This rule should be hotly debated during the rules of the convention discussion held on the first day of the convention. I believe this rule comes directly from Roberts Rules of Order and should be discarded. If ANY delegate has an issue to be heard at our convention, it should be heard. If it is a resolution that the delegates do not want to go for, a “call of the question” can be entertained on the resolution but hopefully after all debate is heard and considered first. Isn’t this why we have amendments to the constitution? Freedom to assemble and Freedom of speech should not be squelched in any forum. Especially at the convention of the Republican Party!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Thanks so much for writing this. I went through the process of becoming a delegate, but at the last minute had a family commitment and did not attend. I appreciate all the good information.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I think your arguments are very good and well-thought out, and you should have approached the microphone and offered them to the delegation. You could have spoken on that and then again on the Property Rights resolution (if it had been heard).

I think you’re wrong, though, in saying that my arguments were not a “reasoned, conservative approach.” (You may not have named me specifically, but I made the arguments you mentioned.) Ron Paul has said on many occasions that “sanctions are an act of war,” and he is the most conservative member of Congress.

I pointed out that sanctions cause the kind of widespread devastation and starvation that would result from bombing the country, or using other conventional weapons. When we imposed sanctions against Iraq, thousands and thousands of children starved to death as a consequence. That fact is under-reported, so that people remain under the impression that sanctions are a softer, less harmful “alternative” to the use of force, and an effective means of getting a country to do what you want it to do without appearing to initiate aggression. However, it is an initiation of aggression, and that should certainly matter, and I think it is an appeal both to rationality and conservatism.

For a party densely populated with self-professed Christians, the Judeo-Christian doctrine of “just war” – attacking only in self-defense – isn’t being paid much attention. I noted the irony of a plank of our party’s platform referring to our ‘recognition of the sanctity of all human life,’ being adopted unanimously, on the very same day that an argument citing the death by starvation of thousands of children is roundly deemed a totally lame and unpersuasive argument against sanctions.

Also, Ken, your argument is really related to mine, so that if my argument isn’t likely to persuade that audience, yours would only stand a marginally better shot, if that. Your argument (that the people themselves will suffer from the sanctions while the dictators benefit), just like mine, assumes that the delegates care about the well-being of the people of those nations, and perhaps they don’t. That would make it a weakness shared in common by both arguments.

I also think some of the “persuasive” merits of your arguments as compared to mine make (or re-inforce) certain assumptions that I don’t want to encourage or perpetuate. For instance, saying that Obama is more interested in bowing and scraping to the Islamic world, is an emotional appeal that might owe its effectiveness to peoples’ prejudices about Muslims, along with their knee-jerk dislike of Obama because of his associations with Islam (which have nothing to do with his actions in government, which are certainly deserving of criticism).

As for the argument that Iran has a right to defend itself – that’s a conservative, and rational approach for another reason, and you said it: “The United States has always stood for the inalienable right of people to govern themselves.” That American principle is at the very root of why it flies in the face of our heritage to try to control another nation’s nuclear program. To claim otherwise is to assert that other nations are not in fact even sovereign nations at all, but colonies or imperial subjects to some kind of U.S.-dominated global hegemony. And I have no doubt that some delegates in that convention believe that’s the way it should be, but haven’t considered how contradictory that is with American principles of freedom.

The real coup-de-grace was the guy who said “The world should be dominated by America defending freedom!” That sentence is a schizophrenic mess. The world…should be *dominated*….by America defending….*freedom*?

I also think there’s one more problem with part of your argument, which is that it neglects to take issue with the assumption that it’s our government’s responsibility to defend people of other nations against dictatorial regimes (or internal wars or struggles, or anything else.) As always, it remains the unimpeachable right of individuals to help other people across the world with their time, money, volunteer work, weapons, skills, medical assistance, or anything else. But it is NOT the province of the U.S. government to do so. If you don’t blow a hole in that assumption, it will be all too easy for the government (at the behest of the military-industrial-complex and other interests) to convince the people to support interventions that appear to be for really great, humanitarian reasons, but lo and behold, are yet again for the same corrupt reasons as always.

Remember that a non-interventionist foreign policy is actually the traditional position of conservatives, going back to “Mr. Republican” Robert Taft and long before. Ron Paul reminded us in the 2008 debates that George W. Bush ran his 2000 campaign on a platform of “no nation-building, and no policing the world.” Conservatives were outspoken against previous foreign intervention in places like Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, etc. under the Clinton administration. When Democrats do it, Republicans are against it, and vice-versa. Isn’t it time we all saw through this football-team jersey mirage?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I think I see what you were getting at…you’re concerned that people may pick up the impression that the Tea Party message even deals with foreign policy (either way). I agree that it really doesn’t…necessarily. See, the Tea Party really is diverse, and although it is unified in just a few things, it does include all the divergent views and issues. My main point is that Adam’s wording is accurate and also conveys an accurate impression. I think it can be assumed that most of the self-selected audience that would be reading Pundithouse are aware that the Tea Party movement is primarily unified on fiscal issues, and I also think we can credit the readers with an awareness that the Tea Party is not some kind of official organization with a rigidly articulated agenda/mission statement. It’s just a loose coalition of individuals speaking from their hearts about their own concerns.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

But it all starts with the people who love to stand on the sidelines complaining actually doing something other than complaining.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Reasons that may sway a crowd like that would include defending the people of Iran against their criminal regime. Let us not forget that last year, the people of Iran rose up against their leaders. Unfortunately, Obama, who is more interested in bowing and scraping to the Islamic world, than actually showing the world what the United States has always stood for (the inaliable right of people to govern themselves), NEVER said a thing about Iran’s treatment of their people. Putting sanctions against PEOPLE forced to live in tyranny only emboldens the criminal regime they live under. For example, Saddam played the martyr for a decade. Kim Jong-Il does the same in North Korea. Sanctions DO NOT work! They are the coward’s way out of dealing with tinpot dictators.

Also, by actually hurting the people that we need to help, we foment the type of hatred toward the United States that led to 9/11. What are we doing here? Are we continuing to do what we’ve done in the past? Is it going to be another 10 years of silliness between Iran, the next Hans Blix, the UN Security Council, and every other idiot who thinks they can tell people what to do? So, in 2021, do we have a repeat of 2001?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

To me though, and I’m open to the suggestion that I’m just reading too much into this, was that in terms of the overall context of the recap, it could be suggested that part of the specific Tea Party message is one on non-intervention…which I would disagree with.

I’ll clarify more later….gotta run….

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0