3:31PM EDT

19 Comments

Recommenders: mikeymike143 (Diary), clowngirl (Diary)

Thanks to glowing commentary from Ron Paul suppporters I have been called  a coward, a traitor, a neocon, a nazi, that I’m sick and a ‘demeanor’ of the modern day Thomas Jefferson all because I said what a lot of Republicans are thinking but won’t say:  Ron Paul is a Libertarian and not a Republican.  (For the record, with due respect to the Congressman,  Ron Paul couldn’t hold Thomas Jefferson’s quill pen.)

Congressman Paul turned his back on the GOP in 1987 and resigned.  Instead of trying to fix the problems that he cites in his resignation, he bolts and runs.   He then ran for President as a Libertarian in 1988. 

Dr. Paul ran for Congress again in 1996, but instead of running as a Libertarian, chose to run as a Republican.   (More about this race in a little bit….)

In 2008 Paul ran again for President as a member of the Republican party.  He refused to endorse the eventual nominee John McCain, instead stating that he would’offer (his) open endorsement to the four candidates (of the Libertarian, Green, Constitution Parties and an independent) because each has signed onto a policy statement that calls for “balancing budgets, bring troops home, personal liberties and investigating the Federal Reserve.’  Those candidates were Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader, the last two being somewhere to the left of Karl Marx.  Paul held a conference at a National Press Club Conference on September 10, 2008 with all four of the candidates.  He then told members of the conference that “we must maximize the total votes of those rejecting the two major candidates.”  He would later state that he would not endorse a specific candidate because  ”due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members . . . and I’m a ten-term Republican congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more than one political party.”  Eventually Congressman Paul gave a full endorsement to Chuck Baldwin the candidate of the  Constitution Party.  In his endorsement from 2008, Paul stated:

“The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for remaining neutral in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November.  It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members.  I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party.  Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.

I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better.� I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.

In some states, one can be on the ballots of two parties, as they can in New York.  This is good and attacks the monopoly control of politics by Republicans and Democrats.  We need more states to permit this option. This will be a good project for the Campaign for Liberty, along with the alliance we are building to change the process.

I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election.  I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.”  (Source:  Campaign For Liberty Website.)

Now I know that all of the Ron Paul folks will stand and applaud your hero for his stand against the tyrranical  Republicans, but if he hates us so much, why does he continue to claim to be one?  Don’t you think he’s hypocritical?

Now back to the Congressional campaign of 1996 as this was the possible nucleas of the dislike that Congressman Paul has against former Speaker Newt Gingrich.  Dr. Paul ran incumbent Greg Laughlin, a former Conservative Democrat who had switched parties in 1995.   Laughlin was endorsed in the primary over Dr. Paul by Speaker Gingrich and then Texas Governor George W. Bush. 

Fast forward now to December 15, 2011 in Sioux City, Iowa.  Fox News Megyn Kelly asks Congressman Paul at the last debate held in Iowa before the Caucuses,

“….You have some bold ideas. Some very fervent supporters and probably the most organized ground campaign here in Iowa. But there are many Republicans inside and outside of this state who openly doubt whether you can be elected president. How can you convince them otherwise? And if you don’t wind up winning this nomination, will you pledge here tonight that you will support the ultimate nominee?”

Congressman Paul respoonds:

“Well, you know, fortunately for the Republican party this year, probably every — anybody up here could probably beat Obama, so….. So the challenge isn’t all that great on how we’re going to beat Obama. I think he’s beating himself. I think really the question is, is what do we have to offer? And I have something different to offer. I emphasize civil liberties. I emphasize a pro-American foreign policy, which is a lot different than policemen of the world. I emphasize, you know, monetary policy and these things that the other candidates don’t — don’t talk about. But I think the important thing is the philosophy I’m talking about is the Constitution and freedom.

And that brings people together. It brings independents into the fold and it brings Democrats over on some of these issues. So, therefore, I see this philosophy as being very electable, because it’s an America philosophy. It’s the rule of law. And it — it means that, you know, we ought to balance the budget. It opens up the door for saying — supporting my willingness to cut $1 trillion out of the budget the first year.”  (Read the complete transcript here.)

Great answer, I do admit….But also only half of the answer to the question asked by Ms. Kelly.  Where’s the pledge to support the GOP candidate if the Congressman doesn’t win the nomination?  It is not there….It is not there because that pledge will never be there as the Congressman has a slash and burn agenda of continuing to hammer the base of the Republican party then leave it again when his support will be needed to help defeat President Obama.  Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson at least had the decency to bow out of the GOP now and run as a Libertarian.  Congressman Paul should follow suit or endorse Johnson instead of pulling a bait and switch job on voters who don’t know any better. 

On a different matter that is now in the national headlines, yesterday CNN’s Gloria Borger politely asked Congressman Paul about those now-famous newsletters that I wrote a little about yesterday.  Paul, before abruptly ending the interview,  denied writing them again then even denied that he read them saying, “I didn’t write them, I disavow them, that’s it.”  Really?  He then went on to say “I never read that stuff, I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written.”  So let’s take the Congressman at his word.  He put out a newsletter that has his name on it and didn’t read the content until a decade later.  Content that is racist that he has now disavowed.  I wonder if he would disavow any of the newsletters stances on ending the Federal Reserve as well?  Well Congressman, how does it feel to be vetted?