Caucus dies

[Tancredo conservative]

The mass majority were swayed by the establishment to vote down the caucus. Well, good luck Oklahoma Republican Party because you guys (the establishment) are running people away. We might not all agree with all the ideas that the Ron Paul supporters have brought to the party these last two years, but it has been refreshing to see new blood getting involved.
Has anyone stopped and thought back to the days when the caucus system was in use.....the party had a lot less registered Republicans but many more people attending county conventions as well as the state convention. Now that we have grown in the number of people registered just think if we could capture the percentage of people active in the party back when we had the caucus system. The establishment flat out lies when they say that it is because of going to the presidential preferential primary and stripping the caucus the party has grown in registeration.....registration has grown largely because the DNC has moved to the far left. Again, just think if we could capture the number of people that were involved in the days of the caucus with massive influx of new registered Republicans today . WOW! The number of volunteers for campaigns would be huge.
I have come to realize after hearing the caucus debate at the Convention that the establishment want more people to register Republican but they don't give a dog gonnit!!! about getting people involved other than voting and giving money. They actually fear such a scenario. Shameful cowards!
If they cared about getting people involved then they would go back and look at the history of the party and see that when the caucus system flourished so did party activism.

[Rhythm Guy]

You're right, Aaron. In their efforts to increase numbers, they've lost the essence of what it means to be a Republican. My goal is to try to, in a nice way, (that's the tough part for me), use this opportunity to educate people in what conservative political theory really is. Now that we've got a bunch of people calling themselves Republicans, let's try to truly educate them as to what that means. It doesn't mean taking money from Planned Parenthood and it doesn't mean supporting anti-Second Amendment twits like Ghouliani. It doesn't mean rejecting the Constitution the first time a crisis rears its head like most in Congress did, (and for which Coburn received a standing ovation). It doesn't mean turning our backs on our principles just to get votes. We can do this!

[MuskogeeRepublican]

The mass majority were swayed by the establishment to vote down the caucus.

Not much time right now to respond, but I would argue that the pro-caucus debaters were the cause of the massive failure, especially Tom Roach. Many of the questions asked during the Q&A time were either not answered, or deliberately ignored, and then Tom Roach sent the whole thing down in flames not seen since the crash of the Hindenburg. His debate time was not focused on the issue at hand, but on blasting and insulting his opponents, or the absurd claim that he singlehandedly was responsible for Gary Jones getting elected.

I will say one thing for the LVC/"Ron Paulers"/Libertarian/"Constitutional Conservative"/OCPAC/whatever-you-want-to-be-called/whatever-you-call-them crowd - you need to get better speakers. Last convention, Richard Engle and Charlie Meadows backfired big time on you. This time, Brady Wright and Tom Roach back fired big time on you. If you wish to win, you need to get better people to present your ideas (and research them thoroughly, and ANSWER the QUESTIONS!!).

[mshellisright]

The mass majority were swayed by the establishment to vote down the caucus.

Last convention, Richard Engle and Charlie Meadows backfired big time on you. This time, Brady Wright and Tom Roach back fired big time on you. If you wish to win, you need to get better people to present your ideas (and research them thoroughly, and ANSWER the QUESTIONS!!).

Chairman, point of "oh no you di-in't". I so totally disagree with you on 1) Charlie Meadows and 2) Brady Wright.

I love, love, love Charlie Meadows and his passion. And he knows what he is talking about.

Brady answered every question that was asked of him, and he ALWAYS knows what he is talking about, even though you may disagree with his opinion. He knows that caucus proposal inside and out, and I think he did an excellent job of answering the questions asked of him. Plus, Brady is someone with whom you can disagree, and still engage in an intelligent and civil conversation.

These two people are, in my opinion, of very high character and they speak with conviction. That's more than we can say for a lot of other party people.

Agreeing totally on Tom Roach, though. He was a disaster.

[Tancredo conservative]

I thought Brady Wright did an excellent job in answering the questions posed. Tom Roach took things too personal and got off on tangents. The anti-caucus side took their fair share of pot shots too.
Nevertheless, those who oppose the caucus sent a chilling message to the grassroots....go home we don't want you.

[MuskogeeRepublican]

Chairman, point of "oh no you di-in't". I so totally disagree with you on 1) Charlie Meadows and 2) Brady Wright.

I love, love, love Charlie Meadows and his passion. And he knows what he is talking about.

Agreeing totally on Tom Roach, though. He was a disaster.

Yes, Charlie is passionate. Yes, Charlie knows what he's talking about. Yes, I like the work that he does with OCPAC. But still, I was at the last convention, and many of the folks around me were turned off by Charlie Meadows speaking (and Richard Engle) - probably due in part because Charlie is so passionate, that he has one volume (loud) and that was increased by him holding the mic way too close, making it seem that he was very angry and screaming.

And I may be thinking the wrong guy on Brady Wright... can't remember the names of the other folks. I wish it was videotaped somewhere...

[Rhythm Guy]

Chairman, point of "oh no you di-in't". I so totally disagree with you on 1) Charlie Meadows and 2) Brady Wright.

I love, love, love Charlie Meadows and his passion. And he knows what he is talking about.

Agreeing totally on Tom Roach, though. He was a disaster.

Yes, Charlie is passionate. Yes, Charlie knows what he's talking about. Yes, I like the work that he does with OCPAC. But still, I was at the last convention, and many of the folks around me were turned off by Charlie Meadows speaking (and Richard Engle) - probably due in part because Charlie is so passionate, that he has one volume (loud) and that was increased by him holding the mic way too close, making it seem that he was very angry and screaming.

And I may be thinking the wrong guy on Brady Wright... can't remember the names of the other folks. I wish it was videotaped somewhere...

Brady is the stocky young gentleman with a goatee and glasses, and Tancredo Conservative is right -- he did an outstanding job of both formulating and stating his beliefs and arguments.

[dbyte]

I must complement Brady on not kicking Tom Roach when he started bashing the Ron Paul supporters.. Tom couldn't have done a better job ensuring the death of the Caucus without using a Sherman tank.

[Tancredo conservative]

Umm....Tom did not bash RP supporters...just everybody else

[dbyte]

I must have missed what exactly he was saying then because I thought he had a decidedly anti-RP attitude. In any case, his bad attitude and self importance did more harm than could have been undone by any other speaker..

[Rhythm Guy]

I think what Tom was trying to say was that, while a lot of people are afraid of the Ron Paul people, one of the best ideas at some group he was in, came from a "Ron Paul person", namely Toby Pedford. He was trying to make a point about inclusion and activism, but it didn't go as planned. Someone stated elsewhere, in a manner kinder than I'm usually known for using, that they felt some of the Caucus supporters, when they saw the hatchet job that Waylon and Willie and the boys did on them, went off-script, with less than hoped-for results.

[Orat]

Speaking of bashing Paul supporters:
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=311&start=0