The Ron Paul slate won 20 of the 24 national convention delegates and all of the alternates, plus new pro-liberty RNC representatives who also sit as delegates to the national convention, leaving sitting Maine GOP Chairman Webster as the only sure Romney delegate and Maine Governor Paul LePage as an additional delegate who may vote with the liberty faction. Of course, The Establishment raised enough procedural issues to create potential roadblocks and is threatening to challenge the entire delegation.

At one point, the Executive Committee of the current Maine State Committee was seen in a break room around a table on a conference call trying to get the RNC to declare the Maine convention invalid. On Saturday, as the trend was evident, Romney’s top lawyer Benjamin Ginsberg was flown into Augusta Municipal Airport by private plane to advise The Establishment on the convention floor. The Portland Press Herald caught a photo of him in action trying to influence proceedings at the convention.

Youth was brought into the party with the election of young Paul supporters as National Committeeman and National Committeewoman. The National Committeewoman-elect Ashley Ryan will become the youngest member of the RNC and she has expressed interest in Republican Liberty Caucus.

Liberty Republicans, including at least eight RLC members, swept State Committee seats and, unless challenged by The Establishment lawyers, look to have a majority or better for control. The State Chair Charles Webster, who declared war on libertarians, is up for election in December.

Maine Republican Governor Paul LePage has been friendly to libertarians and was supported as a delegate on the liberty slate. He was endorsed by Maine Republican Liberty Caucus in the seven-way primary before his election.

The old guard Establishment remains the Legislative leadership, many of whom led the procedural challenges which caused the convention to run late. Several expressed open hostility to the Paul movement, libertarians and two to the RLC specifically. State Rep. Aaron Libby, who is friendly to RLC, did endorse Paul last February but is the only GOP legislator to be public.

The Maine RLC booth was extremely successful in terms of both new memberships and revenues from sales of my book and the wing-nut teeshirts, which were worn all over the convention floor by the young Paul enthusiaists.

The only drawback was an incomplete Maine RLC State Convention. We were able to convene with a quorum long enough to elect officers. Ken Lindell was reelected Chair, Vic Berardelli was re-elected vice chair, Tim McClure is secretary, Jeffrey Ellis is treasurer. Board members are David Brooks, Ken Anderson and Michelle Anderson. We were about to get into endorsement review when our “courier” said they cut short candidate speeches and were about to conduct voting business on the main convention floor. With the Romney challenges and the late hour, we were unable to muster a quorum to reconvene and will have to conclude our RLC business at a later date.

Republican Liberty Caucus Endorses 3 More Great
Congressional Candidates in Texas GOP Primary
These Candidates Are Dedicated to Returning the Republican Party to the Principles of Limited Government and Individual Liberty

AUSTIN, TX  – The National Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus is pleased to endorse three more exceptional candidates in the Texas Republican primary.  Eddie Traylor (CD10), Grant Stinchfield (CD24) and Steve Stockman (CD36) stand out among a field of excellent candidates in Texas this year and were chosen for early endorsement because of their dedication to constitutionally limited government, individual liberty and free enterprise.  They are more great assets to add to a growing slate of extraordinary Liberty Republican candidates in Texas this year.

“Voters in Texas are starting to realize that our nation cannot survive when both parties allow government to grow out of control at the cost of our liberties,” said RLC National Chairman Dave Nalle.  “These candidates represent the new direction of American politics and the best traditions of the Republican Party.  They have personal integrity, a dedication to the best interests of the people and a firm belief in responsible government.  They are exactly the kind of representatives we need to send to DC to work with our 2010 endorsees like Justin Amash (MI) and Rand Paul (KY) to put our government back on track”

Eddie Traylor has an distinguished military background and was selected by the grassroots process developed here in Texas by GOOOH.  Grant Stinchfield has a background in media and business and has a burning desire to bring a platform of real reform to Congress.  Former Congressman Steve Stockman is finally heeding the call to return to politics.  He has been on the RLC board of advisers for many years and now we have great hopes that he’ll return to DC to finish the work which was left undone when he held office back in the 1990s.

In 1774 John Adams wrote that the revolution had been completed “in the minds of the people” before conflict ever broke out, and we believe that a similar revolution in attitude is taking place in the United States today.

Following on the election of more than two-dozen RLC endorsees to the House and Senate in 2010, the RLC has set a goal of doubling that number in the 2012 election. With a larger core of newly elected, principled representatives in Washington we can move away from the big government status quo and towards putting the rights and interests of the people first.

The people of Texas are no longer content to sit idly by and accept the dictates of out of control government in Washington, DC. We are demanding better service and real accountability, and if we do not get it we will keep voting complacent and unresponsive office holders out until they get the message

###

These candidates were selected based on their answers to questions on our candidate survey and at the recommendation of the Texas chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus.  Further endorsements in state and federal races in Texas are expected in the coming months.

More information on the Eddie Traylor campaign can be found at http://www.traylor.goooh.com
More information on the Grant Stinchfield campaign can be found at http://www.grantstinchfield.com/

More information on the Steve Stockman campaign can be found at http://www.friendsofstevestockman.com ]]> http://www.rlc.org/2012/05/04/rlc-endorses-3-more-great-candidates-in-texas/feed/ 0 http://www.rlc.org/2012/04/25/live-debate-anarchy-vs-republic/ http://www.rlc.org/2012/04/25/live-debate-anarchy-vs-republic/#comments Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:44:41 +0000 Dave Nalle http://www.rlc.org/?p=6871

The debate will address the question of whether government is coercion or cooperation.  Stefan & Dave will meet up live on video to discuss this and the many issues revolving around Government vs Anarchism.

<img align=”left” src=”230682_4656361678_510991678_52652_8864_a.jpg“>The audience will be allowed to participate by typing questions in the chat room below the video feeds. It’s free to participate. All you’ll need to do is register at LibertyChat.com and click on the “chat” option at the top of the page to join in.

Come join the debate tonight – Wednesday April 25th at 9:PM EST

http://libertychat.com/chat

CISPA would massively reduce the privacy and security of your online communications and personal data. It would give government agencies and many private companies access to your personal communications and financial information and would allow government security agencies like the National Security Agency unprecedented power to access your data including medical records, private emails and financial information – all without a warrant, oversight by any court or due process of law.

This access to your records would require no misbehavior on your part, not even an accusation of terrorism or criminal activity and it would take place without your knowledge or any opportunity to protect your information or your privacy interests.  That information could then be passed on to private companies or other agencies or used against you with no real rules or restrictions on who could access it or what hands it would end up in.

The Republican Liberty Caucus  joined with other concerned groups like the Liberty Coalition and the Electronic Frontier Foundation to promote “Stop Cyber Spying Week” last week, but now the real push is on to break down support for CISPA and send it to the legislative shredder as we did with SOPA a few months ago.

We urge you to email your representative  in Congress and urge them to oppose CISPA and keep government agencies out of our private online data and communications.

Rule #1 – Don’t be nervous or scared.

Some people find the interview process intimidating.  Just remember that you’re not being singled out. Everyone has to go through it and despite the perception that it may be a tool of the elite designed to expose you and weed you out, that’s not really what it’s all about. Although there may be some people on your committee whose goal is to keep Ron Paul supporters or Liberty Republicans in general off the list of state convention delegates, there are also likely to be people on the committee who are sympathetic or at least neutral.  For the most part they will be earnestly trying to do their job, which is not to keep people out, but to find people to qualify to go to the convention whether they agree with them or not.

Rule #2 – Be committed to the process.

The main qualification for being a delegate is your willingness to show up and participate in the process.  Many of the questions a Nominations Committee will ask are likely to be geared towards determining whether your commitment is solely to a particular candidate or to the process which your local and state conventions are part of .  They want to make sure that if you are made a delegate you will participate fully by showing up, participating in debate and voting.  What they really do not want to see is people who are likely to become discouraged and give up if their favorite candidate is not nominated or if they feel you have no interest in anything that will be going on at the convention except the nomination process.  When they ask you why you want to be a delegate tell them that you want to have a voice in the party and don’t just talk about one aspect or issue or candidate.

Rule #3 – Be prepared and qualified.

Another thing the committee will be looking for is your level of political awareness or involvement.  They don’t want to send clueless political neophytes higher in the system than they are qualified to go and this is a reasonable concern on their part.  State delegate positions are positions of responsibility and they are in some demand and committee members are perfectly correct in believing that people with no political experience and no depth of involvement shouldn’t be given those positions.  If you’ve just joined the Republican Party and the only candidate you know by name is Ron Paul, don’t even go in front of the committee, or at least educate yourself before you do.  If you go there unprepared you will irritate them and make them more hostile to the next guy to come along.  Inform yourself about other major races in your area.  Know the names of other candidates for lower offices you might vote for in the election.  Know a couple of mainstream issues you can say something about.  At the very least be prepared to object to Obamacare or say something nasty about Eric Holder and be able to name the Republicans running in your Congressional District or for Senate in your state. An hour spent on Google News can make you look relatively well informed.

Rule #4 – Be involved.

This isn’t something you can do on short notice, but if you are in this for the long haul (as you should be) then having a history of involvement with the party is one sure way to get to be a delegate.  Join a local Republican club.  Donate to your county party.  Work for a local candidate or two making phonecalls or block walking.  There are good candidates running in every state.  Find one and get involved.  You can also be an activist on local or national political issues. If you can talk about this kind of involvement they’ll definitely warm up to you.  If you have a family history of being involved with the party bring that up.  It can’t hurt.  Don’t be afraid to toot your own horn.

Rule #5 – Don’t lie. People can tell when you’re lying.

If you have met committee members before and they know something about your positions, don’t come into the committee and suddenly express completely different beliefs.  If you’re a known Paul supporter then don’t hide that fact. Instead make a good argument for why you’d be a good delegate anyway.  Rather than misrepresenting yourself, focus on your other good qualities.  And if you don’t like the establishment candidate, just say so.  Don’t hem and haw and try to conceal your true beliefs.  Ultimately do say that you’ll at least reluctantly support whoever the nominee is. And if you can’t do that honestly then you actually are not qualified to be a delegate.  You don’t have to like him or be loyal to him or even actively campaign for him, but you do have to express support for the process and its results.  You’d want them to support your candidate if he’s nominated and you should be honest enough to do the same if someone else is nominated.

Good and Bad Ron Paul Supporters

There seems to be a trend that establishment Republicans have identified a divide between “good” Ron Paul supporters and “bad” Ron Paul supporters. It also tends to be true that those who are identified as “good” also have the qualities which are likely to make them members of the Republican Liberty Caucus.  In most cases a Nominations Committee will be comfortable sending the “good” Ron Paul supporters on as delegates, but be deathly afraid of their more radical comrades.

The key defining characteristic of the “bad” Ron Paul supporter is that it is obvious that their interests are extremely narrow.  All they care about is getting Ron Paul elected and perhaps the specific issues for which he is most known and most intensely supported.  To the average Republican they are perceived as outsiders trying to subvert the party and the process.   As a Liberty Republican who is involved in the delegate selection process I cringe when certain candidates for nomination come to be interviewed, because they are so utterly clueless.  They come in with this air of arrogance thinking that their high level of commitment to Ron Paul is all the qualification they should need, when that’s really not at all what the party is looking for.  To you it may all be about Ron Paul, but to those who make the decisions it is about being a useful and involved participant in the party.  If your only interest in the party or the process or even politics is to advance Ron Paul then you are not going to be nominated as a delegate and probably shouldn’t be.

The “good” Ron Paul supporter is identified easily as well, because they will have some higher level of political involvement.  Most typically when they come to the committee they can explain what they are concerned about why they aren’t satisfied with current political conditions or leadership, including their objections to the GOP establishment, and they can make clear that they support Ron Paul because they think that he is the best answer to the problems while making it clear that it is reform and better government they are after even if it turns out that they have to achieve it by some other means maybe not involving Ron Paul.  Commitment to a broader cause which is compatible with Republican principles will be respected even if it comes with support for Ron Paul as part of the package.

Some Obvious Dos and Don’ts

You can never go wrong attacking Obama and his administration.  Even if you also have problems with the political insiders of the GOP, you can find common ground with any Republican if you remind them that you can’t stand Obama or his policies or the Democratic Party in general.  Unions, Eric Holder, Nancy Pelosi and the leftist media are good targets too.  If you don’t revile Obama and the Democratic leadership at least a little bit more than even the worst corrupt Republican elitists then you’re not paying attention and you’re probably not qualified to be a delegate.  Remember that everything Bush did wrong, Obama has done at a higher cost and on a larger scale.  If you spend a lot of time talking about shared enemies there’s less time for them to ask you more difficult questions.

One of the obvious things they may ask you is whether you will “support the Republican nominee regardless of who it is.” This is an inevitable question and you ought to be prepared for it.  There is a good answer and if you cannot make it honestly, then don’t bother to show up.  The answer is “while I’m not happy with the most likely nominee, I still think he’s better than Obama and if those are my two choices I’ll vote for the Republican nominee.”  If you can’t truthfully say that then you should not be a delegate.  And remember, it cuts both ways.  If they expect you to support their nominee then you have an equal right to expect them to support your nominee if he wins.

Try to avoid desecrating the sacred cows.  If you are strongly anti-war, just try to stay away from the subject.  While many establishment Republicans are coming around on issues of national defense, it’s an area which is too contentious and too complex to argue out in a committee meeting.  Don’t lie about it, but consider ducking out with a statement like “I’m more concerned with domestic policy right now when our country is going to hell in a handbasket.”  If you are pro-choice, don’t bring it up.  Before the rise of Ron Paul, abortion was the litmus test question in these interviews.  It’s a difficult issue to deflect on, so do everything you can to avoid it.  Also try to avoid the topic of Israel.  They don’t understand Ron Paul’s stand on it and they won’t understand yours.  l shouldn’t have to say it, but don’t mention 9/11 truth or any other popular conspiracy theories.  No matter what you believe or how strongly you believe it, that’s an argument you don’t want to raise at all and which will only brand you as a nut.

Remember that even Republicans who are not committed to liberty the way that we are do usually have some level of belief in the same broad principles of limited government and individual rights.  They may not always act rationally on those beliefs and they may back the wrong leaders a lot of the time, but they will still usually respect your commitment to the principles the party was founded on if you remind them that they are Republican ideas with a long history in the party and not just the views of radicals and Ron Paul supporters.  Look for common ground and common concerns and focus on them. Your interview with the Nominations Committee is sort of like a small-scale political campaign and you need to sell yourself as someone who will represent the interests of all Republican voters and of the party if you are selected as a delegate.

The commitment to liberty is a lifelong commitment.  It’s not about one election or one candidate.  It’s a movement which may take years to succeed.  If you are committed to the movement and to that process of changing the Republican Party and our political system, then you ought to be prepared for the similar commitment necessary to be an effective delegate, representing not just the party but the Liberty Movement at your state and eventually at the national convention.  As a delegate you are serving the party and its members first and your own interests second.  At the same time, never forget that the best service you can do the party is to help it live up to the high principles on which it was founded.  This is what it means to be a Liberty Republican.

Republican Liberty Caucus Endorses Patrick Flynn in U.S. Senate Race

Pat Flynn Can Play a Big Role in Restoring Popular and Constitutional Government for the People of Nebraska 

AUSTIN, TX/CRETE, NE – The National Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus, along with the State Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Nebraska, is pleased to announce the endorsement of Pat Flynn in the Republican primary for Nebraska’s U.S. Senate race. Flynn is an outstanding candidate who represents the principles of limited government and individual liberty to which the Republican Liberty Caucus is dedicated. “Voters in Nebraska are starting to realize that our nation cannot survive when both parties promote more government at the cost of our liberties,” said RLC National Chairman Dave Nalle. “Pat Flynn represents the new direction of American politics, with personal integrity, a dedication to the best interests of the people and a firm belief in constitutionally limited government. He is exactly the kind of Senator we need to send to DC to put our government back on track.”

“Although all four of the major Republican candidates for the Senate claim to be solidly conservative, and that they will be true to the principles of our Constitution, Pat Flynn’s lack of political experience was appealing for our membership. The fact that he has never served in political office before makes us believe that, if elected, he will go to Washington with the can-do attitude of the successful business man he is, rather than playing political games,” said RLC Nebraska Chair, Laura Ebke. “We seem to get largely the same results every time we elect someone who has a long history of serving in political office, so maybe it’s time to start electing people who haven’t been tainted by the experience of having been elected. It’s not that the other candidates are bad—it’s merely that they’ve all been elected and re-elected to state level offices, and have served for at least 8 years—something which makes them inherently a part of the political culture which continues to spend our country into ever more debt,” added Ebke.

The Republican Liberty caucus endorsed over 2 dozen members of the U.S. House and Senate who were elected in 2010. Most notable, Senators Mike Lee of Utah, and Rand Paul of Kentucky, represent the non-career politician type of candidate that the RLC believes is important at this point in our history. “Pat Flynn would be a valuable addition to the Senate, and could be depended upon to remain faithful to the Constitution. Anyone who is willing to sell his business—as Pat has—in order to run for the Senate certainly must have the fortitude to stand strong on principle, and resist the temptations of the interest groups who try to have every senator’s ear,” said Ebke.

###

More information on the Pat Flynn campaign can be found at http://patflynnforsenate.org.

The platform originates at the grassroots of the party where delegates in every county submit resolutions which go through a committee at their local senatorial district convention which assembles a draft slate of resolutions which are then voted on by the convention and passed on, along with the 49 similar bundles of resolutions, to another committee at the state level. This committee takes all those resolutions and boils them down to make a party platform which is voted on by the delegates at the state convention who usually don’t even have the time to read them.

This sounds like a great example of bottom-up grassroots politics, but there are a few problems with this sausage-factory process.

In fact, those “grassroots” resolutions mostly don’t really originate with common concerned citizens. Most of them are written by special interest groups which send them out in mass emailings to their constituents who then obediently submit them all over the state. So what they represent is not so much the interests of common Texans, but rather the interests of the most organized and motivated pressure groups with their volume cranked up to 11 by the internet. Quite often the groups which are most vocal are also the ones which are the most radical and farthest from the mainstream, while average party members are not as motivated or as organized in opposition.

Theoretically the committees on the district and state level are supposed to filter and edit the resolutions into something representative of the party, but they operate on the principle of not making any decisions which would offend anyone who can shout loudly enough to get attention. They are literally buried under paper and there is no one in a position to set limits or take a firm hand or just sit down and write a clear and coherent platform which represents the broad beliefs of the party. Instead they get frustrated and intimidated and just include the proposals of the most strident groups, producing a platform which is an amalgamation of the pet peeves of a bunch of fringe special interests.

This hasn’t always been the case. Through the 1970s many fewer resolutions were submitted and there was much less scrutiny of the process. The state-level committee was largely free to write a platform which it felt represented the best principles of the party based on their collective experience and good judgement. It was a less inclusive process, but it was more republican and more representative and produced a better result. Today’s platform is over 30 pages long with over 250 planks, but those old platforms were only a few pages long with 10 or 12 strong, general planks which everyone in the party could agree on.

It’s almost impossible to create a truly representative platform by including hundreds of specific positions. Only an approach based around general, shared principles can be truly representative. Mainstream party members are fed up with having the party represented by the ideas of its most extreme factions. It’s hard for candidates to run on a platform which includes many ideas which they don’t agree with and don’t want to be associated with, and it’s humiliating to be connected with a platform which is the target of jokes by late night comedians, attacks from partisan pundits and outraged editorials in the national and even international press.

A lot of the criticism focuses on the most obviously offensive things which consistently make their way into the platform, like the call to reinstitute the sodomy law which was struck down by the Supreme Court or the demand that creationism be taught in public schools. But there’s something in there to offend everyone, from banning suggestive TV ads for products like viagra, to taking away the parental rights of gay parents, to the most radical positions opposing immigration and free trade, to endorsements for various “New World Order” type conspiracy theories.

There has been an increase in organized opposition to the unappealing character of the platform. The Republican Liberty Caucus has put forward a slate of sensible resolutions on key issues which they hope will get enough support from the growing libertarian wing of the party to get included in place of some of the more offensive positions. Some grassroots Republicans are trying to introduce negative resolutions opposing some of the perennial rotten planks. Other groups are trying to convince the committees to scrap all the resolutions and just produce a short and simple platform based on core principles. The final option is to do what some other states have done when faced with this problem and introduce an alternative platform from the floor of the state convention, timing the move so that most of the delegates aren’t paying attention when it comes up for a vote.

The push for platform reform has never been stronger, but it will take a lot of effort and a lot of organization to overcome the stridency of fanatical single-issue activists. Texas Republicans deserve a platform which they can be proud of and which every Republican can stand by and support. The creation of a better platform is a real test of the maturity of the party. Can diversity be turned into strength, expressed as a platform of basic shared principles, or will the platform again represent the clamoring voices of extremism and factionalism which are tearing the party apart?

This article appeared in somewhat different form on Blogcritics.org

Now a group of party insiders want to reverse this popular decision and make the primary winner-take-all so that an establishment candidate – likely Santorum or Romney – can shut out all other candidates and snatch up all of our delegates. So if you wanted to go to the convention as a delegate for the candidate of your choice, you’d be out of luck and our whole state, despite the diversity of its Republican party would all be locked into supporting one candidate of dubious merit who comes from a far off state and has little in common with Texas Republicans.

This could mean giving Rick Santorum a chance at winning the primary – despite the fact that he is an ideological extremist and a big spender and cannot beat Obama. Or it could mean that Mitt Romney ends the primary with a sudden win in Texas and there’s no chance of a brokered convention or any concessions to the grassroots who are crying out for change and reform in the party. This change in policy in Texas could shut Ron Paul out of the process completely not only as a candidate, but as a voice for smaller government and more liberty as part of the Republican platform.

Changing the Texas GOP primary to winner-take-all would be a slap in the face of grassroots Republicans and it would be bad for the party in Texas and nationwide. This proposal by some SREC members would help Santorum and hurt Paul and the other candidates. Or alternatively it would end the election right there if Romney won. It’s a very, very bad idea for Texas and for the GOP and it is NOT what the grassroots of the party wants.

For more information see this article straight from the horse’s mouth. And note the name David Barton at the bottom of the article. Look him up if you don’t know who he is. He embodies the worst elements of the religious right which want to dominate the GOP and take it away from the grassroots.

Please customize the content of the letter below to represent your concerns in your own words and make sure to check off all of the SREC representatives. If you’re from outside the state rewrite the letter to stress the concerns which all Republicans have with keeping the primary open and the desirability of having a brokered convention.

The lead cheerleader for throwing in the towel and giving it all to Romney seems to be Karl Rove who is likely to be acting as a flak for the establishment, describing Santorum as a desperate, fading candidate.

Rove may be right about the hopelessness of Santorum’s campaign. The latest poll shows him losing his own home state of Pennsylvania to Romney, and prospects are not good for him in many of the major remaining states. But the inevitability of a Santorum defeat is not the inevitability of a Romney win, no matter how much the insiders climbing on his bandwagon want it to be.

The problem is that despite the hopeful claims Rove is making, the delegate math just doesn’t support his theory of inevitability, and the ongoing chorus of big name endorsements doesn’t seem to be helping Romney much either, since the same concerns which have alienated much of the party from Romney also make them unresponsive to establishment leaders.

Take a look at the numbers. There are 1089 delegates to be assigned in the remaining primaries. To reach the magic number of 1144 Romney needs 588 more delegates. That’s 53.9% of the remaining delegates. That seems achievable. By the accepted estimates Romney has averaged 60% of the delegates so far. In theory, if that trend continues, he will eventually end up with 653 more delegates for a total of 1231, 42 more than he needs.

The problem with this theory is that it assumes that delegate estimates largely based on the initial popular vote in past primaries are accurate. Yet in most of those states there is only a very rough relationship between the popular vote and how delegates are assigned. Delegates are actually chosen through arcane hierarchies of caucuses and conventions which give an advantage to candidates with strong grassroots support, which is Romney’s weak point.

While most media estimates put Ron Paul’s delegate count at around 30-50 delegates, there are reliable reports from a number of states that Paul has far more delegates than most estimates give him – by as many as 70 or more at this point. Despite shameful attempts to manipulate the system it appears that states whose delegates were credited to Romney are actually going in part or total to Paul. Not enough to win Paul the nomination, but enough to deny Romney the inevitability of his victory.

In fact, the actual delegate totals from most of the states where the elections ended months ago, won’t actually be final until later this summer, and in the meantime only Paul has people on the ground working in every state to advance his interests and increase his delegate count. They are chipping away at the other candidates and when real, final delegate numbers are revealed it seems quite likely that Romney will be much shorter of the mark than anyone realizes.

To a large extent the goal of all of the players except for Romney is to avoid a first-ballot win. If they can get to the convention with no clear winner, then deals can be made and votes can be changed on later ballots and there will be concessions to be won by someone. Romney may indeed end up being the nominee, but no one wants him to get there too easily. And in the end it’s quite likely that the big payoff will be to Ron Paul, because if he has enough delegates to get Romney to 1144, then a deal with him would be much more attractive and require fewer hard to swallow concessions than a deal with one of the other candidates.

The purpose of the “inevitability strategy” is to avoid the outcome of a convention where deals have to be made. Deals benefit the grassroots. They mean safeguards and accountability and concessions to groups which don’t like the party establishment much at all. It’s a strategy which might give Obama the win in November, but those who are pushing it would rather keep control of a losing minority party than make concessions and give up some of their control to what they see as barbarians pounding at the gate, though others may see them as a hopeful future for an aging and increasingly irrelevant party.

This article appeared in somewhat different form in Blogcritics Magazine.

While we won’t know until June whether ObamaCare will be struck down, either in part or as a whole, it’s certainly safe to say there’s a chance that the individual mandate will be declared unconstitutional, thus creating chaos that will need to be addressed one way or the other. Justice Kennedy and others made note of potential impending disaster in that regard today, as reported by Brett Kendall at the Wall Street Journal:

“Several justices express concern about doing harm to insurance companies if the mandate falls but the rest of the law is left in place.  Justice Kennedy worries about imposing a ‘risk’ on insurance companies ‘that Congress never intended.’”

The Justices who made note of the trouble with striking down the individual mandate while keeping the law’s other provisions have a very good point. The entire aim of the mandate, in theory, was to avoid an adverse selection situation where only those who actively need insurance would seek it out while the healthy would then determine that remaining uninsured until they got sick was economically viable.

Given the chaos that could ensue if the law is partially upheld, which could certainly happen, means that Republicans need to be prepared to address either strike-down scenario – and in my humble opinion, a ruling that declares only the individual mandate unconstitutional (which the liberal Justices seemed to be pushing for today) would actually be worse, and absolutely destroy private insurance companies. Nevertheless, as I touched upon in my Day two analysis of the SCOTUS hearings over at my personal blog CorieWhalen.com, conservatives need to be very cautious in regards to declaring imminent victory in the event that the court does in fact declare ObamaCare unconstitutional; even as a whole. Winning a battle, important as it might be, certainly does not imply victory in an overall, extremely extensive war.

However, let’s assume for a moment that ObamaCare is declared unconstitutional in its entirety. The obligatory period of celebration will inevitably occur, but where will we really be as conservatives? Right back where we were when the left, during the Bush years and 2008 election, framed the narrative in a manner that convinced voters that Republicans had no solutions regarding this important matter. And honestly, is that premise even entirely inaccurate when Republican ideas regarding health care have in recent history been either virtually non-existent or only marginally less evil than the absurdities served up by Democrats? Republicans in the latter half of the 20th century, and particularly post-Reagan, have been incredible at screaming about Democratic proposals while inevitably compromising in the direction of further government growth – perhaps slowing the car headed toward the cliff down a few miles per hour, but in no way changing the vehicle’s direction.

Take, for example, the direction of the GOP after the defeat of HillaryCare. The ultimately ill-fated piece of legislation was killed just before the Republican Revolution of 1994 – but what did Republicans end up doing when they swept through the halls of Congress on the heels of their Contract with America? Regarding health care, at least, nothing of merit. The GOP at the time grew complacent and seemed to assume that staving off HillaryCare was a victory in itself rather than taking the opportunity to make pursuing decentralization and free market focused health care reforms a priority in their Contract with America.

This decision to not immediately play offense in a free market oriented manner regarding health care post HillaryCare eventually posed a massive political problem, because it led to the inference that Republicans were satisfied with the status quo, and ultimately aided in laying the groundwork for the onset of ObamaCare. And even worse than allowing Democrats to claim that Republicans were “doing nothing” on the issue of health care, the GOP fell into a left-defined parameter of “doing something” implying a federal, government-centric solution. This is where the Heritage Foundation’s flirtation with the individual health care mandate and Medicare Part D debacles come in.

As James Taranto wrote at the Wall Street Journal in October of last year in his piece, “ObamaCare’s Heritage:”

“Heritage did put forward the idea of an individual mandate, though it predated HillaryCare by several years. We know this because we were there: In 1988-90, we were employed at Heritage as a public relations associate (a junior writer and editor), and we wrote at least one press release for a publication touting Heritage’s plan for comprehensive legislation to provide universal ‘quality, affordable health care.’

As a junior publicist, we weren’t being paid for our personal opinions. But we are now, so you will be the first to know that when we worked at Heritage, we hated the Heritage plan, especially the individual mandate. ‘Universal health care’ was neither already established nor inevitable, and we thought the foundation had made a serious philosophical and strategic error in accepting rather than disputing the left-liberal notion that the provision of ‘quality, affordable health care’ to everyone was a proper role of government. As to the mandate, we remember reading about it and thinking: ‘I thought we were supposed to be for freedom.’”

And as for Medicare Part D, the legislation was introduced by then-Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) in 2003 (when Republicans held the House, Senate and Presidency, mind you). Officially named the “Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act,” it was supposedly created to address the issue of prescription drug costs that were hurting seniors on Medicare. While it’s great that Republicans wanted to address a critical issue, they went about it in all of the wrong ways when they had the numbers to exert control over the process. Instead of pursuing free market reforms, the MMA provided a subsidy for large employers aimed at discouraging them from eliminating private prescription coverage to retired workers. (In this instance, the Republicans kowtowed directly to the AARP).

The legislation was rife with new bureaucracy, and ultimately ended up costing far more than projected, as is typical of big government schemes. Initially estimated to cost $400 billion over ten years, only a month after the bill passed, it was calculated that the overall cost of program between 2006 (the first year the program started paying benefits) and 2015 would be $534 billion. And of course, to top things off, per a report by the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds in 2009, the projected net cost of the program over the 2006 to 2015 period was actually adjusted $549.2 billion. How fiscally conservative!

At the end of the day, Republicans rammed through a wishy-washy piece of legislation that attempted to address a problem, mainly with government solutions, but was too timid to go all the way, resulting in the perfect opportunity for Democrats to demagogue, claiming Republicans didn’t go far enough and more government was needed, creating the perfect narrative for the onset of ObamaCare. And how could Republicans really respond when they had already conceded that federal solutions are what should be pursued?

However, despite the miserable failings of past Republicans, I certainly don’t believe all is lost. In fact, I think now more than ever, due largely in part to grassroots pressure from tea party activists and other limited government advocates, that conservatives have an opportunity to reshape the debate by getting out in front post-ObamaCare and making a solid case for free market health care reforms. Over at the Cato Institute, there’s a lot of fantastic work laying out viable, liberty oriented reforms, and there’s plenty that can be done to get the federal government out of the business of distorting prices and continually tying basic care to insurance and insurance to employment.

Not only could many common sense reforms pushed by Cato be pursued, but conservatives on all levels of government should also embrace the Health Care Compact, which would allow states to enact their own health care legislation independent of federal intervention by banding together in an interstate compact. Ultimately, decentralization and free market reforms will be the key to fixing health care as our federal debt to GDP ratio continues to skyrocket past the 100% mark. Republicans need to do all they can to work toward the goal of reducing bureaucracy so individuals  can actually determine what the fair market value for the health services they seek are and can contract freely with their doctors.

Despite prior insanity, the potential failure of ObamaCare before the Supreme Court is ultimately a golden opportunity for Republicans. The GOP will be in a position to finally prove that it has learned its lesson about compromising in the direction of continuous government growth by providing a sensible alternatives to Democratic measures that actually shrinks government involvement in the health care industry.

As I noted above, it’s not as if there’s a dearth of policy work in this area; there’s plenty for the GOP to choose from – the party leaders just need to truly decide they’re actually for limited government and get their heads in the game instead of accepting as fact that government should continue to control our health care choices. Ultimately, what we as activists have to remember is that by expending energy fighting ObamaCare without a strong alternative free market plan to immediately implement legislatively means that as conservatives, we’ve given ground to the Democrats.

Make no mistake about it; the grassroots left is plotting their support of, in their wildest dreams, a single payer system, and at the very least, revisiting the public option idea as well as general Medicaid expansion. They will stop at nothing to define the parameters of the health care debate as inherently demanding a government-centric solution. This time, the Republican party cannot fall into the trap of being confined by that narrative. We can and will do better – and certainly, the more liberty Republicans you help us elect, the more up to this important task the party will be.

Corie Whalen is a political consultant based in Houston Texas. She currently serves as the national Secretary of the Republican Liberty Caucus.