Life of the Party

Life of the Party on the Radio

Last Friday, I was on the radio live with Bob Enyart of Colorado and of American Right to Life Action again.  It was Part II of our discussion.  In Part II, we focused on our one area of disagreement: Ron Paul and his Sanctity of Human Life bill and its implications.  Here is Part I if you haven't heard it yet, and here is Part II. 

Some highlights were:

 Our Agreements

Personhood must be defined as beginning at conception/fertilization in order to restore rights to preborn children

National Right to Life has mislead the pro-life movement, via compromising on foundational pro-life principles and rubber stamping approval of pro-abortion-choice Republican candidates

Abortion is not justifiable for any reason and any proposed bill that does, should be rejected by pro-lifers

 John McCain is not pro-life (He favors embryonic stem-cell research, abortion in the cases of rape and incest, and has never proposed or supported a bill to make abortion illegal)

Our Disagreements

Ron Paul 

Ron Paul's Sanctity of Human Life Act as a means to define human life as beginning at conception and restore the right to life to preborn children

Would removing the jurisdiction from the U.S. Supreme Court (as Paul's bill would do) thereby remove due process as provided in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution?  Even though a State Supreme Court could still hear cases covering this issue?

Do states and nations have authority to use force on other states and nations to abide by "thou shall not murder" or any other bibilical mandate?

____________________

After the show, we spoke some more, and I raised the question of why we're still debating about Ron Paul since he is no longer a presidential candidate, and suggested that he get Chuck Baldwin on, since he is running for president and supports Ron Paul's Sanctity of Human Life Act.  He said he would try to do that. 

Just a little background: back when there were only two men left in the race for the Republican nomination--John McCain and Ron Paul--American Right to Life had thus far, not raised any criticism of McCain's position on the right to life, but had dished out plenty of criticism of Mitt Romney (which I lauded here) and of Ron Paul (which I refuted here).  I had raised the question back then, "why no criticism of John McCain and why knock down the only pro-life candidate left?"  They eventually did criticise McCain after he became the nominee, and then Bob wanted to have me on to discuss our disagreement over Ron Paul.   

On the Radio

This post from last week has been bumped.  If you read it last week, you know that I was cancelled, since Bob was planning  a sit-in at Focus on the Family over this.  I've been rescheduled for today.

I'll be joining Bob Enyart on his Denver radio show today at 3 PM Mountain Time, 2 PM Pacific Time.  For Coloradoans, you can tune into KLTT 670 AM.  For everyone else, check out Bob's website for streaming live, or later for the updates. 

A little background: Bob Enyart is pastor of Denver Bible Church and is a strategist and occasional spokesman for American Right to Life, the recently formed pro-life organization, which is frequently critical of pro-abortion politicians in both major political parties.  The organization received perhaps it's biggest notariety last week during the DNC in Denver when unfurling the world's largest protest sign with the message, "DNC--Destroys uNborn Children".  

Here at Life of the Party, I've been very supportive of ARTL's work from the beginning. 

I'm looking forward to the discussion.  Potential topics will include: the RNC, John McCain, Sarah Palin (if you've been watching here for my opinion on McCain's VP pick, listen in), Washington State's I-1000 (Assisted Suicide ballot initiative) and most likely, the one and only topic on which we disagree: Ron Paul.    

Full Report of Washington GOP Convention

Coming Soon!

Highlights include:

Allocated National Delegate Ballots with only one candidate (pre-screened by John McCain staffer), and no option for write-ins or nomiations from the floor.

Ron Paul takes 4 unallocated national delegates from the state of Washington. 

McCain & Party Leadership led a March Out in Exodus, in order to pull quorum, to avoid debate on the issues. 

When the March Out backfired due to the hefty quorum remaining, the McCain & Party Leadership Marched back in to fillibuster and obstruct the body from completing any other business.

Still, the body managed to pass three pro-life resolutions including: support for a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, opposition to the WA state Assisted Suicide Initiative I-1000, and support for the freedom of conscience for pharmacists to not despense abortion drugs.  In addition, the body passed a resolution opposing any military action on a nation without the U.S. Congress declaring war, which is in keeping with our Constitution.

The spontaneous Ron Paul March and Rally immediately following the convention, signalling this movement has just begun. 

Please stay tuned for the full report.  I need to get reacquainted with my family and then find an opportunity to write a blow by blow.  Meanwhile, TVW has full coverage of the convention business.  Note: there are three segments and they are long.  Most interesting are segments B and C.  More details can be found here, here and here. 

My apologies to Geri Modrell (Snohomish Co. Republican Chair), who appears to have stayed during the "march out".  It was reported to me otherwise, and I am sorry for repeating that misinformation.

Ron Paul on Abortion

This is from December, but in case you didn't catch it before (I know it's not a show pro-lifers regularly watch, if ever at all)...Here's your chance to view it again. He handles the abortion question beautifully. What a shame our party is passing up a chance to have this guy make our case and be able to persuade others. Not that I think he persuaded these women, but perhaps some of their audience.

Ron Paul is STILL in the Race

That's right.  He's the only conservative left!  And he's certainly the only pro-life candidate left.  For those of you not happy with a McCain nomination, there's still someone you can vote for...or lobby those national delegates for if your state has already elected delegates...or if it hasn't, you can consider finding some Ron Paul delegates to vote for.

That said, the man is not putting all of his eggs in one basket.  He won his reelection bid for Congress handily.  And now, he's got a regular exclusive weekly column at World Net Daily: "Texas Straight Talk". 

Ron Paul's campaign continues, even though it's "winding down".  How can that be?  He explains it this way:

"If you're in a campaign for only gaining power, that is one thing. If you're in a campaign to influence ideas and the future of the country, the campaign is never over. … The true revolution is ongoing."

God bless him!

American Right to Life Misunderstands Ron Paul

I would much rather be writing a positive and promotional post about the American Right to Life.  I have lauded their organization, their efforts and their leader from their beginning, early this year.  I agree with their approach, to focus on the personhood of the unborn.  Restoring the unalienable right to life ultimately depends on our recognition of personhood.  It's right there in Roe vs. Wade: “(If the) suggestion of personhood is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”  Whether we do that separately in all 50 states or through a federal Constitution Amendment (ratified by all 50 states), that is the goal.  No amount of child killing regulation will restore the right to life.  We can't just "chip away" at Roe vs. Wade.  We must challenge it outright. 

The decision to "focus on the strategy" is a good one, so long as it includes an approach that is lawful.  The American Right to Life Action league would do well to consider constitutional arguments from a presidential candidate who shares the principles and goals of their organization, but instead, they have chosen to slander him.  That's right.  Ron Paul, the only presidential candidate who has given the pro-life cause enough thought to write a book about it, has championed the cause of personhood in his Sanctity of Life Act, and has even won over former pro-choicers to his principled pro-life position.  Ron Paul has been ignored or written off by the media, and now more than ever, is assumed to have no chance at winning the Republican nomination, barring a miracle (which I still hope for and still believe can happen) yet is now being slandered by American Right to Life in their hit piece, "Ron Paul is pro-choice, state by state."  The timing of their anti-Romney campaign made much more sense, when he was leading in the polls, unless they know something now that we don't know about Ron Paul and his chances.   

Before the piece went public, I was even contacted and given the chance to respond, "make corrections, comments or criticisms".  I responded, but apparently they had no response to my corrections, comments and criticisms, so they went public with it anyway, without taking any of my advice into consideration.  So I publish my response below:

______________________________________________

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to this.  As you know, I have supported the efforts of American Right to Life to speak the truth on the betrayal of pro-life principles by "pro-life" leaders, organizations and politicians.  That said, I am curious as to why this effort is being spent attacking Dr. Paul, a sincere pro-lifer and critic of the betrayers, who at this point, stands little chance of winning the Republican nomination (barring a miracle, which I still hope for), nor even garnering much pro-life support (unfortunately), rather than attacking the current "frontrunner" and likely nominee, John McCain, who has the support of "Republicans for Choice", and will likely also have the support of National Right to Life. 

Also, has ARTL tried to discuss this Ron Paul to see if these disagreements are legitimate?  I would think you're in a very good position to do this.  You might also ask Pastor Chuck Baldwin (another friend of ARTL and supporter of Ron Paul) to respond to this.

Here are my responses to the claims (below in red):

1) "Ron Paul is pro-choice state by state."  RP: "While Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid."

Response: Ron Paul is pro-life state by state.  His H.R. 1094 states:

(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress-
(1) the Congress declares that--
(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

(Note that it does not say that each state has the right to allow abortion.  Ron Paul recognizes not only the proper jurisdiction, but also the proper role of the local governments to protect life, not simply to do whatever they want.)

2)   "Libertarian Party: officially pro-choice" "Libertarian Party platform: "I.8 Reproductive Rights ... We oppose government actions that... prohibit abortion..."

Response: Ron Paul is a Republican, not a Libertarian.  While yes, he shares some views with Libertarians, pro-abortion-choice is not one of them.  In fact, he pointed out his constant arguments with his Libertarian friends over this issue in his speech at this year's March for Life.  Pointing out the Libertarian platform is misleading your readers to believe he shares the views of the Libertarian Party on abortion.  With all due respect, that is irresponsible and slanderous and not worthy of an organization that claims to abide by God's Law.

3) Libertarian ProLifers: guilty of revisionism
Typical Claim: The federal government gave us abortion with the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade. What makes anyone think the federal government will end abortion.
Truth: The states began "legalizing" child killing with 19 states permitting abortion for various reasons in the seven years before Roe (MS, CO, CA, OR, NC, NY, AK, HI, WA, FL, AL, AR, DE, GA, KS, MD, NM, SC, VA) including a number with virtual abortion on demand like New York which allowed abortion through six months.

Response: In fact, both the federal government and the states gave us abortion on demand.  I don't think this is a disagreement.  However, it is the states' responsibility and jurisdiction to protect life, though it is perfectly legitimate for the federal government to lay the foundation for just principles, which Ron Paul has attempted in introducing H.R. 1094.  I have heard him make the case that we would have better success in passing laws that protect life at the local level, where government is closer and more accountable to the people, once given back the opportunity.  One can argue that, sure.  Man's law can be flawed no matter what jurisdiction it comes from.  The question is, who has the proper authority and jurisdiction?

4) Paul's 'Life' Bills:
allow abortion in the states Sanctity of Life Act of 2007: "the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review…any case arising out of any statute… on the grounds that such statute… regulates (A) the performance of abortions." Sec. 3(2) (consistent with other Paul bills)

Response: For proper context, here is more of that text:
...any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--
`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--
`(A) the performance of abortions; or
`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.'.
Again, it's a matter of who has the proper jurisdiction.

5) Even Violate Constitution:
deprive life and liberty Paul would require the federal government to violate the U.S. Constitution and tolerate child killing, rejecting the 5th and 14th Amendment: "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Response: How would he "require" this? What law has he advocated that violates depriving anyone of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or denied anyone equal protection of the laws?

6) Libertarian Falsehood:
murder is not a state's right States prosecute murder. They do not have the right to decriminalize murder. God gives no country, state, or any subdivision of government permission to tolerate the intentional killing of the innocent. The federal and state relationship is irrelevant to the legalization of abortion. If a neighboring country legalized the killing of Christians, Jews, children, or any class of person not convicted of a capital crime, it thereby commits an act of war that would justify invasion. Neither God nor the prolife movement will give the federal government a pass to look the other way when American states authorize child slaughter.

Response: Again, Ron Paul has never advocated decriminilizing murder at any level.  He simply wants to restore the proper jurisdiction to the states, which Roe vs. Wade took away.  Unlike the National Right to Life, which ARTL has rightly criticized for being duplicitous, Ron Paul does not try to have it both ways by opposing laws at the state level that would protect life.  In fact, he supports the efforts underway in Colorado and Georgia, and I'm sure he would support them in any state.  Does the American RTL advocate invading China?  Or is American RTL "pro-choice, country by country"? 

7) Libertarian Party: officially immoral Ron Paul has long worked with the Libertarian Party and spoke at its 2004 national convention and he has never repudiated them even though the Libertarian Party is officially: prolegalized abortion, prolegalized homosexuality, prolegalized pornography, prolegalized adultery, prolegalizing crack cocaine, prolegalized suicide and euthanasia, prolegalizing prostitution, and against protecting marriage between a man and a woman, The Libertarian Party is based on a humanist rather than on a JudeoChristian worldview and thus has misguided notions of governance and no compass for righteousness in law.

Response: Again, Ron Paul is a Republican, not a Libertarian.

8) Personally Prolife: means officially prochoice American RTL Action opposes candidates who are "personally" prolife.  The official position of someone who wants to be a governing official matters. If an official is personally against lynching blacks, killing Jews, and aborting kids but will officially tolerate such crimes, we will oppose him.

Response: Ron Paul is both personally and officially, pro-life and has advocated more sound pro-life laws than any other candidate for President, as covered above.

9) Constitutional States Rights:
side deals aside Ron Paul promotes a confused view of states' rights that suggests that the federal government can apathetically look the other way if the states authorize the killing of innocent human beings. No side deal that human beings make between themselves can exempt them from obligation to uphold God's enduring commands. So even if the U.S. Constitution explicitly stated that most blacks would be counted for appropriations reasons as threefifths of a person, or if it explicitly stated that the states have the right to decide whether to authorize the killing of Jews or unborn children, such provisions would be unjust and should not be defended under some perverse understanding of governmental principles but should be opposed by all.

Response: What side deal is Ron Paul making and what is confusing about his states rights position? 

10) And Then You Can Kill the Baby:
PBA fiasco Ron Paul voted for the partial birth abortion ban. Any law that ends with "and then you can kill the baby" is a bad law. Thus the PBA ban is a bad law. The U.S. Supreme Court in April 2007 upheld this wicked child-killing regulation in the most brutally vicious decision ever issued by an American court. In their majority Gonzales v. Carhart ruling the court advocated "an injection that kills the fetus" and "less shocking methods" of killing the same late-term children, and the ban explicitly keeps partial-birth abortion legal declaring that the baby can be delivered up to "the navel" and then terminated, turning this ruling into a virtual PBA manual.

Response: I agreed with ARTL on the PBA ban and so did Ron Paul, who and he spoke explicitly about it in his floor speech on the ban, and later wrote about it in "Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle".  He was torn over that bill for the same reasons we were and others, yet still decided to support it.  This is evidence to me that as president, he would be much more thoughtful about the kind of legislation he would promote, than anyone else in Congress or who's running for President.  I agree that the Supreme Court decision and the majority opinion on that case was a gruesome PBA manual, but Ron Paul wasn't voting on that statement.  He voted on the bill.  The majority opinion was written well after the bill was passed.

 
11) "States' Rights": violated by advocate Ron Paul Ron Paul, in violation of what he sees as a states' rights principle, voted for the federal partial birth abortion ban imposed upon the states. Paul rightly chastised the prolife movement (which had been led by National RTL) for sponsoring the unprincipled PBA ban, but then he voted for this federal legislation violating not only God's enduring law but also his own states' rights principles even though he acknowledged his fear that this "pro-life" law "does more harm than good" by corrupting the principles of life and further undermining the possibility of legally protecting human life from fertilization. Paul gets a lot of support from confused pro-lifers who also gave popular support to the evil PBA ban, so rather than risk alienating some pro-life voters Paul lambasted the law, then made a populist excuse, and voted for it.

Response: This gets to the heart of his dilemna of balancing the constitutional principle of states rights and the founding American and godly principle of protecting life.  When it comes down to it, I think this demonstrates his tendency to side with protecting life, even over his desire to protect states rights.  Though the PBA ban was flawed, both on states rights principles and pro-life principles, he was doing what he believed he could to support the protection of life.  However, he was not the author of this legislation, and would prefer to be voting on his superior legislation that violates neither.  However, the "pro-life" movement gave it no attention.

Thanks again, for allowing me the chance to respond.  I advise caution before proceeding, and if possible, to sit down with Dr. Paul and go over your concerns.  I would love to be part of any such efforts.

Sincerely,
Michelle

John McCain and Republicans for Choice Must Be Defeated

Update: Republicans for Choice President, Ann Stone pays Life of the Party a visit in the comments.  Gotta love this gem from Ann,  "It is following the advice of folks like you that has taken the GOP to the brink of anihilation."  Does anyone have anything to say to her?  Since the "Republicans for Choice" website is not open for comments, here  is your chance. 

While the McCain scandals are just now breaking out in the mainstream media, and as Michelle Malkin points out, "if you lie down with MSM dogs, you wake up with stories like these," conservative Republicans still have their own beefs with McCain.  The MSM scandals and the conservative beefs are sure to keep coming from many directions. 

For instance, from Republican National Coalition for Life (RNC for Life):

Some prominent pro-life Republicans have endorsed John McCain for the Republican presidential nomination. Visit the McCain for President web site — you will see some names that may surprise you http://www.johnmccain.com/supporters/. They will surprise you because, while John McCain claims a pro-life record, he supports research that involves the killing of human embryos and he justifies abortion for babies conceived through rape or incest. Those are not pro-life positions. He voted to expand taxpayer funding of embryo-killing research, and he joined other Senators in signing a letter to President Bush asking him to expand the number of embryonic stem cell lines to be used for research.

The pro-life Republicans who endorsed John McCain should be embarrassed to find themselves on the same side as Republicans for Choice, the organization created in 1990 by Washington, D.C. fundraiser Ann Stone with the stated purpose of removing the pro-life plank from the Republican National Platform. They support Roe v. Wade and oppose a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ann Stone and her supporters also understand that abortion will remain legal in this country as long as the human embryo is denied respect and protection under the law. Many pro-lifers don't "get it," but you can be sure that Republicans for Choice supporters do.

While their "first choice" Rudy Giuliani did not win, their second choice is John McCain. In asking their supporters to consider McCain in a message posted on the Republicans for Choice web site (http://www.republicansforchoice.com/) they say: "We know we can work with him to create common ground that will allow moderates and conservatives to come together to rebuild the GOP." That is code-language meaning that they think John McCain will work with them to rewrite the Republican National Platform to remove the principles that we have worked so hard to maintain since 1980.

The Republican National Coalition for Life came into existence in order to defeat the efforts of Republicans for Choice. We have done so successfully at every Republican National Convention since 1992 and we plan to do it again. If John McCain becomes the Republican nominee, he will exert tremendous pressure on the Platform Committee to bend to his will on many issues. John McCain has poked his finger in the collective eye of conservatives throughout his career. His campaign for the presidency has not been supported by social conservatives but rather, it has been buoyed by the entrance of Independents and Democrats in open primaries. If he gets the nomination, to whom will he listen? Will it be the smattering of pro-lifers who endorsed him, whatever their reasons? Or will it be to Republicans for Choice and Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lew Eisenberg, and the rest of the Eastern seaboard establishment who are bankrolling his campaign?

Life of the Party came into existance, largely inspired by RNC for Life, to do what they do on a state level, but as a private citizen and blogger.  While there is no "out" Republicans for Choice in the State of Washington, the pro-abortion-choice forces are alive and well within the state GOP, and are constantly pressuring the party to weaken the platform on life, and even to pressure pro-life candidates to not campaign on the life issues.  This way, they figure, the argument can never be made that it's a "winning issue".  Instead, pro-life Republican candidates constantly get killed on the life issues when the Democrats attack their "anti-choice" position, and the candidate is handicapped to respond for fear of losing the support of party leadershp.  For these and other similiar reasons, the Washington State Republican Party is in the tiny minority with almost no end in sight.  The candidates do not defend Republican Principles.

As the campaigns get rolling here for local offices, I will try to report to you where the candidates stand, but meanwhile, the focus is still on the presidential race. 

As the media and the GOP Establishment are closing in, and calling the nomination "sewn up" for McCain, grassroots Republicans, need to give a close look, and determine whether or not we have it in us to defeat the "inevitable".  Remember that it was a "done deal" when President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.  Remember that it was "inevitable" that Rudy Giulianin would be our nominee.  But the determination of the grassroots defeated those two "inevitables". 

Can we do it again?  Yes, if we unite the coalition.

Huckabee is not the answer.  While he says all the right stuff on the life issues, he cannot win the nomination or the presidency by being pro-life alone.  Grassroots conservatives who come to the GOP because they are activists for other good causes like fiscal conservatism or fighting illegal immigration, will not rally behind Mike Huckabee (much like they won't rally behind McCain), because they know his record.  Further, Huckabee has publicly stated that he could support McCain and that anyone who says they can't "is not a conservative".  That's an insult.

I call on my fellow pro-lifers and conservative Republicans to resist a McCain nomination, which will be a disaster for the Republican Party, not to mention, a loss to Barack Obama.  There is still time, and there is still a Republican alternative: Ron Paul, the ultimate non-McCain candidate. 

Ron Paul is solidly pro-life.  As a congressman, he has introduced legislation that would define life as beginning at conception and turn Roe vs. Wade on its ear.  His proposed bill has largely been ignored by the "cosmetically pro-life" politicians in D.C.  As president, this proposed legislation would be given much more publicity and suppport from the grassroots to pressure Congress to pass it.  To learn more, visit his Life and Liberty page. 

Ron Paul opposes amnesty for illegal immigration.  Further, he wants to restore the original intent of the 14th Amdendment and remove birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, and remove the welfare incentives that drive illegal immigration here.  It should also be noted, that Ron Paul is not interested in punishing churches or private charities who give aid to illegal immigrants.  Visit his Border Security and Immigration Reform page to learn more.   

Ron Paul has never voted for a tax increase or for an unbalanced budget.  He has much to say about inflation, run away spending and our fraudulant and unconstitutional monatary system.  No other current or previous candidate in this presidential race has addressed these issues the way Ron Paul has.  Visit his Debt and Taxes and Inflation Tax to find out more. 

Ron Paul supports our right to keep and bear arms.  He has offered legislation that would guard our second amendment rights, including repealing the Brady Bill and the "assault weapons" ban before its sunset in 2004.  You can read more on his Second Amendment page.   

Yes, Ron Paul voted against the war in Iraq.  Is this a deal breaker for you?  Perhaps you should have a look at his perspective, in his own words, on Iraq.  Despite his detractors calling him a pacifist, he is strong on defense, and his biggest contributors are active duty military from the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force.   If after reading his position on Iraq, you are still not won over, are you willing to give up all of the other Republican Principles (and give up restoring constitutional principles) to stay in Iraq? 

On just about every issue conservatives care about, Ron Paul is a champion.  (You can learn more on his issues page.)  It's a wonder the conservative movement as a whole, hasn't caught on yet.  Though he does already have a movement of supporters ready to carry on the fight, whether he gets the nomination or not, and mostly within the GOP. 

McCain is leading now for a few reasons: 1) The MSM media has given him help, 2) Democrats have been able to vote in our primaries, working to give us the weakest nominee, and 3) conservative opposition has been divided among the other candidates. 

I urge my fellow conservatives to join me in doing everything we can to defeat McCain with the real non-McCain candidate: Ron Paul.   

Update on Washington State Caucus Results

Washington State Party Chairman Luke Esser has posted his explanation of the now national controversy over the caucus results, attempting to do some damage control.

Saturday, February 09, 2008
2008 Precinct Caucus Results

Statewide Results 2008 Precinct Caucuses:

Precincts Reporting	96.0 %
Candidates	Percentage
Huckabee	23.3 %
McCain	25.6 %
Paul	21.4 %
Romney	15.3 %
Other	1.1 %
Uncommitted	13.3%

Last Updated: Monday, 2/11/2008, 11:25 PM

Notice 1: The margin between Paul and Huckabee is tighter than the margin between Huckabee and McCain.

Notice 2: There is no winner yet in Washington State, and there will not be until the end of May at the State Convention.  Some very interesting dynamics can take place with such a divided result of the first step of our process.  Who among those delegates will be sent to the next level?  Look at the percentage for Romney (who has dropped out or "suspended" his campaign), "other" and "uncommitted".  Which way will they go?  It depends on what issues motivate them most.

Notice 3: This is very sloppy reporting by the WSRP.  They have still not posted the breakdown by county, which makes it tougher for anyone to check the veracity of these reported "results".    

I'm a Ron Paul Delegate!

UPDATE: Results from my pooled caucus according to the pooled caucus chairman:

16 for Ron Paul
14 for Mike Huckabee
11 for John McCain
7 uncommitted, or PCOs who didn't show but may still be eligible to be automatic delegates
3 for Mitt Romney

___________________________________________________________________________

Washington State held its precinct caucuses today, the first step in our state's nominating process.  My precinct was in a "pooled caucus" with approximately 25 other precincts, averaging about 5 participants each. 

My precinct had 8 participants.  1 Romney supporter, 2 Huckabee supporters, 1 McCain supporter, 2 "uncommitteds" and 1 Paul supporter (me). 

Our precinct is allocated 2 delegates.  There were 5 nominees.  1 Huckabee, 1 Paul (me), 1 McCain, 2 "uncommitteds".  On the first and only ballot for delegates, I was tied with the Huckabee supporter for 1st place.  So both of us were elected.  The alternates are split between McCain, Huckabee and "Uncommitted". 

In the other precincts that met in my pooled caucus, it looked to be overwhelmingly for Paul, but I do not yet have the final numbers.  There are reports around the state that in some districts and counties, Paul won the most delegates. 

Ron Paul National Delegate Count Now 42 or More

Don't give up, Ron Paul supporters.  Stay the course. 

Read why it's not over.