Republican Party of Florida Purges Outspoken Members

This is an ongoing fight in many states. Republicans need to figure out how to work with libertarians, rather than treating them as unwelcome outsiders. You can't ask for libertarian votes and then tell them to shut up and go away.  But on the other side of this, libertarians also need to realize that a winning coalition requires an accomodation of interests and the way to lead the coalition is by showing them how they can actually win.  Revolution! may be a lot of fun, but revolutionaries tend to get their heads cut off.  Libertarians need to play electoral democracy....and Republicans need to remember what Ronald Reagan said: "the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism". - Jon Henke

On Friday — timed just right to minimize news coverage — Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer and the state party Grievance Committee notified a number of party members, many of them holding elective office, that they were effectively purged from the party and had been removed from their offices and would be ineligible to hold any other party positions for periods ranging from two to four years.

The targets of this purge are mostly members of the Florida chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus, a group which seeks to return the party to its core beliefs of individual liberty, limited government, and free markets. These particular individuals were targeted because they had expressed opinions critical of party policy, candidates, and office holders, on the basis of which the grievance committee decided that they had "engaged in disruptive conduct likely to interfere with the activities of the Republican Party." Acting on the committee's recommendation, Chairman Greer issued letters stripping them of their offices and rights as party members.

This is the culmination of an ongoing assault by a party establishment dominated by big-government Republican hacks seeking to silence grassroots activists who are trying to reform the party and bring it back to the values on which it was founded. Previous actions against the RLC include an attempt to prevent them from using the word “Republican” in their name, despite the fact that the group has used the title for almost 20 years and obtained permission in writing from the party for the use of the name under a prior administration.

The current actions may be at least partially driven by the success of the RLC in Florida, where it has grown to be one of the largest political groups in the state, and by the outspoken support of many members for Marco Rubio, who is challenging incumbent Governor Charlie Crist in the next senatorial election. Many RLC activists supported Ron Paul in the last presidential primary and were not enthusiastic about the McCain nomination, drawing criticism from the party establishment. Also at issue were demands for an audit of the state party and an investigation into financial improprieties by Orange County Chairman Lew Oliver.

The complaint against Florida RLC Chairman Will Pitts was typical of the type of issues raised against the targets of the purge. Pitts attended a Campaign for Liberty event, wore a Ron Paul button after the primary, went to an End the Fed rally and was critical of GOP leaders, including describing Chairman Greer and Governor Crist as "pathetic and embarrassing."

On the basis of actions like these, which amount to little more than having an opinion which is unpopular with the party leadership, Pitts was banned from serving in any official office in the RPOF for two years plus another two years of probation, during which expressing an unapproved opinion will presumably lead to further punishment. Other RLC members targeted include Nick Egoroff of Orlando who was expelled for four years, Northeast Florida RLC Chairman John Stevens who was removed from his office as a Precinct Committeeman and banned from office until 2013 which is after the next election cycle, and RLC board member Elizabeth Campbell who was stripped of her position as a Committeewoman in Excambria County. Others targeted in the purge include Brevard Republican Chairman Jason Steele, Orange County Precinct Committeeman Deon Long and anti-tax activist Doug Guetzloe of Orange County. Egoroff plans to file a lawsuit against Greer and the state party.

It is troubling to see these purges directed at loyal grassroots activists like Will Pitts and John Stevens who have been working hard for years to build up the Republican Party in Florida, bring in new blood and encourage reforms and a return to Republican ideals. It's outrageous that they have been punished by the Florida Party for little more than expressing personal opinions which were not popular with a leadership which has no tolerance for dissent or speech which doesn't match their version of political correctness. The GOP has always been a "Big Tent" with room for diversity of opinion and a respect for the right of free expression, but in Florida under Greer the rules are more like those of the Soviet Communists who believed that slavish subservience to the party was more important than individual rights.

Who can blame these activists for their honest disagreement with the policies which have taken the GOP away from its principles of limited government and individual liberty, sold its soul to special interests, and brought it to a reduced status as a minority party in both houses of Congress? The party needs them and their idealism far more than it needs leaders like Greer who defend the status quo with purges and suppression of dissent.

It's also disturbing that many of those purged held offices which they were voted into in a public election. It is fundamentally wrong that party officials should negate the vote of the people for such petty reasons. The will of the people is not lightly flaunted and there will be a price to be paid in the next election for riding roughshod over the voters and party rank and file who see the need for change which the leadership is blindly resisting.

Party leaders ought to be looking to the RLC for a new generation of leadership, not singling them out for punishment for stating truths which ought to be obvious. This purge is a direct attack on loyal Republicans who just want to see the Party live up to its avowed beliefs. Healthy debate makes the party stronger and enthusiastic grassroots activists like these should not be punished for commitment to principle or idealism, even when it leads them to openly criticize the leaders who have failed them and the party.

The national board of the Republican Liberty Caucus has issued a strongly worded press release in support of the Florida chapter urging their members nationwide to write letters to newspapers and national party officials protesting the purges.

3.4
Your rating: None Average: 3.4 (5 votes)

Comments

Infiltration

Sometimes I wonder if Democrats havne't infilitrated the Republican Party and those political operatives who are depended upon for running campaigns.

I could be convinced that many of the idiots who ran McCain campaign were fifth columnists.

 

Considering the Hal Turner scandal the media's NOT reporting

Said hypothetical Democrat operatives could conceivably be our own employees via our supposedly-moral FBI & "Justice" Department. Hell, a subsidy for a Democrat infiltrator's MILD compared to six or seven years of hate-subsidy.

It's DemocratIC You Hick

I know.  It's an intentional dig.  Well, there's a hell of a lot more democracy in the Democratic Party than the Rethuglican wingding.  Party purges were historically common with who?  Stalin, for one comes to mind.

As far as infiltration, who needs to?  Rahm totally punked you guys on the school speech.  I'd bet dollars to doughnuts he planted the line in the lesson plan you all went nuts about.  Then the speech turned out to be Mom and apple pie and you guys looked like the total fools you really are. 

NM Dem...

I have to give you credit for not referencing Hitler and using Stalin, instead.  Usually your ilk is inclined to use all forms of the Nazi metaphor these days... ahhh, what creative talent.

It seems to most of us, thought, that any Democrat of the Democrat Party who uses "Rethuglican" has already demonstrated what a hick is all about.  And a hick hack at that.

That's rich

...coming from a party that parades around with posters of the President dressed up as Hitler.  Also, take a look at the rhetoric coming out of your guys lately and tell us then who is referencing Nazis. Michelle Bachmann, Glenn Beck, Hannity, Boss Limbaugh, that freak Malkin - the list of pimps goes on and on.  And, my use of Rethuglican was clearly meant as a counter to the use of "Democrat" party.  I should know better than to employ subtlety when dealing with reactionaries.

Whether or not you ignored me...

I already told you how to regain the "ic," and until then it's Democrat party every time I remember to say it, just to piss you off. Want change? Change the ballot monopoly to competition. Otherwise, quitcherbitchin.

Nope. Not from me.

From me, they'll have to EARN the "ic," and that means doing right for once on ballot access laws. Until then, they're the Democrat party because I say so; and I'm no hick, but you may well be an idiot...

Losership illustrated, by Florida's Republican "leaders"

Gee, I wonder if this will generate respect from voters like me?? I suppose I should be used to attempts to squelch all libertarian speech in the party by now, but it still disgusts me. Let's hear it for an "old people who agree with eachother & don't really mind bigger government" party! And you kids get off my lawn!! Losers!!! I kinda hope Florida's Democrats take advantage of this stupid-ass purge. They should, and if they try then I'll sure as hell help them, just to teach Greer a lesson. Bob Barr is living proof, Republicans sometimes need "tough love" to turn in a libertarian direction. If losing's what it takes to teach losers a lesson, so be it. As ye sow, so shall ye reap, Republican losership.

Way to go Dave!

I absolutely agree with your position on this. It's stunning that a party could go so far on the path of its own destruction without knowing it... Or do they?

As long as the Republican party continues to pull this sort of stunt, you can bet on electoral failure.

Thanks for a super article!

M in Rogers, TX

Greer is a one man trainwreck

Greer is also all over the news this week because of his idiotic posturing and then reversal of position on the Obama school speech.  He's an embarrassment to the state of Florida and the GOP and ought to slink off into the darkness where he belongs.

Dave

Greer the Clown

Greer is also all over the news this week because of his idiotic posturing and then reversal of position on the Obama school speech.

When I first read the news about this, that was my first impression, too. He'd made a complete idiot of himself in public by spouting off about the speech, and this was his version of the child who doesn't get his way kicking the dog as he storms off.

I suppose this very-public purge

Might be seen as one way to shift the spotlight from our state's Republican losership's incompetence and keen grasp for power.

But remember...

But remember, the Democrats are worse.

It's like watching the Jets and Sharks go at it.

 

 

And another thing -- Florida's Crist double-standard

Ok, let's see if I've got the Florida Republican party double-standard math right:

Appear with a Democrat President IN PERSON on behalf of a VERY porky "stimulus" bill = not only no-condemnation, but literally a goddam Senate endorsement sans primary from Florida's statist Republican "leaders."

Appear instead at an "End The Fed" rally wearing a freakin' Ron Paul BUTTON (the politician statist "conservatives" like Greer fear the most was elsewhere) = a sin worthy of multi-year excommunication, rather than mere condemnation.

Is that about it? And these people want not only my respect (ha!) but my money (HA!). Believe me, they need my IDEAS, because no quantity of money can change these "leaders" from being losers. If anything, money will reinforce their losership, IMO.

The other Crist double standard

They also don't seem to have a problem with him being a (not very sucessfully) closeted gay man.

Good point, but IMO that gives Crist APPEAL to FL's losership

Think about it...Crist wins, no problem. But if Crist is hypothetically losing the race bigtime, then bingo, out come the gay rumors; so they can act shocked & reflexively blame "teh gay" instead of their own innate loserdom. This strategy is guaranteed, win or lose, to keep the losers in a position of party power.

Now JMR...

you're just being stupid without even an excuse.  "Crist loses, the GOP blames it on his being gay"?

For the record, my trailerpark friend, it's a rumor just like the one that Sarah Palin's baby was really her daughter's or Laura and George Bush's marriage was on the rocks or FoxNews fired Glenn Beck.  Rumor that is better suited for your trailerpark pals than any public blog.

You need to stop being an echo chamber for the DailyKos or KeithOlberman and find some substance in your arguments.  I know, I know; you think it's fair because your opinions are routinely discounted, discredited and distanced by others on this site.

What you really need is to ditch the trailerpark mindset and join the civil society.  It'll help in the short and long runs.

maybe i'm an idiot, but

"you're just being stupid without even an excuse.  "Crist loses, the GOP blames it on his being gay"? 

"it's a rumor just like the one that Sarah Palin's baby was really her daughter's or Laura and George Bush's marriage was on the rocks or FoxNews fired Glenn Beck.

 

"You need to stop being an echo chamber for the DailyKos or KeithOlberman and find some substance in your arguments."

 

 

can i just point out that i'm fairly sure that neither kos nor olbermann would think crist's being gay would be a negative.  it may be a political drawback considering the toxicity that is present in republican politics concerning the issue, but i think, since a large segment of their consumers would actually view crist more favorably becuase of his being gay, it would be pretty retarded for them to intimate that his being gay is a problem. 

 

also, if crist were gay, and if he were man enough to come out, it'd be a game changer for the republican party.  crist is a good enough speaker and a good enough politician to draw a line in the sand and say, 'either we are the party of personal liberty, and you have no right to infringe upon what i do in the privacy of my bedroom, or you are a cynical hypocrite, and you can decry all you want the boogeyman of a democratic nanny state, but you also need to realize that on the issues of gay marriage, gay adoption, gays in the military, a nanny state is exactly the position you so vigorously have paid, fought, and campaigned for.'

what about me_?

funny that, eh?  You offered "can i just point out that i'm fairly sure that neither kos nor olbermann would think crist's being gay would be a negative".

You could point it out but you'd be wrong --and still an idiot.

If you hadn't noticed, those folks have indeed used a GOPer's sexual preference as a tool to attempt to alienate officials, candidates and staffers from their supporters, the Party, the Party's leadership and to underscore their pointed, partisan argument that being gay and Republican are mutually exclusive --skip any reference to Chris Shays, Rich Tafel, Rick Sammon, the Log Cabin Republicans, massively successful blogs like GayPatroit, et al.

And when the tar and feathers approach doesn't work, the hardcore partisan interests at DailyKos and MSNBC resort to tossing their own victimhood industry peers under the bus and engage in wholesale outing of anyone appearing to be gay and GOP... like MikeRogers (D) and JohnAvarosis (D) did for 4 years running.

Now, what was that about Democrats and their hardcore partisan pals in the MSM and blogosphere don't think being gay is a negative?

Right.  We'll leave it at you being wrong and stupid.  Nice going there.

you're a bit of an asshole, aren't ya?

maybe that's a bit too wishy washy for a man of your being, so let's streamline it; you're an asshole..  i've got no idea what the hell you're trying to say, and the sickening sense of superiority in your tone is only outmatched by the fact that you think the issue is something to be summed up by saying "We'll leave it at you being wrong and stupid."

 

until next time, go to hell. 

Like your fleckless leader, Obama, call names all you want...

it won't change the simple fact that for some time now farLeft Democrats have indeed used the gay sexual preference of GOP officials as a way to smear and tarnish them... like your esteemed buddy in slime, Mr NMDem(ocrat), did above and you do as well, "what about me__".

I think it's incredible that gays in the farLeft let guys like you and your slime buddies hazard being gay as a smear.  And, given the way that the farLeft and Democrats have catered to the vicitimhood and victimization of gays in our culture for years and years (for empathy and votes and grassrooted volunteers), it seems nearly as incredible that you can sit on your ass and still promote it as an appropriate smear.

Whether or not you realize how uninformed you actually are or sound is immaterial, "what about me__".

The farLeft --including all the thousand points of slime operating in the blogosphere-- have willingly and deliberately used being gay as the point of sword to smear others... in this lastest case of Crist, the likely next GOP Senator from Fl.  Of course, Rubio fans have tried it as well and found it to have zero, none, nada traction among likely GOP primary voters... in fact, the smear turns off independents and that's why Rubio's surrogates are no longer spreading the smear.

Look, it really is simple, "what about me___" or whomever you were in earlier posts here.  The argument was waged that the GOP Fl leadership had conspired to withhold information about Crist's gayness because it would one day provide a foil to explain their supposed incompetence in advancing his candidacy if he lost.

Strange?  To say the least.  Incredible? Hey, it's a conspiracy theory that is beyond incredible... it almost sounds like aliens abducted the idiot who thought of the conspiracy and brainwashed him.

For you to argue that people on the left or Democrats would never use being gay as slur or smear... I've already pointed out with lots of evidence how utterly stupid and flat-out wrong your idea is on that score.  It is really simple.  Want to look over some YouTube moments of Keith Olbermann sliming Larry Craig?  Yeah, I thought not.

But you go ahead and call people names who speak the truth as you do of me above.  Obama does it with a panache and consistency that rivals SlickWilly's capacity to lie to all, including his wife, a jury, a judge and the American people.  That's some great company you keep, "what about me___".

By the way, how many names do you go under in these threads?  Just curious.

i might be new to this, but

you've got the openmindedness of a brick wall. i try to make it a point not to talk to brick walls.  or to read them for that matter. 

until next time, go to hell. 

 

I stand by everything I said.

As usual. And the trailerpark bs makes me think "he's not too bright." Focus on the issues, or be mocked. Your choice. But right now, you've chosen mockery.

Of course you do, JMR...

you'd stand by stupid comments like you think it might be a conspiracy on the part of FLA GOP leaders to keep wraps on the "Crist is gay" nonsense in order to preserve some logical plausible excuse for them in the unlikely --very, very unlikely-- event Crist loses the race to replace Mel Martinez.

As conspiracy theories and pure wild-assed silliness goes, you take the cake with that one. Trailerpark mentality may be too generous a label for you.  No one is shifting focus on the issues except YOU, JMR.

The issue is your stupid comments here proposing that very conspiracy theory in response to a Democrat troll's attempt to shift the debate --from the FLA GOP kicking out deadwood libertarain loon detractors to an attempt to undermine and smear Crist.

You took it in that direction with this asinine comment:

But if Crist is hypothetically losing the race bigtime, then bingo, out come the gay rumors; so they (the FLA GOP leadership) can act shocked & reflexively blame "teh gay" instead of their own innate loserdom. This strategy is guaranteed, win or lose, to keep the losers in a position of party power.

You see it as mockery to call that kind of wild-assed conspiracy-laced conjecture something akin to trailerpark thinking?

Like I said above, for you, that may be too generous a label, JMR.  It isn't mockery, JMR, when it's the truth.

Crist may be ahead in polls right now.

But I doubt he's going to win, and I still think you're proving that you're not that bright. I don't even know why I'm getting into this, since my objection to Crist is 100% fiscal rather than sexual, but...

http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2008-02-28/news/the-talk-of-the-green-ig...

the idea that Crist being a homo is a "wild-assed conspiracy-laced conjecture," considering the FACTS (not just this article, it's the result of 5 seconds with google) that are out there is enough to allow me to keep right on mocking you, both on the facts and on your obvious lack of intelligence in calling me names. Keep it up, and I will, too.

So, JMR, good for you to admit you were wrong...

and retreat from YOUR stupid allegation that the Fla GOP leadership were keeping Crist's purported gayness under wraps so that they'd have a viable excuse if he tanked.

Now, for you, it's all about an objection to his "fiscal policies", is it?  Isn't that special.  First, we have you barebacking with NMDem on spreading rumors about Crist's sexual preferences... which voters in FL do not care about.

Then, when called out on the stupidity of those comments, you argue that the FL GOP wants to keep a lid on that "fact" because they can use it as a viable excuse if their chosen-favorite boi doesn't win the nomination.

When called on that fabrication, you switch to Plan B... "I didn't say he say he was gay, that was the other guy", "I don't like him because of his fiscal policies".

Yeah, gay bigots often run back under the rock when sunshine gets to their dark, moldy lair.  True to form.  Say hello to NMDem while you scurry back under that rock.

You're hallucinating.

I still would not put it past the losership to use that non-issue to cover for their own loserdom, just as I said. Calling me a gay bigot proves your stupidity. Plonk.

JMR, of course you wouldn't... stupid is a tough act for you to

break out of, eh?.

Calling you a gay bigot and calling you out on your nonsense is nothing short of responsible civil discourse.  Like I said, scurry back under that rock.  Conservatives, the GOP and responsible discussants don't need or want you.

*yawn*

Like you're some arbiter of THAT. I still stand by all my words. In fact, your comments unwittingly prove 'em to be true. As usual.

Terrible, but not uncharacteristic

It's also disturbing that many of those purged held offices which they were voted into in a public election. It is fundamentally wrong that party officials should negate the vote of the people for such petty reasons.

Honestly, the current Republican party has never been that big on "the vote of the public." Their successful efforts to thwart the vote of the public in 2000 inflicted Bush upon us. Their efforts to do the same in 2004 may have kept him there for 4 more years (though I'm skeptical about the ultimate effects of that latter effort). Their goal is to win, and they don't particularly seem to care what they have to do to pull it off.

The will of the people is not lightly flaunted and there will be a price to be paid in the next election for riding roughshod over the voters and party rank and file who see the need for change which the leadership is blindly resisting.

No, they'll probably get away with it. One of the remarkable attributes of the Republicans--and while I've always found it impressive, it isn't something I've ever thought a good thing--is their ability to fall into lockstep on command. Democrats are a perpetual circular firing squad, no matter what happens, because they encompass such broad interests, but while Republicans will drag out the long knives from time to time, they represent a much narrower constituency, and all it requires to make them a united front again is to wave a cartoon "liberal" at them.

http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/

Time for a wee bit of reality, Dave Nalle and Jon Henke.

For the record, the Florida GOP Grievance Committee members are perfectly within their power and right to strip a local county GOP precinct member of his position for publicly advocating on behalf of 3rd party candidates outside the GOP and using his position and standing inside the GOP to do so.

The former local party officials were working to thwart Party nominees and disrupt the proper course of local party politics through their advocacy of 3rd party candidates.  It would be the same for a county GOP official endorsing a Democrat or Communist or Green Party candidate for office where a GOP candidate is already in place.

It isn't a question of free speech or the right of association.  These two men were using their local party's assets and standing to advocate on behalf of competitors to GOP candidates.  They are certainly free to contribute to those other candidates as PRIVATE CITIZENS, not as local GOP officials.

The removal was done in the bright light of day.  It was done according to state GOP policies and procedures.  It was done in a fair, transparent manner with all persons being accorded due process and legal representation, if needed.

The Grievance Committee members reported to the FLA GOP Chair (Greer) that the members should be stripped of their local party positions and he concurred.  The case involves two bull-headed, arrogantly presumptive snits (messrs Pitts & Stevens) who didn't get their preferred candidates into nomination and decided to undermine the Party's interests by fomenting discord, disrupting local party activities and seeking to damage rightly-chosen, rightly-selected GOP candidates.

For all the talk here about the GOP listening to the "voice of the people" who elected these men to their local party positions, where is the concern about the "voice of the Party voters" who elected the nominees to serve as the Party's candidates?  Frankly, the patently offensive attempt here is to paint this non-story as one of Big GOP Meeeeanies beat-up poor little Libertarian nice guys... I'm guessing that if we all buy that line, the author (Dave Nalle) has some bridges to sell us in Brooklyn.

Dave Nalle is a long time Libertarian activist who is often at odds with the best interests of local, state and national GOP.  In fact, he serves as Chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus.  His bias isn't referenced nor disclosed in this The New Right hatchet piece.

The quote from Henke that leads Nalle's spin-fest here should have included the more important Ronald Reagan quote:

"When the chips are down and the decisions are made as to who the candidates will be, then the 11th commandment prevails and everybody goes to work, and that is: Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican."

Messrs Nalle and Henke and GOP-disruptors Pitts and Stevens should spend some time reflecting on that quote... because Ronald Reagan was, first and foremost, a GOP loyalist who understood the lessons & need for party discipline.

It is NOT an issue of poor, little Libertarians being beat into submission wrongly and underhandedly by evil, monster-like GOP fat cats.  And spinning won't make it so.

I think we'd have read less bias than Nalle's piece if we'd have asked Keith Olbermann to write a piece about Fox News being fair and balanced!

 

Wait a minute...

The former local party officials were working to thwart Party nominees and disrupt the proper course of local party politics through their advocacy of 3rd party candidates.  It would be the same for a county GOP official endorsing a Democrat or Communist or Green Party candidate for office where a GOP candidate is already in place.

If you're talking about their support of Ron Paul, Paul didn't run as a "3rd party candidate" in 2008; he ran as a Republican.

The party can keep or purge whomever they like--contrary to your suggestion, no one has challenged their right to do so. The question on the table is if what they've done is a good idea. In any case, this kind of purging by a major political party isn't a "non-story," no matter how you cut it, and I would also add that approvingly quoting Reagan saying not to speak ill of another Republican in a post largely dedicated to speaking very ill of other Republicans is emblematic of the cognitive disonance at the heart of the parties' problems these days.

ClassicDemocratLiberal2

Before opening your mouth and proving you're an idiot, you might want to read a little of the materials referenced by Nalle in the above post.  It was Florida candidates running for Florida office; not Paul, as you suggest.

Second, I understood Mi-GOPer to be saying that the Florida GOP is entirely within their right to strip a local party official of their office AFTER a substantial inquiry and finding by the state Party's committee set up in the rules to handle such matters.  I agree.  In this matter, it appears the state Party was acting entirely within their rights, rules, procedures, policies and protocol.  To argue otherwise -while dismissing one of the most famous quotes and sentiments of Reagan, who Henke and Nalle quoted to "defend" libertarians- is intellectually dishonest of you and plain-out stupid, too.

I think the Nalle article purports that these anti-GOP party officials were the subject of some extra-legal, unfair, unethical political power purge by evil moderate Florida GOPers; which, after reading the referenced materials and doing some additional reading off-line, it appears that was decidedly NOT the case.  In essence, Nalle was spinning this story as if it was the start of a wholesale purge of libertarian-minded GOPers from the ranks.  But what would one expect from the Chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus?  Fairness?  Candor?  Hardly.  Bias and spin is what we get.  Thanks to Mi-GOPer for sorting out the real story.

Moreover, we well know, from the last few years of conservative, near-Libertarian, farRight wing rule by guys like Tom Delay, that it's actually the moderate, pragmatist kind of Republican who has been shut out of the Party and made to feel like a second-hand, sloppy seconds date.

If, ClassicDemocratLiberal2, you'd first read or learn what's being discussed, then you might not look like an ass so quickly.  It'll happen eventually, I'm sure... just not so quickly.

Frankly, no one should look to you for advice on what the GOP should or shouldn't do to regain the lost electoral ground and political power once enjoyed by the Party... anymore than we should look to the Taliban for advice on airport security.  Your perspective is suspect in the extreme.

Your ranting is misplaced

It was Florida candidates running for Florida office; not Paul, as you suggest.

One of the complaints was that one of the fellows in question wore a Ron Paul button after the primary fight had been settled. As for these other candidates, the "support" the purged individuals gave to them appears to have come in the form of emails and posts on message boards, which doesn't necessarily suggest they're acting in an official capacity. I don't have a dog in this fight, though.

In this matter, it appears the state Party was acting entirely within their rights, rules, procedures, policies and protocol.  To argue otherwise

And, once again, no one has argued otherwise, and even suggesting this amounts to a lie. The question on the table is not "did they have the right to purge them?" The question is about whether or not the purge was a good idea. Nalle doesn't think it was, and argues against it. He never even hinted that they couldn't do it, and neither have I.

Frankly, no one should look to you for advice on what the GOP should or shouldn't do to regain the lost electoral ground and political power once enjoyed by the Party... anymore than we should look to the Taliban for advice on airport security.

I certainly agree with that. As I've already made plain, I don't want the conservatives to rule. I do, however, want them to be credible and effective, so as to force the liberals to be the same. In this case, I haven't offered any "advice" (outside of your own imagination, of course). I don't have a dog in this fight. It is an interesting story, though.

ClassicLiberal2... try again and get it right this time, ok?

You offer: "And, once again, no one has argued otherwise, and even suggesting this amounts to a lie."

First off, Nalle's entire piece is one which screams the GOP acted inappropriately in removing these two, poor, little besotted princes of the Libertarian cloth.  Yes, my idiotic friend, you missed that point because of your partisan blinders which only see a story of division amongst your opponents and you gleefully would like to trumpet or herald that division with the hopes it leads to discord.  That's why it's a "good story" to you; and only you, it seems.  I think you've been talking out both sides of your own mouth for so long, you don't know any longer which side is speaking.

Even suggesting, as you do, "I don't have a dog in this fight", is a flat-out boldfaced lie.  Indeed, you do have a dog in the fight... you'd like to keep the non-story going as long as you and your crass partisan hacks over at the DNC and new-found allies in the Republican Liberty Caucus can keep it a'going.  It serves your purpose-- despite contrary claims that ring hollow from your lips.

You really need to look in the mirror in the morning when shaving... there's a crafty liar looking back at you and you've gotten so good at lying, you can actually deceive yourself in the process.  I think that's Stage One on the way to a socio-path, dude.

Whatever

You offer: "And, once again, no one has argued otherwise, and even suggesting this amounts to a lie."

First off, Nalle's entire piece is one which screams the GOP acted inappropriately in removing these two, poor, little besotted princes of the Libertarian cloth. 

He thinks it was inappropriate. That was the point of his entire post. He never said they couldn't do it. He argued they shouldn't. He never said they didn't have the right to throw them out, nor has anyone else. You've epeatedly offered up, as a "defense" of their actions, that they had the right to do it, as if anyone had challenged that right. No one has. They had a right to do it. Whether or not they should is a different matter. If you don't want to address that issue--the one actually on the table--that's your own right, but you're lying when you're suggesting anyone had said the Florida GOP had no right to do this.

The rest of your psychotic ranting and ad hominems aren't really worth the time it would take to address them. I have no stake in this matter.

 

 

Your last words put in the same column as our Liar Prez...

I have no stake in this matter.

I guess that's why you feel a urgent need to ply the waters with some defense?  No, Classic Liberal 2, you have a dog in the race and that very dog's just like Obama's and the farLeft's and the Libertarian's... to try to sow seeds of dissension in the hope of distracting serious people opposing your plan to radically change America into another Canada, Sweden or England.

To offer something other than that is to continue the lie you began with, dude.

 

Good grief

I guess that's why you feel a urgent need to ply the waters with some defense?

"Defense" of what, imbecile? I haven't taken any position on this Florida situation. I don't even have one. You misrepresented the original post; I corrected you. If you have to lie in order to have anything to say--and that's all you've done here--you didn't have anything to say in the first place.

More defensive whines from ClassicDemocrat2.

You're making the defensive claim that you "have no stake in this matter" but then go on at great length to provide your perspective and rewrite of what the author clearly intended... which, when you're done with it, bears no resemblance to reality.

Spin away, Classic Liberal.   It's what you and your pals like Alexrod and Carville and Matthews and Olbermann and Maddow and Obama do so well... the method you've chosen to employ here, (sigh) again, is to butt and rebutt the truth until you've had to finally resort to the typical namecalling you guys are so fond of these days... I'm surprised you didn't start the "He's an angry mobster" line.

It's so typical of the Left.  Classic, really.

Tagteam brought to you by...

MichiganMatt and his alts. Alts: The unsilent majority that backs you up in your corner.

Who made you the arbitor of

what is in the best interests of the the state and local GOP?

"Dave Nalle is a long time Libertarian activist who is often at odds with the best interests of local, state and national GOP.  In fact, he serves as Chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus.  His bias isn't referenced nor disclosed in this The New Right hatchet piece."

Well, being a longtime libertarian activist certainly damns him, doesn't it? After all, can't have any libertarian thought in the GOP... Right? Take the libertarians out of the party, and it cannot win. More and more, the libertarian wing of the party is growing...

M

arbitor

You have a good point.  You guys are the last people they should be throwing out.  They should give the gate to the Jesus freaks and snake handlers first and foremost,  Oh, I forgot.  That's who runs the show these days.  Never mind.

New Mexico Democrat...

a little less snark might be in order... oh, I forgot, it's not possible with you.

If the snark fits...

If the snark fits, and it appears to, then the FL GOP losership's going to wear it.

Nice try Mark, but you missed the mark by a mile.

who is to determine it??  Are you actually asking that as a serious question???

(Sigh).  OK, let's accept your question as serious.  The best interests of the Party are and were determined by a group of volunteer GOP officials, elected to office just like the two dimwits who were stripped of party position, serving the Party as a whole and CHARGED --under the Party authored, Party approved, Party adopted, Party voted upon-- by the Party rules.  The Chair of the Party decided to accept the volunteer committee's recommendations after a fair and impartial, full sunshine, transparent, due process driven inquiry.  I think that was Mi-GOPer's point.

So, to answer your question: the Party got to.  The Party did decide the best interests of the Party, writ large.

Mr Nalle, as I understood Mi-GOPer's point, is the Chair of a libertarian organization that is OUTside of the Florida GOP... and as we all know from experience, libertarians inside the GOP are usually as irritating as a Ross Perot wingnut or a JerryFalwellThumper... or a birther.  Mr Nalle didn't disclose that point... funny that?  Talk about a lapse of ethics; we don't need ethics-challenged detractors.  We got lots of those in Obama's Administration and the MSM.

Just like we need less of the World Net Daily types... we could also stand a little less of the libertarian loons inside the Party... let em head over to the national and state Libertarian Party... it's their proper place.  If you're a GOP Party member, get your act together, get your priorities straight, support the Party's candidates or get the Hell out of the way.  It's really that simple.

Besides, 510,000 votes (which was the Libertarian base in 2008) isn't going to hurt anyone if it disappears from the political landscape.  Good riddance.

You think the "libertarian wing" of the Party is growing?  Not in my state... certainly not in Mi-GOPer's state (I'm assuming it's Michigan)... in fact, I think in Michigan the vocal and widely perceived libertarian GOP chair got booted from office recenlty and replaced with a moderate, pragmatic, centrist do-er... and then the former Michigan GOP Chair tried to win the natl GOP Chairman seat only to be pummeled by a moderate, black GOP candidate.

Oh yeah, Mark... the libertarian wing of the GOP is growing.  You go with that lie and see how far it takes ya,  LOL.  And next time; ask a serious question.  You're looking like you love the ClassicDemocratLiberal2 action; open mouth...

"In the bright light of day"

Ain't "late on a Friday afternoon" in news cycle reality, and you know it as well as I do. At least be honest about this purge, if you're going to try to defend it. At this point, Republicans will be LUCKY if I vote for their candidates -- too much attitude for me to stomach, and I can always write in Mickey Mouse. I'd have a better chance trying to find non-statist Democrats, when it comes to Florida. Our losership is THAT bad.

SJ Reidhead

The far right and the libertarian bunch wants everyone to treat them with respect, with kid gloves, and basically dance to their tune.  But - they reserve the right to trash our elected GOP officials at will.  

If the rank and file within the GOP say something about "them" they go off in a snit and all their little friends say how bad "we" are. 

Respect works both ways.  If the Ron Paul supporters want respect, they need to show some toward those of us who have spent our life working within the GOP and do not agree with their views.

One of the primary GOP planks is a strong national defense and supporting our military.  Ron Paul is extremely anti war on terror.  That is NOT Republican.

The people who were shown the door in Florida appear to be typical of Ron Paul supporters through-out the country.  They are doing their best to take over the GOP and remake it in Ron Paul's rather questionable image.  That's not the way the GOP works.  Republicans throughout the country are starting to rebel against them - are becoming more aware of their under-handed tactics.

It isn't a war against Dave's version of Libertarian Republicans.  I agree with most of their positions.  I just don't agree with the mantra of throwing everyone out who doesn't show 100% idealogical purity. 

The GOP has a very serious problem with the Libertarian Party.  They are doing their best to badmouth our elected officials and the GOP in general.  Michael Medved calls the Libertarian Party "Losertarians".  They are nothing but sore-headed spoilers who seem to be more interested in getting Democrats elected by splitting the vote than by doing something to prevent their majority.

SJRThe Pink Flamingo

 

I agree that respect is a 2 way street.

But your blinkered idea that libertarians have somehow gotten ANY respect lately from the Republicans (motto: The OTHER party of big government!) is truly laughable. Indeed, the idea is so laughable I might suspect it's the result of recreational chemical experimentation libertarians think should be legal. Give me ONE example of the alleged 2 way street of respect going the libertarian way in the past decade. One. I bet you can't. But I can cite dozens of cases of statist Republicans attempting to silence libertarians trying to save their party, starting with this very story. And dissing libertarians worked out SO well in the last election, didn't it?? Sigh.

Libertarian the core of GOP moderation?

well, i suppose there's *something* to that, but its really a distraction from the fundamental problem with defining what limited government or individual freedm really means.  not whether libertarians should or should not play a role within the GOP - or Independents for that matter.

this has to do with a fundamental disconnect between defining the role of government today versus an abstract thought born in the latter half of the 20th century.  the GOP has left the idea of "We the People" for "Me, Myself and I" and draped that in labels of individual freedom and small government.  And you can call them Libertarians or the GOP or the fringe right, but either way you slice it, the views that carry these labels are out of touch with mainstream society.  The fringe has the talking stick and will own it until the moderate majority gives up on the fringe, stops catering to it, and starts talking policy in a complex modern society.

In other words, solve the problem, not the symptom.  you can't have your cake and eat it too.  you can't avoid social services in an organized society, but expect that organized society to function effectively without organization.

 

kewe65, you are a hoot!

Let's see you write a single --just one-- paragraph without mixing 2-3 cliche-ridden nonsensical lines.

The GOP was the party of "We the People" and it's now "Me, Myself and I"?  How so, kewe65?  Seems to me that the Democrat Party is the party that caters to a set of policies that places self interest above all else, all common good.  Like with the bailouts to big banks.  Like the bailouts to big insurance companies.  Like the deal cut for hospitals on health care.  Like the deal cut for BigPharma on the same subject.  Like the deal handed to consumers on the failed Cash4Clinkers program... in which car dealers merely raised the selling price by $4500 per vehicle, dropped the rebates and real deals, until the program tanked because dealers weren't getting paid, customers were waiting long periods to discover if the BigGovt of Obama would actually grant them the $4500.

Just like the Democrat Party on the issues of gay marriage --their gay voters get it, damn the interests of society, family, etc.  Just like the Democrat Party on civil rights or abortion rights --damn any adverse impact on the majority or burden on the majority.  Just like the Democrat Party on the $1.6 trillion dollar deficit... damn the tax burdens they're putting on future generations of Americans... it's what the Democrats want now that matters more.  Just like the Democrat Party on reforming medical malpractice... it's more important what the trial lawyers like JohnSleazeBagEdwards wants that matters most.

And you have the balls to toss out a cliche like the GOP is the Party of Me?  The Democrats have built their entire voter base on a policy of promoting self interest at society's expense... it's why they are the Party of the Victimhood Industry.