Republican establishment closing off the primaries to Paul supporters

[archerships]

http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-New-Voting-Rules-100307.html

If you want to vote for Ron Paul, you must register Republican now! If you live in New Hampshire or New York you must register Republican by Oct 12!

Many states, in an effort to shut out Ron Paul are now closing their primaries.
That means that only Republicans can vote in the Presidential primaries for a
Republican candidate. Many states are doing this quickly and quietly and giving
people very little time to learn about the new rules. For example, New Hampshire
decided only a week ago that you will now have to change your party affiliation
by October 12, 2007 or it will be too late to do so. New Hampshire also has a
closed primary and only Republicans and possibly Independents will be allowed to
vote for Ron Paul.

In New York, you must be registered as a Republican or you cannot vote for Ron
Paul and again, you must make this decision by October 12, 2007 or it will be
too late. In New York, however, Independents cannot vote for Ron Paul. Same with
New Jersey and many states around the nation. I hesitate to give you a link to a
site that has correct information about voting in all 50 states because I have
yet to find one that does not have an error and besides, this information is
changing daily, as Ron Paul gains momentum. The people in power are doing their
best to shut out the multitude of voices that want to vote for Ron Paul. If you
are a Ron Paul supporter, or even thinking about becoming a Ron Paul supporter,
please become a registered Republican immediately so that no matter what your
state does to change the rules out from under you, you will still be allowed to
vote for this great man.

All of these arbitrary deadlines are designed to keep a candidate such as Ron
Paul from gaining momentum and making a last minute push. Effectively, Ron Paul
has until October 12, 2007 to get as many Democrats, and others to switch sides
in key states like New York and New Hampshire, or they will not be able to vote
for Ron Paul in the primaries. That means that the people in power have
shortened the Ron Paul campaign to less than two weeks with the stroke of a pen!
The Ron Paul campaign now has less than two weeks to teach people about his
candidacy and his policies. As of this moment, in New Hampshire you may be
registered as an Independent and still vote for Ron Paul. Not so in New York. In
New York you must be a registered Republican by October 12, to vote for Ron Paul
(Independents cannot vote in the primaries at all). However, for those of you in
New Hampshire reading this, I wouldn’t trust that come election day the rules
won’t have been changed on you again. To be safe, make sure your voter
registration card says Republican.

Original: craschworks - comments

Comments

[hhallahh.livejournal.com]

I've always found this somewhat silly. Why should a person of one party have a vote in determining the candidate of another? If Paul is relying so heavily on independent or Democratic votes, then he should probably be running as an independent or Democrat. Normally people wouldn't expect to be able to vote on the decisions of organizations they're not affiliated with or actively oppose...

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Republicans are not monolithic, as you well know. Historically, Republicans have stood for small-government, low regulation, individualism, federalism, a strong defense, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. Obviously, many Republicans have abandoned most of those principles in recent years.

Paul's candidacy represents the resurgence of the Old Right and libertarian wing of the party, and return to the party's theoretical principles. Many of those people let their registrations lapse, or switched to other parties in disgust.

In any case, no one's questioning the right of the Republican leadership to set the standards for who can be an "official" Republican. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't loudly point out when they change the rules to favor their preferred candidate(s).

[hhallahh.livejournal.com]

In any case, no one's questioning the right of the Republican leadership to set the standards for who can be an "official" Republican. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't loudly point out when they change the rules to favor their preferred candidate(s).

I'd agree, but I think it's disingenuous to take the fact that these changes will hurt Paul as evidence that they've been undertaken in order to hurt Paul. Many states already had these kinds of primaries, and I imagine that several switched over in 2000 or 2004 or what-have-you with nary a peep. Unless the changes for 2008 are especially unprecedented in scope (and the article provides no evidence that they are) then I'd say that this doesn't even seem to constitute decent indirect evidence that the party is attempting to shut out Paul.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

If the changes had been made years ago, Paul's supporters wouldn't have much of a beef with them. However, the change in New Hampshire's rules happened last week. Perhaps it has nothing to do with Paul, and is merely coincidence.

But the election regulations in many states are rigged against third party candidates. Is it surprising that some people are suspicious, given New Hampshire's importance as an early primary state?

[hhallahh.livejournal.com]

Is it surprising that some people are suspicious, given New Hampshire's importance as an early primary state?

No, and I think the matter is worth looking into.

However, simply stating these suspicions as fact isn't a particularly noble thing to do.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

How exactly do you think one could establish their intentions? Do you think that there's some smoking gun?

We do know this:

It's a fact that much of the Republican leadership doesn't like Ron Paul.
It's a fact that they've excluded him from debates, and given him less time, and less exposure than the so-called frontrunners.
It's a fact that they are changing the primary deadlines in key early primary states.
It's a fact that those changes will disproportionately hurt Ron Paul.

Now, can I _prove_ that they're making the changes deliberately to hurt Paul's candidacy? No. But given the context, I'm not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[pyran.livejournal.com]

Well, exactly this issue was argued before the SCOTUS on Monday, so I'm more inclined to think that a bunch of states thought "Oh, crap. The Supreme Court is looking at whether open-type primaries are legal! Better close them off just to be safe."

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I wasn't aware of that case. Thanks for the pointer.

[pyran.livejournal.com]

I happen to know about it because it regards my state and thus was on local news the other day. I did a really quick search of the state AG office (who argued the case) and found this press release:

http://www.atg.wa.gov/pressrelease.aspx?id=17966

I know Slate mentioned it in an article by, I think, Dahlia Lithwick, and you can probably find something about it on SCOTUS blogs or whatnot, if you want more information about it. :)

"...in recent years..."?

[danlyke.livejournal.com]

So that sentence caught my eye, and I thought "well, yeah, I used to believe that too, but...". It seems to me that the only Republican president in our lifetimes who might've actually subscribed to that was Ford. Nixon brought deficit spending to new heights, and his farm policies (among other statist ideas) were distinctly not "...small-government, low regulation, individualism...".

Reagan and the two Bushes... I don't think there's anything to be said about their commitments to small government and low regulation in light of their records. LBJ (of all people) attacked Eisenhower's propaganda budget.

Going back much further would require a lot of research, but I wonder if we've been sold a bill of goods on that notion of what Republicans have stood for.

Re: "...in recent years..."?

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Good point. I should've said that Republican rhetoric promoted "small-government, low regulation, individualism..."

I think a large percentage of Republican voters do want small government though, and are quite disillusioned with the spending and trampling of civil rights that occurred during Bush II. And I think they make up the bulk of Ron Paul's supporters.

[nelliebelle.livejournal.com]

i feel dirty about it, but i'm registering republican :(

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Well, if it's any consolation, I don't think that either the Republicans or Democrats stand for much any more.

[jau-peacecraft.livejournal.com]

They more or less stand for similar things nowadays, just seemingly different means. They should really be both united under the Corpocrats banner as far as I'm concerned...

Also, I'm considering switching my registration (temporarily, might switch it to Libertarian or Independent after 08) to be able to vote for RP as well, so you're not alone ;D.