READER COMMENTS ON

"Pandemonium at MO GOP Caucus as Party Leaders Seen Attempting to Steal It From Paul Supporters"

(64 Responses so far...)





COMMENT #1 [Permalink]

... JH said on 3/18/2012 @ 8:12 pm PT...





I'm so glad you are looking into this! This was a caucus, the biggest in MO, that Ron Paul even took in 2008 because he simply has the most support there. They knew he would have even more this time. They broke state rules by requiring a straw vote of who you would vote for as you checked in so they knew how much of a majority was against them, and never brought anything to a vote! That includes the so called 'rules' they posted including no video. Since they never voted those rules in, they didn't exist.

COMMENT #2 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 3/18/2012 @ 8:15 pm PT...





This is what plutocracy looks like! So Ron Paul supporters, are you going to stick with your undemocratic party come November?

COMMENT #3 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 3/18/2012 @ 8:21 pm PT...





Oh, in the indoor St. Charles video, one of the attendees can be heard saying: It’s just like we’re not living in the United States any more. Welcome to Occupy Wall Street, Ron Paul supporters. Did you really think the GOP and the one percent have the slightest interest in democracy? Then, again, at least you weren't met with tear gas, pepper spray and billy clubs, like so many in NY, Oakland and elsewhere.

COMMENT #4 [Permalink]

... JH said on 3/18/2012 @ 8:24 pm PT...





Also, here is a post by Brent Stafford, the guy the crowd was calling to be chair, who was arrested. He posted this at the daily paul and it was copied to Ron Paul forums, but they are his words: "This is Brent Stafford. I wanted to let everyone know I am out of jail and am just now starting to read some of the posts about what happened today.... First of all, thank you to everyone who was concerned and calling the police station. Apparently they were getting flooded with calls. I was trying to reconvene the meeting in the gymnasium, according to the rules, and was told I have the leave the gym along with everyone else or I would be trespassing. I went outside and tried to let everyone know we were going to try to reconvene. Some people we trying to go to a nearby park to do so, but the rules are clear the the caucus may only be held in the location printed in the Call to Caucus printed in a newspaper 15 days prior. The ONLY place we could reconvene was at the high school. I stood on a chair to address the crowd to let them know we were going to reconvene and what we needed to do. At that point I was approached by told I was under arrest. More to come... --------------- Update Okay, I have a minute, and a beer! Here is the saga. There are three main culprits to today fiasco. Eugene Dokes - St. Charles County Republican Committee Chairman, Bryan Spencer - Chairman of the Caucus Committee for the St. Charles County GOP (he organized the caucus), and Matt Ehlen - The guy the installed as Chairman and who ended the meeting before conducting any business. I approached Bryan Spencer several times, prior to the commencement of the caucus, to point out where things that were being planned violated the rules. He said, "We are going to do it this way, challenge it if you want." He is the one that was trying to rig the process to select delegates proportionally based on who was in attendance. They conducted a straw poll as people were checked in, in violation of State GOP rules. The meeting was supposed to begin at 10:00am. There were so many people still in line that by the time the meeting was ready to start it was just after 11:00am. Eugene Dokes started the meeting by immediately declaring there would be no video or audio recording allowed, and that if anyone refused to stop, they would be removed by police. The entire room of what has been reported as over 2,500 people began booing and demanding that recording be allowed. It was not just Ron Paul people. Eugene Dokes then refused to commence the meeting until everyone stopped recording. I made multiple attempts to make a point of order to address the situation, but he refused to acknowledge me. He then left the podium and called the police. There were St. Peters Police, St. Charles Police, St. Charles County Sheriffs, and Missouri Highway Patrol that eventually came into the gymnasium and through threat of arrest made everyone turn off their cameras. Of course many did not. Eugene Dokes then started to convene the meeting a second time. Let me digress a moment. We had prepared very well ahead of time. I won't get into all of the details, but the Mitt Romney people agreed to support me for Chairman. This was an incredible vote of confidence in my ability to chair and to convene a fair process. I had also hire the President of the Missouri Association of Parliamentarians who I intended to appoint for that role. I never got that chance. Eugene Dokes appoint the Creditial Committee, Rules Committee, and Parliamentarian. These are all appointments made by the elected Chairman, not the temporary Chair which is what Eugene Dokes was acting as. The body loudly booed and started making all kinds of points of order and other declarations of disgust at the blatant disregard for the proper process. He then opened the floor for nominations. I immediately started nominating myself multiple times. He recognized a woman, who was obviously preselected, who nominated Matt Ehlen. At that point about 2,000 people started chanting my name to be appointed. Eugene Dokes ignored that and called a hasty voice vote and declared the one nominee, Matt Ehlen, as the Chair. Hundreds of people started calling for Division of the vote. Eugene Dokes ignored them all. Matt Ehlen took the podium and tried to regain order. After anout 20 seconds he declared that St. Charles County would not send any delegates to the CD and State Conventions. He quickly found motions to adjourn and closed the meeting. At that point I went to grab the parliamentarian I had hired. She had not been allowed inside, because of an arbitrary rule Bryan Spencer made up, but I had checked in with her by sticking my head through the door of and on earlier. I told her to come with me and I headed to the podium. I asked her how to reconvene and since no business had been conducted according to the Call to Convention, we had every right to reconvene. I took the microphone and announced that people should not leave and that we would reconvene the meeting. Eugene Dokes came up and unplugged the microphone. At that point the police began ordering people out of the gymnasium. At that point I went outside to try to reconvene the caucus, according to the rules. A number of people were going to go to another location to reconvene. I had to stop those that had not left and explained that we were required to convene at the location published 15 days prior in the newspaper or it would be invalid. I then found where the biggest crowd had gathered and began to address the crowd. Everyone got quiet to hear me. There were 300-400 people there. I explained very quickly that we needed to begin collecting a roster, as required, and what that meant. I was immediately approached by 4 or 5 police of unknown jurisdictions who made me step down from the chair and put me into handcuffs. When I asked what I was being arrested for, or if I was being arrested, I was told they would tell me later. Eventually I was booked for trespassing and released. The actions of Eugene Doke, Bryan Spence, and Matt Ehlen were the direct cause of the event getting out of control. They have tried to shift the blame, but it is all on them. If they had conducted the meeting according to Robert's Rules and the proper order of the agenda, none of this would have happened."

COMMENT #5 [Permalink]

... Parke Bostrom said on 3/18/2012 @ 8:41 pm PT...





"Division" is not a written vote. It is a standing vote, or a show of hands vote (either of which may be optionally counted), instead of a simple voice vote. Written votes are probably only used in secret ballot elections.

COMMENT #6 [Permalink]

... Denny D said on 3/18/2012 @ 8:42 pm PT...





Interview with Brent

http://ronpaulflix.com/2...ounty-caucus-arrest-ep4/

COMMENT #7 [Permalink]

... Mitch said on 3/18/2012 @ 9:34 pm PT...





Hey, not to worry. America has a free press. I'm simply certain this will be front page news throughout the country tomorrow morning. After all, free elections are central to our democracy. No way would The New York Times miss this story. Right? Right? Hello?

COMMENT #8 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 3/18/2012 @ 9:51 pm PT...





There are several troubling First Amendment concerns that arise. According to Brent Stafford this was a public event, that had to be advertised at least 15 days in advance. Those in attendance, registered as such. They had a right to be there. The St Charles GOP leadership was responsible for scheduling the time, date, and location, but the caucus is governed by Roberts Rules of Order and must be approved by those in attendance. The very first order was the exclusion of video cameras. The police, inside the gym, assisted in enforcing that rule by threatening to arrest anyone who did not turn their cameras off and to charge them with trespass. That amounts to an assault on all our First Amendment rights to know what actually took place at a public event. Stafford also explained what took place outside the gym. Because the caucus can only be lawfully convened at the location provided by the earlier notice, the caucus could not be reconvened at a nearby park, as some were proposing. When he stood on the chair, he was trying to establish a roster of eligible participants in order to reconvene the caucus immediately outside the gym. It was at that point that he was arrested. The police initially refused to say why, but later charged him with trespass. Stafford and others may well wish to consult the local branch of the ACLU. They may well have a valid cause of action against the police and those from whom they appeared to be taking orders from (local GOP leadership) of violating their civil rights.

COMMENT #9 [Permalink]

... Mitch said on 3/18/2012 @ 10:02 pm PT...





I must be using the google wrong, or you must be spreading lies, Brad Friedman. I went looking for the news stories about this caucus, and the only print story outside Missouri seems to be in the San Jose Mercury News. Don't you claim this all happened yesterday, Saturday? Why do you spread lies, Mr. Friedman, using what must be tampered videos? Why can't you tell the truth, like the nation's big newspapers. Why can't you be civil and cooperative? Somebody ought to be ashamed! At least now we know where the weapons of mass destruction were hidden. Who would ever have guessed they were stashed in St. Charles County, Missouri?

COMMENT #10 [Permalink]

... Shortbus said on 3/18/2012 @ 11:01 pm PT...





Awww yes, St Charles County Republicans... I hate crossing the River!

(But this is awesome and so entertaining to me as a political junkie and North County Democrat!)

COMMENT #11 [Permalink]

... Justin McKay said on 3/18/2012 @ 11:09 pm PT...





It's scary to see the police state rising but it's exciting to see the people rising too.

COMMENT #12 [Permalink]

... Denny D said on 3/18/2012 @ 11:47 pm PT...





http://dl.dropbox.com/u/67649327/VIDEO0026.avi More video. You can see Dokes smiling about the situation in this one

COMMENT #13 [Permalink]

... Jack Kerr said on 3/19/2012 @ 12:57 am PT...





Brad, as soon as I start my new job, I'm gonna donate some money to you! It might not be that much but it's what I can afford. You are one of the best and effective voices out there that crusades for this. So sorry I haven't donated in the past. I also urge everyone that reads this to donate what you can. If you care about the US and about your vote, then we have to work together to fix this!!

COMMENT #14 [Permalink]

... Ralph said on 3/19/2012 @ 1:45 am PT...





This is only one more confirmation of what most readers here have known for many years: the GOP is completely unfit to govern the country. And once again, the only real question is, will voters finally wake up? From many points of view, the Obama administration is a major disappointment, but these Republicans are clearly from some other planet.

COMMENT #15 [Permalink]

... Dredd said on 3/19/2012 @ 6:25 am PT...





Ernie @3, "This is what plutocracy looks like!" Indeed. Speaking of plutocracy in general, and one specific gigantic instance, we need for you to read the Executive Order from last Friday, because the text is a bombshell. We need interpretation.

COMMENT #16 [Permalink]

... Dredd said on 3/19/2012 @ 6:26 am PT...





... oops ... I meant Ernie @2 ...

COMMENT #17 [Permalink]

... Lottakatz said on 3/19/2012 @ 6:59 am PT...





The GOP is not going to allow anyone but Mitt to get the nomination. They have been fixing the caucus' and will continue to do so. For 30 years the GOP has been courting and cultivating the right wing fringe and religious fanatics and now the party is being consumed by them. This is just one of the many battles they are fighting to maintain legitimacy as a national party. Anybody but Mitt seems to be what their voters want but anybody but Mitt would be IMO the last nail in the coffin of the party. The entertainment value of this republican primary season is priceless. Outstanding article Brad, thanks.

COMMENT #18 [Permalink]

... Randy D said on 3/19/2012 @ 7:25 am PT...





Here's my understanding of what happened. Those attending the caucus were divided into Santorum, Romney and Paul supporters. The Paul supporters had a plan to use the rules to get many more of their delegates selected than the proportion of supporters they had. The Romney folks were prepared to help them (presumably because each additional Paul delegate would be one less Santorum delegate). The state GOP leaders, aware that their caucus was about to be hijacked (legally) attempted to hijack it themselves, and when that didn't work, they called in the police to shut down their own convention.

COMMENT #19 [Permalink]

... Mitch said on 3/19/2012 @ 7:44 am PT...





Some questions. Is it illegal to flout rules of order at a party caucus, or is enforcement left to the party itself? And can a caucus participant sue for being railroaded? Do you have to be able to say "this cost me this much money," or is "you stole my vote for the party's nominee" sufficient? When four police agencies converge to disrupt a political event and arrest someone for a made-up charge, can they be brought to justice? Can a federal investigation be brought by the DoJ to determine how the police were misused? Or is this just the way things are expected to be these days?

COMMENT #20 [Permalink]

... Nunyabiz said on 3/19/2012 @ 8:34 am PT...





I am not the slightest bit surprised.

The GOP has gone downhill since 1980 when the "Moral Majority" AKA, Absolute Freaking Lunatics took them over from within.

They have blatantly done this and now hopefully the GOP will crumble because of it. Anyone that hasn't seen this great video done back in about 1982 and narrated by Burt Lancaster should watch it and then compare it to what is going on today. http://www.theocracywatc..._and_liberty-256kbps.wmv

COMMENT #21 [Permalink]

... Orangutan. said on 3/19/2012 @ 9:35 am PT...





This is awesome. The Establishment surely doesn't want any Ron Paul momentum to be seen. We all need to rise up against these bullying tactics and expose these corporate hacks for what they are. Lots of Love Brad!! P.S. DONATE to Brad if you can to keep this stuff going. We need to be the media and spread the news.

COMMENT #22 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 3/19/2012 @ 9:39 am PT...





Amazing. It's easy to brand these Republicans as the looniest of the loons cuz just about everything they're involved with these days is just so over the top full of hypocrisy, lies, tyranny, and dysfunction. Then I read another article by Jeremy Scahill-http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/13-9-, this one about Obama being the incarcerator of an heroic Yemeny journalist, and think, what's the fucking difference? This is really who we are. Both parties. If it's argued that it's a matter of degree-Republicans are COMPLETE batshit crazy ALL the time while Democrats only behave that way on occasion-, I'd submit this distinction means next to nothing if you're the one being unjustly imprisoned, or tortured, or killed in an illegal drone strike. Again, I'm torn. Am I really gonna vote for Obama again? How to I condone what cannot be condoned? How would I not be complicit in the unjustifiable, illegal, inhumane, and immoral? Aren't I just being an enabling co-dependent? Is this really the best I can do?

COMMENT #23 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 3/19/2012 @ 9:41 am PT...



COMMENT #24 [Permalink]

... Mitch said on 3/19/2012 @ 10:10 am PT...





David Lasagna, You could start by asking yourself what constraints exist on political leaders today. (You know the constraints, I'm sure. A vacant media, a stupid and docile electorate, big money to oppose anything that threatens big money, a crooked supreme court, a bought congress.) Then you could ask yourself, given those constraints, what can you reasonably expect and demand of a leader. Part of what you can demand is that, if they are to become President, they have to behave in an electable way, which maybe isn't exactly the way you approve of. Then you could support the people you felt had a chance of acting as best they could, within the constraints, in ways closest to those of which you'd approve. Then you could support those people, and try to alter the constraints, which is a long slog and not very likely to work. Or you could feel self-righteous about the fact that the elected people didn't magically make the political constraints disappear, and be disillusioned on a regular basis. That's fun, isn't it! How come that guy didn't suddenly change everything?!

COMMENT #25 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 3/19/2012 @ 10:10 am PT...





David Lasagna @23 has clearly identified the moral dilemma created by the "lesser evil paradigm" that forces us to choose between a corporate Democrat and a "batshit crazy" Republican. It is a dilemma, at least for the immediate future, because every well-known progressive who could have run against Obama in the primaries, including Ralph Nader, refrained from doing so. I experienced the same level of revulsion over Obama's abominable foreign policy decisions as you, David, especially when the President exceeded his predecessor by moving from incarceration and torture without due process to executing Americans abroad without due process. But, the 2010 elections, which produced a massive wave of voter suppression laws and union busting, not to mention the radical-right judicial appointments over the last 40 years that brought us Citizens United, reveal that the GOP alternative could shut the door on constitutional democracy --- permanently! As former House Speaker Tip O’Neill observed: “All politics are local.” For 2012, progressives, and especially OWS, must focus on local, state and Congressional elections, on meaningful election law (paper ballots) reform, and on a constitutional amendment that would eliminate corporate personhood.

COMMENT #26 [Permalink]

... Eddie Torres said on 3/19/2012 @ 11:01 am PT...





So... the Missouri state police decide to show up at an election event in riot gear? Which Missouri GOP official contacted the police leadership for pre-authorization of a 'public disorder' response? So fascinating to see Libertarians squeal like stuck elephants when the police state they voted for 10 years ago suddenly turns against their new Paul pet project.

COMMENT #27 [Permalink]

... Mitch said on 3/19/2012 @ 11:44 am PT...





A description of Congress, lightly edited to make it less easy to date it. Skip to the end for the author and date. I saw Congress, the wheels that move the lowest perversion of America’s Constitutional system that the worst tools could create. Despicable trickery at elections; under-handed tampering with public officers; cowardly attacks upon opponents, with scurrilous newspapers for shields, and hired pens as knives; shameful

surrender to paid liars, whose claim to be considered, is, that every day and week they bribe the Congress, which responds by sowing new crops of ruin… supporting and encouraging every bad idea in the public and cleverly suppressing all its good influences: such things as these, and in a word, self-centered liars in their most blunt form, stared out from every corner of the crowded hall. It’s Charles Dickens, 1842, American Notes, a description of his travels in America. I updated some language to limit the way in which the original text dates itself, but did not change the meaning at all: http://www.dickens-liter...om/American_Notes/8.html The only thing I'd add is the emo navel-gazing of the neutered do-gooders, and the echo chamber of self-approval they've/we've created.

COMMENT #28 [Permalink]

... Randy D said on 3/19/2012 @ 12:14 pm PT...





I just came across a blog-post regarding the Seattle GOP delegate selection which reports the "Paul Mob" (he means it in a positive sense, like flash mob) succeeded there in doing what they were trying to do in Missouri. It's an interesting report, if true. P.S. An interesting side note for this audience. According to the blogger, the GOP party operatives walked out, taking the ballot scanners with them. BIG MISTAKE, because the Paul people just HAND COUNTED the ballots. LOL.

COMMENT #29 [Permalink]

... getplaning said on 3/19/2012 @ 12:35 pm PT...





This has been the Establishment Republican playbook since at least the 2000 election. If they don't like the outcome, they keep changing the rules until they get the outcome they want. This is what we can expect in November, count on it.

COMMENT #30 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 3/19/2012 @ 2:18 pm PT...





Mitch @24- Up to the last paragraph of your comment is close enough to what I do. I object to and don't like your last paragraph there cuz the tone and framing sound dismissive and demeaning. Maybe I'm misinterpreting you, but that's what I get. Being horrified by the horrific doesn't make me self-righteous. I have never suffered from any delusions that Obama was going to be as good as he campaigned or that he was going to magically change anything. I reserve the right to call him out on how very, very far he is from being anywhere NEAR so much of what he promised so sincerely. And I want to continue to point out that our problems runs so much deeper than just our wacked out Republicans. Meanwhile, I try to figure out and embody different ways of being and communicating that come closer to embodying a direction that feels better and truer. (You may have been just speaking in a general sense and not to me in particular. This comment of mine is the version where I take what you said personally.)

COMMENT #31 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 3/19/2012 @ 2:20 pm PT...





Ernie @25- Yeah. Thanks. I'm with ya.

COMMENT #32 [Permalink]

... Mitch said on 3/19/2012 @ 2:29 pm PT...





David Lasagna, Yeah, you read that last paragraph correctly. For me, it's embodied in this: "Meanwhile, I try to figure out and embody different ways of being and communicating that come closer to embodying a direction that feels better and truer." Less embodying, more work, and the world will have a chance.

COMMENT #33 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 3/19/2012 @ 2:32 pm PT...





Mitch @27-- Not sure who you mean by The only thing I'd add is the emo navel-gazing of the neutered do-gooders, and the echo chamber of self-approval they've/we've created. Sure hope it's not me. Yes, reading a Kenneth Roberts' novel or Freethinkers by Susan Jacoby or de Tocqueville, Twain, etc., it is amazing how our crazy shit now sounds so much like how our crazy shit has always been. It's helpful for a sense of perspective. Oh look, there have always been these forces of ignorance and fear and hope and enlightenment. And look, a lot of the time that even use exactly the same words, hundreds of years apart!

COMMENT #34 [Permalink]

... Mitch said on 3/19/2012 @ 2:48 pm PT...





David, I can see I'm just venting here, and you're probably a very nice guy. Still, read your #22's closing whine. It sounds a lot like I feel, which is why it pisses me off so badly. Yes. You're going to vote for Obama again. So am I. And because we live in the world rather than in lalahappyland, we ought to work for him rather than whine about Guantanamo. Why? Because we have to compare him with the alternative, or we are just masturbating. That's why.

COMMENT #35 [Permalink]

... John Washburn said on 3/19/2012 @ 2:50 pm PT...





Dear Ernest: Would a better option for Brent Stafford (and everyone who re-convened outside) be to consider action under 42 USC 1983? I would think the multiplication of such a large class (all who attempted to convene outside) might make the St. Louis Police more hesitant in the future to interfere in public affairs sponsored by a political part. Videotaping is not an "imminent threat to public safety" or tresspassing.

COMMENT #36 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 3/19/2012 @ 2:53 pm PT...





Mitch @32- No thanks on the superior, self-righteous judgment there. Don't need it. Don't want it. You keep it. You don't know me. (Unless you're my friend I play music with in which case I'd be amazed that you're THAT Mitch and we can talk about this later.) Okay, so now I see that the navel-gazing crack was meant for me. Who made you the purveyor of the one and only path? Just so you know, that comes across as insulting and arrogant. You seem to be measuring my life's contributions by some projection your making based on comments you read here. How do you guess that might be anywhere near reality? Don't those sorts of leaps get you into trouble?

COMMENT #37 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 3/19/2012 @ 3:14 pm PT...





Mitch @34- Could you do me a favor and stop trivializing and derogating my words? Wait, don't tell me, let me guess...am I whining by asking you to do something different? Would you be able to hear me better if I said fuck you you're being an asshole? Would that be less embodying for you? I daresay you're misreading me. My point is I'm NOT completely sure I'm gonna vote for Obama again. I've written about this here before. I come to exactly your position, that I have no choice, then I read of the next horror, and I think, am I really gonna vote for that? I meant what I said, I'm torn. I sure as hell ain't gonna work for him. If you are moved to work for him, I can certainly see your reasoning. It makes sense. Not for me, though.

COMMENT #38 [Permalink]

... Mitch said on 3/19/2012 @ 3:24 pm PT...





Would you be able to hear me better if I said fuck you you're being an asshole? Would that be less embodying for you? Absolutely. But there's no need to go there. Clearly, it's my issue.

COMMENT #39 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 3/19/2012 @ 3:28 pm PT...





Mitch-- I also think that's a false dichotomy--don't complain about Obama cuz the alternative is so much worse. If I do end up voting for him again, I sure as hell ain't gonna to it quietly and with no reservations. I'll be doing it with my eyes open and doing whatever I can in my humble way to change the way we do just about everything here. Sorry, but to suggest that I'm living in lalaland is just stupid. And if you think continuing to voice opposition to Guantanamo and all the other things that need objecting to is just masturbation, pass the vaseline. No. You call bullshit when you see bullshit. Obama, Palin, I don't care. There's too much silent complicity. It's what makes so much of this shit possible. People silently going along "because the alternative is so much worse" or for whatever other reason.

COMMENT #40 [Permalink]

... Mitch said on 3/19/2012 @ 3:47 pm PT...





Sorry, but to suggest that I'm living in lalaland is just stupid. And if you think continuing to voice opposition to Guantanamo and all the other things that need objecting to is just masturbation, pass the vaseline. OK. The problem is, when I take your words seriously I'm forced into believing one of the following about you. Either (1) you don't think it will make a difference to the likelihoods of global warming, nuclear war, etc..., if Obama or his main opponent wins, or (2) you do think it might make a difference, but you think Guantanamo (or whatever issue) is more important, or (3) you don't really believe that whether you vote for or work for Obama can have any effect on the outcome. Help me out, if you're inclined, with which of the three alternatives it is, or explain the one I've left out. Or not. This is the Nader debate, and I've done it too many times, from all the different points of view, to have the heart to try it again. Be well.

COMMENT #41 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 3/19/2012 @ 5:15 pm PT...





John Washburn @35 wrote: Would a better option for Brent Stafford (and everyone who re-convened outside) be to consider action under 42 USC 1983? 42 USC 1983 was precisely what I had in mind when I wrote: Stafford and others may well wish to consult the local branch of the ACLU. They may well have a valid cause of action against the police and those from whom they appeared to be taking orders from (local GOP leadership) of violating their civil rights. I just didn't want to get that specific so as to appear to be handing out unsolicited legal advice on a blog. Better Stafford et al. consult local counsel, who can give their own recommendations on these facts.

COMMENT #42 [Permalink]

... Nunyabiz said on 3/19/2012 @ 5:35 pm PT...





This is all just a warm up for what the GOP has planned to steal the 2012 election, just like they did in 2000 & 04'. Sad thing is that Obama will do back flips up to the podium to concede asap, even though it will be so obvious that a blind and deaf man will know the election was stolen.

COMMENT #43 [Permalink]

... Nunyabiz said on 3/19/2012 @ 5:38 pm PT...





Also what are we going to do if say Sanitarium steals the election?

I mean blatantly without any question flat out steals it like the 04' election was? Nothing again? Look what doing nothing got us last time.

COMMENT #44 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 3/19/2012 @ 5:52 pm PT...





Mitch, Yeah, your choices don't quite fit for me. A little too simplified. On the subject of nuclear war I'm not so sure anymore. In the past I would've completely agreed with your position of are-you-kidding-me-the-only-alternative-is-just-off-the-chart-unacceptable. But now, between the crazy path of Bush and the crazy path of Obama how does one determine which is more or less likely to lead to one possible future over another? How does one do that? According to world opinion the U.S. and Israel are the greatest threats to world peace. Has the world's perceptions of us as the most dangerous nation improved with our preferred candidate? How does one factor into such fortune telling equations the comparative effects of a populace increasingly up in arms because our leader is so obviously inept or crazy(Bush) vs a populace that is too unwillingly to call atrocities atrocities cuz now it's their guy doing the exact same(or worse)things(Obama)? How does one ascertain how these factors effect the possibilities for substantive change? What's the equation there, Mitch? Is it possible we might be more motivated to get off our couches and demand real change if the worse rather than the better of our current candidates is elected(as outrageously counterintuitive as that may seem)? How does one determine something like that? The health of the planet does not care about the differences in theoretical possibilities between any of the Republican candidates vs Obama. Certain things have to be done to avoid catastrophic change. We ain't doing them. Bush wasn't interested. Obama isn't either, at least judging by his actions. Connected to the needs of a hurting ecosystem and planet are the needs of a hurting human population. Certain things need to be done to avoid further catastrophe. Granted the Republicans generally and with great enthusiasm offer point by point to do the exact opposite of what is needed. But if Obama is only going to offer piecemeal milquetoast solutions that only partially mitigate all the shit going down and really do next to nothing to address the fundamental problems, is resigning ourselves to "that's obviously the best we can do" really the best we can do? Just cuz I don't know the answers to any of these questions doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to ask them. Just cuz I don't have a better solution to our choice of candidates doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to question the whole fucking smorgasbord. And to bitch about how fucked up things are while I'm doing it. It's gotta be worthwhile to try and figure out alternatives of thought and action that don't require us to sell our souls. That for me is one of the big hopes of the Occupy Movement. Cuz maybe our noses weren't meant to be held so hard when we go vote. Thanks for the well wishes. Same to you.

COMMENT #45 [Permalink]

... Mitch said on 3/19/2012 @ 6:30 pm PT...





"Obama isn't either, at least judging by his actions." Thank you for the serious reply. I regret lashing out earlier, but all of this simply sends me off the deep end. The sentence I quote sums up our disagreement. I think we are raised to expect that heroic leadership will steer us to utopia. I think the reality is that our leaders are extremely constrained by our situation, which is that we are a former empire but continuing military power that has sunk into decay. For the moment, we are the world's superpower, and our levers of control are owned by the super-wealthy, because they are able to buy propaganda at will, are able to buy congress at will, and because our moral educations are either nonexistent or backwards. A great many Americans think that wealth is a sign of superiority. The business schools have taught a theory of cut-throat capitalism. Our managers think that externalizing costs is a sensible policy, our ethical systems have not yet absorbed the concept of sustainability and limits, our legal system says get away with what you can, and our supreme court is, well, the supreme court that ruled on Bush v Gore. As China replaces us as the world's superpower, there will be vast pressure on our political leaders to go to war --- you don't maintain a trillions of dollars military for "defense." It's an incredibly precarious situation for the world. To expect a leader to enter that minefield and change things in an uncompromising way is, to me at least, magical thinking. To complain when a man of Obama's clear intelligence and goodwill does not immediately tackle each and every bad policy is both unfair and, in my opinion, foolish. Obama is a politician. He will do what he can within the constraints of the situation. He will offend the left because he knows the left has nowhere to go, and he knows that he must keep the so-called middle or he and his administration will be out of power and Romney or Santorum or Gingrich or another Bush will be in power. If that means constant depressing and demoralizing capitulation to fools, so be it. He's the guy who managed to come from nowhere, no money, mixed race and win the Presidency. I'd say he's got better political instincts than I do, and maybe even better than yours. We are the problem, not Obama. If it makes you feel better, I'll change it to "I am the problem." I know I am using more than my share, but being human I don't want to give that up. I know that I should be spending less on the military and more on feeding starving children, but being human I am afraid. For me to put this central problem of being human on Obama may make me feel momentarily better, but it's bullshit and I know it. Boy would I like things to be better, but look at what I'm up against --- do you need a better, clearer picture than what's happened to my latest hero, the guy from Invisible Children who ended up being accused of being the "great white savior" and having a nervous breakdown? Ten years of his life devoted to helping children, enough brilliance to do an admitted propaganda piece that got 80 million views on youtube without any advertising, and people complain that he's "the wrong color," "too self-centered," "too evangelical," and didn't put the light on the right place. People who, for the most part, haven't done shit. (My opinion... perhaps I'm jumping to conclusions and everyone is devoting ten years of their life to African kids but not telling me because it would make me feel bad.) I think for anyone who wants to change things, it's 99% a matter of personal responsibility. And I don't think it's talking the talk, or using the pretty words that drive me crazy coming from the left or from the calm or from whatever bunch of people think talking pretty will help. It's walking the walk. To the extent that the pretty words substitute for that, it makes me ill. You are right, I don't know a thing about you other than what you say here and what's up on google. But I have a great deal of confidence in one thing: this isn't about whether Obama is doing a good job --- Obama, like every President, is a boat bobbing on the ocean. He can steer, but he can't beat the tides. This is about whether humanity will manage to learn decency. Sorry, all.

COMMENT #46 [Permalink]

... RPer said on 3/19/2012 @ 6:32 pm PT...





Hey you disillusioned Democrats, have you taken a look at Paul? He's a Republican in name only, nothing like the rest. He has never ever said one thing and done another and we're talking in 30 years. He has been campaigning that entire time to close all foreign bases and bring all troops home. If Guantanamo is your issue, you can believe he'd close it immediately. I assume you're more concerned with finding the best candidate and not the best party. He may even end up going 3rd party, taking all of his delegates with him and crippling the GOP. How does that sound? Worth looking at?

COMMENT #47 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 3/19/2012 @ 6:39 pm PT...





Parke Bostrom @ 5: "Division" is not a written vote. It is a standing vote, or a show of hands vote (either of which may be optionally counted), instead of a simple voice vote. Thanks. I have corrected the original article above to better explain that. Much appreciated.

COMMENT #48 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 3/19/2012 @ 6:40 pm PT...





Shortbus @ 10 said: Awww yes, St Charles County Republicans... I hate crossing the River! Then how will you ever get to the Ameristar?!

COMMENT #49 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 3/19/2012 @ 6:40 pm PT...





Jack Kerr @ 13 said: Brad, as soon as I start my new job, I'm gonna donate some money to you! ... I also urge everyone that reads this to donate what you can. If you care about the US and about your vote, then we have to work together to fix this!! Thanks, Jack. Really appreciate the sentiment, sir!

COMMENT #50 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 3/19/2012 @ 6:42 pm PT...





David Lasagna & Mitch @ various: Might I suggest you both have the same interests in common and are having an important discussion but seem to be making accusations based on what you think others believe, rather than what is true about each other? Don't mean to imply that you both are doing that to the same degree. I just mean to suggest you have the conversation, but without the accusations which are not necessarily supported by evidence. And, of course, I recommend you do it on a differen thread, since this one is not about that in the slightest Your Mother Hen,

Brad

COMMENT #51 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 3/19/2012 @ 6:45 pm PT...





And...if anybody happens to still be reading this far down in the thread after those various sidetracks... I just spoke with Brent Stafford (seen in the video tapes above being arrested outside the St. Charles GOP caucus). He is now scheduled to be live with me on my KPFK/Pacifica Radio show on Wednesday at 3p PT, barring any big news that requires us to reschedule. If you're not in Los Angeles, you can listen LIVE at that time via the KPFK website. Still trying to get in touch with Lori Bone as well, from Athens-Clarke County, GA. She's the one seen trying to get a response from the party secretary in the GA video above, as to how it is they can simply disregard all of the rules to jam through their own slate of candidates at the GOP County Convention, as seen in that remarkable video tape.

COMMENT #52 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 3/19/2012 @ 6:57 pm PT...





Mitch, If I'm not mistaken, we agree on a ton. Another place we may not agree, however, is on Nader. That is if the Nader debate you're referring to is the one where he is blamed for Bush assuming office. I've always thought scapegoating Nader for the initial election hijacking for Bush missed the mark. 1. I am of the opinion that Nader's numbers had no bearing on the outcome. To me the evidence is quite strong that Republicans were determined to do whatever it took to get Bush declared the winner. Regardless of whoever had what numbers. They were determined to steal that election. They stole it. Blaming Nader is blaming the least powerful/significant variable in the equation. 2. Gore won. He won the popular vote(blame the accepted dysfunction of the Electoral College). He won Florida(blame all of us for letting that stand). Blaming Nader for all of us being so willing to accept a false outcome with all the election and legalistic fraud that led to that false outcome is an enormous abdication of citizen responsibility, in my opinion. In effect it's an enormous denial of actual cause and effect. Harder to fix the problem when it's so seriously misidentified.

COMMENT #53 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 3/19/2012 @ 7:23 pm PT...





Mitch @45- Having read this comment and Brad's Mother Henning I'm not sure anymore what we're arguing about. Maybe I never knew. Sounds like maybe somehow, inadvertently, I've been setting you off, either by my words or by who I am. Not sure. I think we're mostly in agreement about stuff. So for my part I guess I'll give up the ghost here and looking forward to further attempts with you on future threads. (note to Brad--aren't we allowed to go flying off in different directions as long as we're reasonably(which I was pushing a little) polite about it?)

COMMENT #54 [Permalink]

... Mitch said on 3/19/2012 @ 7:45 pm PT...





My fault. Brad's being politely neutral, but I'm in the wrong. There's a certain style of language that sets me off, but my assumptions are unwarranted, and I just need to get over it or back away from the keyboard.

COMMENT #55 [Permalink]

... Lora said on 3/19/2012 @ 7:49 pm PT...





Police State Rides Again. And I guess we need to amend "IOKIYAR" to "IOKIYARUYSRP" (It's OK If You're A Republican Unless You Support Ron Paul) Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

COMMENT #56 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 3/19/2012 @ 7:56 pm PT...





Mitch @54 Okay, thanks for the explanation. If in the future I use language that sets you off again, I'd be happy to try to figure out what's you or me or where the problem is. Thanks for the back and forth.

COMMENT #57 [Permalink]

... DaEggman said on 3/20/2012 @ 5:28 am PT...





Well, the party of selfishness experienced selfishness on the part of the other party. You can't be for a party which idolizes selfishness and complain when someone else is selfish to you. LIBERTARIAN: a tried and failed policy of selfishness that has its roots in opposition to totalitarian forms of government, yet swings so far to the right as to cause the same injustices to the same people as a totalitarian government would. Inverted totalitarianism is what you get from Libertarians, corporations will continue their dominance of the people and Fascism is what you will get, along with a bunch of really sick people from all the pollution which will no longer be regulated. Can't wait for that!!!Forest for the trees folks!! Old people dying in the streets, doctors arrested for performing abortions, can't wait to go back to the 1800's with Dr. Paul..

COMMENT #58 [Permalink]

... invisibledeath said on 3/20/2012 @ 5:38 am PT...





Amazing how the cops arrived on scene so fast, if I were a criminal and observing this, I might consider robbing something on the next election day when all the cops will be used to comit the election fraud for the corrupt officials. Hell even fellow thieves could cause the diversion by yelling division next time. Guarantee the cops come, since there's no more law in the land anymore. Even a hellicopter made it there? My they are fast. On the other hand If I looked at it from a civil war point of view and what I see is about 20 cops and hundreds of potential people who if they had guns, the cops would be toast and the helicopter would be going away for cover. I think there's several lessons here. There's just something about watching people get fucked that makes me think in the back of my mind what if they finally say 'fuck this shit' and go off. I'm amazed it hasn't already happened. You can rationalize all the fuck you want, but in 10 years we went from having a working Constitution to whatever the fuck this psychopatic lawless shit is now. With Agenda 21 and the scum behind all this sustainable shit, we are going to have to fight to not be a victim. You want to go green, that's fine, just leave the psychopaths in the UN, NATO Carbon Tax, World Government, and World Banksters behind. I rather die than live in the new globalist police state.

COMMENT #59 [Permalink]

... Shortbus said on 3/20/2012 @ 5:59 am PT...





Brad@48: Other then working, I've been on a boat twice

I will be posting on threads around town the show time this wed for Brent Stafford's interview. And the podcast as soon as it's available.

COMMENT #60 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 3/20/2012 @ 8:02 am PT...





invisibledeath@58-- Reading your comment and being unfamiliar with Agenda 21 I googled it. Found a youtube video entitled Agenda 21 For Dummies. Without knowing who any of those people are on that video who are characterizing Agenda 21 as the end of everything you hold dear, here's my guess as to where reality lies. Everything that those anti-sustainable development people are scaring you with in that video--the end of freedom, private property, fun of any kind--is what IS happening with the program they subscribe to which I'm guessing is some brand of freemarket fundamentalism. Without knowing the specs on Agenda 21 my understanding of sustainable development is that it is simply an acknowledgment that the way we do do business, run our economies, agriculture, etc. does not work in the long haul. Finite resources are not infinite, you can't put CO2 into the atmosphere forever without dire consequences, etc. So the choice is let them(the agenda 21 for dummies people) talk you into the same old shit way of doing things that they'd like to continue which absolutely guarantees that all the nightmares they're describing will be happening.. OR, learn some way of existing on the planet where we voluntarily, as a species, control ourselves, and live within our means. Infantilism and exceptionalism are what our culture is based on, in many ways. They appear to be pretty hard to let go of. It's fun to think that the laws of physics don't apply to us. But that's the choice here. We can believe that the laws of physics don't apply and keep on using up everything at a rate that is unsustainable.(Being spoiled and ignorant babies has tremendous appeal.) Or we can start acting like adults who understand that life is interconnected and that everybody can't just do whatever they want, wherever they want, for as long as they want, and fuck the consequences. The kind of freedom they're talking about in that video is the freedom to continue to be mindless lemmings following each other off the cliff. The thing their decrying--sustainable development--is the possibility of a different path. The freedom to choose to be conscious human beings who give a fuck about our planet. They're talking a lot of shit in that video.

COMMENT #61 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 3/20/2012 @ 8:51 am PT...





RPER @46 wrote: Hey you disillusioned Democrats, have you taken a look at Paul? While Ron Paul would represent a marked improvement on foreign policy (ending wars and our maintenance of world-wide military basis for the benefit of corporate wealth and power) and an end to oil subsidies, the problem with both Pauls (Ron & Rand) is their libertarian blind spots. Their myopic free market uber alles and aversion to governmental solutions leads them, for example, not only to a rejection of a single-payer (Medicare for All) system that would eliminate the parasitic profits of the health insurance industry, but to a “Let them die!” free market approach towards a system that already kills 45,000 Americans/year simply because they can’t afford insurance.

COMMENT #62 [Permalink]

... PWL said on 3/20/2012 @ 9:11 am PT...





Looks like the Republicans and Joe Stalin both had the same idea about what "democracy" means....

COMMENT #63 [Permalink]

... Mitch said on 3/20/2012 @ 10:59 am PT...





David Lasagna asks, "Has the world's perceptions of us as the most dangerous nation improved with our preferred candidate?" Yes. See this from the BBC World Service. http://worldpublicopinio...pnt=680&nid=&id= How could it not have? We went from a posture of ignoring world opinion when invading countries to attempting to withdraw from countries. David Lasagna asks: "Is it possible we might be more motivated to get off our couches and demand real change if the worse rather than the better of our current candidates is elected(as outrageously counterintuitive as that may seem)? How does one determine something like that?" I think this is called "wake the froggy," or something like that. There are a number of problems with speculating about the efficacy of such an approach, the clearest being the potential for inadvertent frog soup. David Lasagna states, I've always thought scapegoating Nader for the initial election hijacking for Bush missed the mark. I agree, but the disaster and the resulting scapegoating are excellent examples of the likely effect of third party candidacies on our broken system. If there is some actual goal beyond waking the froggy, I can understand and support a good third party candidacy. I fear that many people think waking the froggy is a sufficient reason, and I don't agree. Brad, I'll leave your thread alone now. But before I go, I'd just like to hear a Ron Paul supporter explain how they rationalize their support for the statements published in his newsletter under his name, and his subsequent denials that he had anything to do with them. Isn't he supposed to be better? Grenade tossed. Buh-bye!

COMMENT #64 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 3/20/2012 @ 11:40 am PT...

