Althouse: Ron Paul supporters plan "an embarrassing public revolt against" McCain for the Republican Convention.

May 12, 2008

Ron Paul supporters plan "an embarrassing public revolt against" McCain for the Republican Convention.

Says Andrew Malcolm (via Memeorandum). Interesting.

And here's Glenn Reynolds's review of Ron Paul's book "The Revolution: A Manifesto." The book is selling briskly on Amazon, where there is a "search inside the book" function. The book makes no mention of McCain.

23 comments:

vbspurs said...: Fear the years in decades ending in "8". It's 1968 all over again...

But instead of Chicago and Miami, it'll be the convention riots of Denver and Minneapolis.

Sigh.; 5/12/08, 11:57 AM
Palladian said...: "Ron Paul supporters plan "an embarrassing public revolt against" McCain for the Republican Convention."

Ron Paul supporters have been both embarrassingly public and revolting for a long time. How will this be any different?; 5/12/08, 12:04 PM
hdhouse said...: beg your pardon but Ron Paul, as others, have a perfect right to raise hell about the process or lack thereof.; 5/12/08, 12:19 PM
Paddy O said...: have a perfect right to raise hell about the process or lack thereof.

Um, okay. But like Palladian said, they've been doing this for a long time. Or trying to do this at least. Never quite nearly as successful as they'd like to believe. Seems like it was Huckabee who really put the worry in the Republican party, not Paul.

My suspicion is it will be more of a minor, private angst-fest than a 'public revolt'. Not enough people joined the revolution.; 5/12/08, 12:28 PM
Palladian said...: Oh I know. It was just too easy a dig to pass up.; 5/12/08, 12:28 PM
The Drill SGT said...: I wonder wich set of Paullians will be out in the streets:

- Truthers
- Racists
- Anti-war nuts
- Libertarians

How many of those groups make the GOP look bad when contrasted?

In contrast, the Dem convention is supposed to have a much larger protest crowd.; 5/12/08, 12:47 PM
garage mahal said...: Ron Paul supporters have been both embarrassingly public and revolting for a long time.

Reading Andrew Sullivan is like someone burping right in your face. After they ate a bag of Fritos for lunch. But I thought most of Ron Paul's supporters went over to Obama? Maybe it just seems like it.; 5/12/08, 12:51 PM
Methadras said...: hdhouse said...

beg your pardon but Ron Paul, as others, have a perfect right to raise hell about the process or lack thereof.

You are absolutely right, but the real question that has to be asked is to what end? This show of public revolt will be nothing more than a display of sour grapes and a need to piss in the punch. If Ron Paul was such a unifying figure, then don't you think that he would have been the nominee already? The fact of the matter is, is that his ideas and proposals were rejected by the voters not only this time, but all the other times he tried to run for president and failed.

Having a perfect right to attempt at being spoilers may be valid, but it shouldn't necessarily be followed through with. Conservatives of every stripe and Republicans of every stripe are much better than childish display and only reinforces the idea that Ron Paul and namely his supporters are nothing but kooks.; 5/12/08, 12:52 PM
AllenS said...: I know a Ron Paul supporter. In 2004 she was a hard core Kucinich supporter. Go figure.; 5/12/08, 1:00 PM
Daryl said...: What lack of process?

They lost the primaries because very few people believe crazy, paranoid spoutings from truthers, gold-standarders, nativists, etc.

The people abusing the process are Ronulans, who played with the rules in NV at the GOP convention there.

They are stupid and abusive. They are politically and personally toxic. They are bad people. They are attention whores and flighty extremists, given to whatever conspiracy theory excess is presented at the moment. They are racists and truthers.

Contrast the GOP primaries to the Dem primaries. Lack of process? Ha. By your reasoning, Sen. Clinton's supporters should crash the Dem convention, and do their damndest to disrupt it.; 5/12/08, 1:05 PM
Roger J. said...: I suspect the possible bloodbath in Denver will make anything the Paulistas manage to pull off pale in comparison.; 5/12/08, 1:11 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I know a Ron Paul supporter. In 2004 she was a hard core Kucinich supporter. Go figure.

Well I think it was generally accepted that Ron Paul was the GOP version of Kucinich but not as ugly.; 5/12/08, 1:14 PM
dbp said...: Wow, just when you thought the Paul campain couldn't make itself look (even more) ridiculus.

If McCain didn't run, Republicans would have picked: Mitt, Mike, Rudy or Fred before choosing Ron Paul.

It is like Kucinich or Gravel trying to be "spoilers" on the Dem side.; 5/12/08, 1:26 PM
section9 said...: Ah yes, the McCain Campaign.

Speaking as a Rock-ribbed Republican, you can now see why all that Pioneer Money isn't exactly cascading into the coffers of "Team Maverick".

When you spend your entire career whizzing into the face of your own Party so that you can get street cred points with the MSM, don't expect return favors. And don't expect the Party to come riding to your rescue when the Media finds out that your chief convention organizer used to flack for the Burmese Junta. Nice going, Mac. Way to vet.

And now, the Paultards are going to show up waving their dog-eared copies of The Constitution of Liberty and old Paul Bastiat texts that nobody heard of. Meantime, you just know that half of these clowns will show up trying to sell old copies of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, along with other tributes to the life of George Lincoln Rockwell.

Jesus. The McCain Campaign. Can't even run a convention. The Illinois Nazi Party is going to show up and make sure he doesn't give his acceptance speech until 1 AM.

Nice going, JMC! Who's the VP? A member of the Burmese Junta, perhaps?; 5/12/08, 1:39 PM
ricpic said...: Wouldn't want to embarrass any of the professional powerful with a reminder that the citizen doesn't live to serve the state in America. Quaint thought nowadays but that's what those pesky founders had in mind. Yes, Ron Paul, what a kook, limited government and all that.; 5/12/08, 1:56 PM
MadisonMan said...: Bob Barr for President!; 5/12/08, 2:21 PM
Simon said...: The upside of Paul's book is that it makes a nonsense of the drive-by Paulista spam that Paul is the "true conservative" in this race. A revolutionary, ex vi termini, is not a conservative.

As to the convention, I agree with James Joyner: "It would be absurd to give a guy who received less than one percent of the amassed delegates at the convention a platform for harming the party." I also think that what Newt Gingrich said of the news that Bob Barr will run as an independent applies: Paul will "make it marginally easier for Barack Obama to become president. That outcome threatens every libertarian value [he] professes to champion."; 5/12/08, 2:24 PM
Simon said...: By the way, there are (thusfar) 26 Ron Paul delegates out of 2200. I propose we head this off at the pass by ensuring that they are seated a safe distance - i.e. out of microphone range - of the podium. How far from the podium will suffice? Somewhere in Wisconsin ought to do it.; 5/12/08, 2:28 PM
Revenant said...: I just don't see that Paulistinians doing much harm at the convention. They're pretty nutty, and the difference between the nuts and the mainstream party will provide a good contrast for the folks watching at home.; 5/12/08, 2:57 PM
Laura Reynolds said...: What if they threw a revolution and nobody came?; 5/12/08, 3:53 PM
KCFleming said...: the Paultards are going to show up waving their dog-eared copies of The Constitution of Liberty and old Paul Bastiat texts that nobody heard of.

Ha! You mean someone else reads that shit, too?
Jesus on skates.
But then why do I think Ron Paul is a fried chicken, potato salad, and two beers short of a church picnic?; 5/12/08, 4:23 PM
blake said...: A revolutionary, ex vi termini, is not a conservative.

Not quite, Simon. The term "conservative" (and "liberal", for that matter) requires a context.

You're using "conservative" in its traditional sense as "reluctant to change".

"Conservative" can also mean "dedicated to the principal of limited government power". Ronald Reagan was a conservative in that sense, but much of what he did was quite radical.

And those are just two possible contexts.

Didn't we just address this a few days ago when Victoria posed a similar question?; 5/12/08, 5:36 PM
titusisdreamingofhog said...: Sounds good to me.; 5/12/08, 7:10 PM