The Rules Fight Food Fight
Any hope that Mitt Romney might have had that the Ron Paul faction of the Republican Party would mind their P’s and Q’s during his coronation at the GOP convention has come a cropper. And ironically, the revolt is the result of his own efforts to reform the rules to make sure that a tiny minority can’t overturn the will of the majority who voted in a state primary.
An old-fashioned floor fight is brewing over new rules pushed through by the Romney campaign that have the Ron Paul delegates up in arms, as well as several state party chairmen who believe that the national party is trying to seize control over the delegate selection process. For the insurgent Paul forces, the rules changes would prevent them from wreaking the kinds of havoc at state GOP conventions that led to chaos in Louisiana and bitter clashes between the factions at the Nevada and Maine state conventions. At issue is a rule that would allow presidential candidates to vet delegates in order to insure their loyalty, and another rule designed to squash incipient revolts like the Ron Paul insurgency that would require delegations from statewide caucuses and conventions to adhere to the will of the majority who voted.
The latter rule is what is angering the Paul people. With a brilliant organizing effort, the Paul campaign literally took over the state conventions in Nevada, Maine, and Louisiana, catching establishment Republicans unawares and sending their own delegations to the Tampa convention. In Louisiana, regular GOP party members didn’t take their demotion gracefully. They called in the police, who physically escorted some Paul delegates out of the hall, injuring several. The establishment Republicans then went ahead and held a rump convention where they elected their own delegates. The Maine and Nevada state conventions were hardly less peaceful, with the well-organized Paul campaign running rings around the establishment Republicans.
The point is that the Paul delegates played by the rules while establishment Republicans, in fear of losing power, made up their own rules as they went along. No candidate for national office can afford that kind of chaos — especially from outriders who threaten the unity of the party and his chances for victory. Hence the effort to channel the Ron Paul revolution into more productive avenues. From here on out, if a Ron Paul-type candidate wants to rule, he must do it first at the ballot box and not depend on the politics of ambush.
The consequences of the Ron Paul revolt at state convention are now being felt in Tampa. The Romney campaign allowed 17 Paul delegates from Louisiana to be seated at the convention, the result of a compromise between the state party and the chairman of the Paul campaign. Another delegate dust up in Massachusetts was also settled with the Paul campaign being allowed 17 delegates — despite Romney winning 72% of the primary vote in his home state. And despite the fact that the convention-credentialing committee rejected the entire Maine delegation — all Ron Paul supporters — a compromise was reached that would seat 10 Romney and 10 Paul supporters.
The Paul campaign was in the right. They did their homework, they got their people to the state conventions, and they knew procedure and had Robert’s Rules of Order down pat. And if politics were about who was the most able, the smartest, and the most clever, the Ron Paul campaign would have gotten their just deserts and had many more delegates than what they will end up with.
But politics can be a cruel game. The inexcusable behavior of the GOP establishment in several states notwithstanding, Mitt Romney doesn’t need this — can’t afford this — at this juncture of the campaign. If politics is about grasping for power, all else must be subservient to that goal. The candidate is getting lukewarm support from several factions of the GOP, even while Ron Paul refuses to endorse him. Putting out the image that the candidate can’t control his own party is not conducive to victory in November. The last candidate to lose control of his convention — George McGovern — ended up giving his acceptance speech after midnight and losing badly in 1972.
Puh-leez…
– fine then. You do this; we will remember when your son runs and he will.
I’ll remember it a lot earlier than that – November is only a few months away, and if Romney is such a monopolist boor that he can’t allow any dissent at his coronation, he can do without my vote. Plenty of third parties out there for a protest vote.
And most of the people “dissenting” on behalf of RonPaul are idiots like you who’d rather help elect the communist. RonPaul and most of the people who support him need to leave the Republican Party and go become irrelevant in the Libertarian Party. Actually, most of the Paultards I’ve seen wouldn’t even fit in with actual Liberarians. The Libertarians do have a philosophical position, mostly wrong, but they have it; Paultards in the main are just malcontents, aginners, who’ll line up with any group that stomps its feet and screams “I don’t like it!”
Wrong again, I’ve never been a Paul supporter. You just don’t get it, do you?
Oh, now I understand; you’re one of those self-annointed “true conservatives” that wants a Republican Party that might carry a half dozen CDs in the rural South or rural West.
“Merkin Muffley
Wrong again, I’ve never been a Paul supporter. . .”
Prove it. You just don’t get it, do you? Paul and the Libertarians talk like conservatives and act like Democrats. They lost in the primaries then Hi-Jacked the conventions.
Good grief, what is wrong with these people. The only thing they will succeed at it re-electing Obama. Look what he has done for you so far. Support Mitt!!
This explains why those well-known Ron Paul fanatics, Michelle Malkin, Mark Levin, FreedomWorks, et. al. are against the Romney rule changes. Thanks, Rick, I feel so much better now. Centralized power in the hands of our betters always brings about superior results.
Romney rule changes
Anybody know where this “Romney rule change” nonsense is coming from? Romney is not the RNC and the RNC is not Romney.
That sounds like BS to me.
According to my friend, Cathy Adams, former chair of the Texas GOP and chair of the Texas Eagle Foundation, it’s coming not from the Paulbots, but from Romney’s troops.
Odd that Rick Moran would want to dump this entirely on Paulbots when both Freedom Works and the Eagle Foundation are both against it. I guess in Moran’s mind, they are now Paulbots. But don’t expect ALL the facts from Rick Moran, that’s not his m.o.
Nicely played snark!
Since you like rule by elites, why are you not working for the Democrats?
Oh, you are.
The rules are there precisely to prevent this kind of strong arming – and I like it from republican socialists no better than I do democrat communists.
Great idea. Not only will it screw the Paulbots but it will also screw the Tea Party and other grassroots organizations that the exalted leaders of the party detest. Absolute power does what?
Wow, so it’s “absolute power” to say “the voters shall rule”?
Delusional much?
All you whiners, here’s the deal: we voters expect that our will will reign triumphant. When I vote for Romney, or Perry, or anyone else, I expect that my vote will be translated into support for the candidate I voted for.
I have no idea who the delegates are. I don’t give a shit who the delegates are. I don’t want to have to give a shit who the delegates are.
If you think that it is legitimate to play rules games and subvert the will of the voters, YOU are the enemy, and YOU are the one who should be joining with the Democrats, because you are acting like them.
You want to tell us how you’re actually trying to represent the voters, and the “Establishment” is trying to screw the voters over, we’ll listen.
Whine about being “disenfranchised” when no one voted for you in the first place? Piss off.
Here here!
Delegates are to represent the one who sent them–the people.
Playing the delegate game like Ron Paul has is nothing more than short-circuiting the fact that he is dead last for votes from The People. It is also a power-grab
because he is ignoring the majority in the name of his own ideology.
That reminds me more of an Eastern Bloc dictator than it does Washington or Jefferson…
http://yitzachmeyer.blogspot.com/2012/07/is-it-over-for-ron-paul-it-should-be.html
“Rules games”? Great, but don’t let me ever hear that you’re criticizing O’bwana for his bogus recess-appointments or executive-order legislating. After all, he won the most votes, so he can do anything he wants. McGovern’s convention problems had near-zero impact on the election results — his idiotic, feminized policies did. Romney is a Mormon (not good); he believes that abortion should be okay in cases of ‘rape’ and incest (bad); and now his people are trying to shut Tea Partiers and other troublemakers out of any voice in the GOP Convention (intolerable). I just can’t swallow this one. I’m gonna vote for the least-bad third party candidate and hope that the Rightists can start one (or maybe more) of their own in time for ’16.
Nice try. The rules change may affect the Paulbots, but it also neuters, in perpetuity, everyone else who comes to the convention to hold the party’s feet to the fire on conservative issues. Let me guess, you live inside the beltway, right?
Well, Harry, it’s really quite simple. You want to go to the convention and “hold [the Establishment's] feet to the fire”? Great! Find a candidate who wants a delegate like you, then convince enough people to vote for that candidate so that you get selected to go to the Convention.
What’s that? It’s not worth your effect to achieve that democratic legitimacy? Or, you tried, and failed? Then you lose.
I value democracy, even when it goes against me. If you don’t, then you don’t value democracy. And in that case, I’m very happy you won’t have any power at the Republican National Convention.
Too bad you don’t understand that we don’t live in a democracy. We live in a representative republic.
Think about that term “representative” for awhile and see if you can wrap your brain around it.
One of the things I like least about Paultards and something they share with Lefties and other malcontents is a sneering condescension for anyone who doesn’t agree with them, especially with their more stupid applications of some or another theory. One can have a spirited discussion smoking dope after one’s Political Science 101 class over whether a legislator or Congressman is elected to express the will of the people or to exercise his/her judgement on behalf of the people. In a state legislature or the Congress it is and interesting question with an answer somewhere in the middle; the legislator is positioned to know more about many issues than the People, so s/he must exercise judgement, but if that judgement goes too far astray from the will of the People, he loses the next election.
Delegates to a Party convention are elected to represent a particular candidate on behalf of the people who voted for that candidate in a Primary or a caucus/convention; they have no independent judgement in exercising that vote. In short, the Paultards want to snatch votes from other candidates by either misrepresenting who they supported in their selection as delegates or by having some “conversion” to Paul since being elected on behalf of some other candidate. See, there, I wrapped my head around it. It’s pretty simple stuff actually; just too complicated for Paultards.
Good, good, sneer away. Have fun getting your plastic idol elected without the “Paultards”. 10 million voters went for Romney, 2 million voted for Paul. Purism is fun, now you can figure out how to win without their votes.
The opposition to Romney’s coup attempt is precisely that he’s trying to ban delegates elected according to State Party rules and substitute anybody he wants to, whether they’ve even campaigned for votes or not. This is the same crap we’ve had to fight since Scranton, Rockefeller, and the other Country-Club, Leftist Republicans treacherously refused to support Goldwater in ’64. Romney is the same kind of guy. He’d much prefer to lose the election than allow anybody to the right of Charlie Crist or Jeb Bush have any voice in the Party. One way or another, these Leftist fifth-columnists have to be disappeared. If that means starting a new third party, so be it.
If the Republicans gathered in Tampa don’t get their act together and present a unified front to the Democrats, right now, they’re going to lose this vital election.
And if the Republicans do present this ‘unified’ front, it’s what, a win? For the RINO establishment, maybe. Feh. This rule change is exposed for the disgusting power grab that it is. Shame on all of them. Go ahead . . .keep abusing party members already begrudged with the choice of candidate, this election is Mitt’s to lose.
At least in the case of Maine, reports of Paul’s supporters’ virtue may be a wee bit overstated.
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/08/23/politics/rnc-deals-new-blow-to-paul-supporters-effort-to-seat-all-20-convention-delegates/
This hurts the Tea Party and other groups, but this is not the fault of the “elite” who control the party, it is a direct result of the #Occupy like tactics (thankfully stopping short of rape and public defecation).
The Ron Paul evangelicals sowed chaos during caucuses, and state and local conventions. They did not use parliamentary procedure, they abused it. They made sub-motions to sub-motions of other sub-motions to the point that the conventions were often paralyzed. They went out of their way to drive other people away from the conventions until they were the last ones standing.
They are a small cabal that will throw temper-tantrum after temper-tantrum like small children because they don’t get their way. And when they do successfully take over, they whine about how everyone else won’t blindly support them after they’ve spitefully purged the party of unbelievers.
As I’ve said before: I’ve known Birchers who were good patriotic people who cared about liberty, just as I’ve met Ron Paul supporters who were good patriotic people who cared about liberty; but William F. Buckley said that for the good of the movement, we must kick-out the Birchers, and we today must do the same to the Ron Paul cultists.
Let’s not be too hasty in counting out the threat of public defecation…
Careful there, Hat, else you’ll be tagged as a DC-beltway “insider” would-be Romney monarchist yourself.
The Ronulans demonstrate the problem with True Believers of any stripe: since they’re absolutely right, anyone who disagrees is absolutely wrong. In this case, since some folks are (reasonably) pointing out that delegates should be bound to the candidate who won that state, Ronulans slander them with various names.
…This business clears one point up for me. I’ve been reading dark hints, for several months, by Ronulans on various blogs that “things” weren’t settled yet, and just wait for the convention!
Now I know what they’ve been up to. Cause a stink at the convention if they don’t get what they want.
I don’t think Levin or Malkin are ROn Paul supporters but they are so much into purity after Bush and MCCain. The Tea Party complains about the neo-conservatives but some of the tea party are divided on the immigration platform, some tea party want e-verify while others believe small and big business should hire even people with fake ID’s. While Romney not perfect, I blame the far right for the problems at the convention. PS Goldwater was like Paul he didn’t like anything like e-verify of employees either.
Goldwater was like Paul he didn’t like anything like e-verify of employees either.
Goldwater had no opinion on e-verify. It did not exist in his time.
It is not just the Paul supporters who oppose the rule change. Many Romney supporters oppose it as well.
The GOP began to fracture during President W.Bush administration. PNAC war bunnies took over his white House, something they could not do under President H. Bush administration. Iraq was direct result of PNAC bunnies, who continue to split and fracture the GOP with ideologies that serve corporate greed.
Carl rove was brilliant triangulating religious right with corporate interests with grass roots, but in this was also the seeds for today’s discontent. We are watching the result of Political strategy to win elections in 2000 and 2004, but created long term damage to the party.
President Lincoln was the result of a Split convention, and the GOP wants to rewrite rules that gave us one of our greatest Leaders. This is truly sad to watch.
This is a time for the Big Tent. It is not a time to be purging for purity. Big Tents can be messy, there can be strife, there can be gamesmanship…..but it’s a Big Tent. To play this petty game right now is to risk another four years of Obamanation because “OMG! Some Tea Partiers might get frisky!”
I’m trying to figure out how rules changes designed to ensure the will of the voters in Republican primaries are honored at conventions is in any way insidious, as is implied here.
For example, here in Nevada, the Paulestineans are most certainly NOT “in the right.” The state GOP overwhelmingly passed rules binding delegates to our caucus vote (a direct result of this same elitist we-know-better-than-the-voters nonsense the Paul folks were responsible for in 2008 here), the caucuses were held with that premise, and so as a result, non-Paul supporters had no particular reason to go to a convention no matter how interested they were in the election. For them to attempt to change the rules after the fact and in effect negate the will of about 81% of Nevada’s caucus-going Republicans is NOT “being in the right” by any sane definition of that phrase.
Moreover, the Paul people, at least here, don’t WANT the GOP to win. Many of them are pretty open about it.
Let’s make the tent as big as possible, but not bigger.
Why do you think twice as many Democrats voted for Paul than Republicans in open primaries
Attention, Ron Paul supporters: Your guy lost, fair and square. People made their voices heard – at the polls. I hate them changing the rules, too; unfortunately it’s necessary because YOU guys are acting like Democrats; they’re just a bunch of sore losers wearing tin-foil hats. Wouldn’t it be just DANDY if one of your troupe were to make a big scene at the convention? Yeah, the media won’t play that up from now until 2020. Don’t be like Democrats.
You want your voices heard? Fine. Start a movement that hits the issues that you want covered. You want a return to the gold standard? Hey, me too. You want the Fed abolished? Me doubly too. You want us to stop nation-building in countries where they all hate us? Oh boy, you better believe that I want that as well (though I’m not opposed to a certain amount of “more rubble, less trouble”). Get organized, put together some grassroots organizations, and make your voices heard- after the election. Nothing that you do now will get your candidate in there, but you can still make every effort to get elements of your vision implemented. Anything you do now will create a storyline of GOP disunity that the media will use to put Obama back in. Count on it.
DON’T destroy the convention with your petty squabbling. DON’T provide the media a narrative that destroys our chances for (at the very least) slowing down the leviathan that threatens to consume us all. You lost – now it’s time regroup and figure out why (this was the same message the GOP had to internalize in 2006 and 2008)…and do it without blowing up the convention (pretty please).
If Ron Paul “lost”, then why is the Republican establishment having to resort to these strong arm tactics? Obviously he doesn’t have enough to win the nomination, but he does have a good chunk of them. Rules are rules – Republicans complain that Obama isn’t obeying the law, then they do this?
Because Ron Paul’s Brownshirts are using Parliamentary rules to overturn the will of the voters.
Can you read? Because that was pretty clearly stated in the article.
Also, they’re changing the rules now, so that in the future no one can try to do this.
Agree. WantAd for grownups.
I supported and gave money to Newt and Santorum.
Guess what…? Now I’m sending money to Romney. This is a political and ideological war, not a battle. Romney is feeling it in his bones, i.e., the Paul Ryan choice. Failure is not an acceptable option and I’m feeling pretty damn good right now because we have a winner, folks!
If you look at the Paul people, they aren’t the builders or the fixers or the people who meet payrolls. They are disgruntled, self-exclusionary misfits with a bitch, and that is never going away. “Paulestinians” is an excellent moniker. Not libertarians in any meaningful sense, they will embrace that label as long as it keeps them on the outside-looking-in. Alienation is their purpose and feeds the psychological ticks which give them an identity.
We’ve all known people thought to be independent thinkers who simply turned out to be quirky and insatiable.
Well, on second blush it seems that the Ron Paul contingent is the convenient lightning rod for this, but they are not the main issue.
Stupid RNC, Stupid. Stupid. You don’t need to take power from us when, hell, we supply it as we did in 2010. Maybe the republicans the TeaParty picked weren’t your “cup?” Thats been reciprocated many times over, believe me.
So, this is much bigger than just the Paul people. Stupid me.
I was going to write a longer reply pointing out the deficiencies of this article but instead I’ll just add Rick Moran to my ignore list.
It’s crazy. The country is being government by the worst Democratic administration ever, and the Republican party has apparently decided to commit suicide.
First, by deciding to make the election about social issues – gay marriage & abortion. I mean, we’re only in another Great Depression pretty much, it’s social issues that matter, even though the only one that cares are religious types.
Secondly, by declaring war on one of the factions of your own party – the libertarian wing. Great, go ahead and antagonize your most enthusiastic members.
I mean, seriously, is that that hard to just let Ron Paul speak at the convention? Other than foreign policy, most Republicans agree with him. And even his foreign policy is hardly foreign to the Republican party – it was their stance until relatively recently.
But the stupid party will be the stupid party.
First, I’m not sure where you came up with the idea that same-sex marriage or abortion are the main campaign issues. The issues are the economy, jobs, taxes and ObamaCare. Have you been paying any attention whatsoever???
As for the incorrect analysis that the party is declaring war on the libertarian wing – just the opposite. By hijacking delegates it never rightfully won through the votes of registered Republican voters, the Paulistas declared war on the GOP and through deception disenfranchised registered Republican voters from having a voice at the convention.
Ron Paul doesn’t deserve to speak at the convention, because his delegates were accumulated unethically and immorally, albeit legally per the rules.
You are also vastly mistaken about Ron Paul’s foreign policy being mainstream in the least.
A Pox on Paul and his dishonest acolytes.
I think you need to check who made this about social issues. The social issues are coming from the dems and the media who keep bringing it up and asking about it. They have no serious record to run on so they hope they can drag this campaign into something else. Watch the two conventions and you will see. The reps will talk about the economy and the Dems are staging Abortapalooza featuring such luminaries as Sandra Fluke. Then, try to tell us that the Reps are running a social issues campaign.
Rick Moran would be more at home at the Daily Kos. Maybe he’d angling for a job with rhe new team in DC.
Using the word “coronation” says quite a bit about your world view Mr. Moran :/
So Paulites are using parliamentary procedure to overwhelm the legitimately voted preference of the people, and they are “in the right” because they used the right loopholes? Isn’t that more or less exactly what we have been deriding Obama for? If they were using procedure to get votes in states where they had won, but their rightful delegates were denied, I guess I could understand, but they aren’t.
How about Paul and his folks just winning votes through persuasion if they want to be a candidate? This rationalization that “we know we are right so it’s ok if we are thugs” is exactly why I have been unable to vote for the cult of Paul despite my agreement with many of his policies. You see it all over their Internet presence too, with Paulites trying to yell over anyone who disagrees.
Fine Tuning the Rules….
I would remind the Establishment within the GOP to look at the stability and serene sense of order that exists within the Democrat Party since they implemented rules changes in the wake of the McGovern candidacy – and the three exemplary Presidents that resulted from those changes.
Remember, when the voters are presented with a choice of a Democrat, or a Democrat, they will vote for the (real) Democrat, not the pale-imitation that you wish to present them with.
If Mitt, and the Establishment can’t deal with internal controversies, and intellectual dissent, they have no business in politics.
The GOP has had a remarkable continuity of Rules that encourage all to engage on that level playing field.
Stop trying to Screw the Pooch!
Morons!
Rick,
I see the point you’re making, and it’s a good one.
Nevertheless, the political party is a means to an end, not and end in its own right.
One is confident that Mitt Romney grasps this, but, should Romney veer high and to the right, a third party, endorsed by some conservative media names is not a far-fetched possibility.
The RNC organizers should have done the smart thing and given Ron Paul a speech slot, morning or early afternoon, and let his delegates hoot and holler for a couple of hours. Some libertarian speechifying would be a good thing for religious conservative Republicans to hear. It’ll remind them that they’re not the only people under the tent.
Then, after the speech, everyone can get on with the business of forgetting about Ron Paul, the candidate. His ideas, to the extent they are not already part of the Republican plan (and to which they have merit) will go home with the conventioners to simmer for another cycle. And some ideas by Paul are already in the plan, such as repealing Obamacare, judicial nominations that favor originalism over outcome-based activism, lower Federal spending, less debt, changing the entitlement equations, etc. although it’s sometimes hard to convince the more purist Libertarians, who prefer politically impossible perfection to politically achievable baby steps, of that.
It always amazes me when the neoconvicts put on a big show about blaming their latest election crimes on the victim. She was asking for it, they say. She *deserved* to be taught a lesson and the greater good demanded she get it. It was in her social contract.
And so it is that the neoconvicts will pick the delegates from all of your states themselves. And let us be perfectly clear about that: You are blessed to have such brave and daring and god fearing patriot scholars to relieve you of that electoral burden. For should you ever be lucky enough to glimpse them, to witness them exercising their infallible insight, well then you surely would be in awe of them, an awe befitting your lowly caste. And you should be grateful to be so privileged, as no others in history before you have ever been, to have them sustain party unity and ensure the safety of delegates, all to your own personal benefit. And benefit you surely do. No more time wasted weighing issues. No more tiresome casting of ballots. And you know as well as we, that it is true, that it all only led to disappointment anyway. So much better you leave matters of consent and autonomy and representation to expert consultants, as is their royal birthright. For they know far better than you what you deserve. So start being quiet when they bend you over. And start acting grateful that they care for you so much.
Some excellent comments here in the thread, Art Chance’s thoughts as usual being among the best.
I won’t repeat/repost what has already been succinctly stated.
I will however add my voice, in the form of a post, as being against Ron Paul’s convention tactics in particular and his movement in general. I do that because Paul supporters routinely trample on common courtesy, look for loopholes rather than looking for the legitimate path to victory, and are happy to leverage any situation in order to make their numbers look larger than they are. I salute them for their passion and committment, and I reject them for their tactics and close-mindedness. You cannot achieve personal freedom through bullying and intimidation. It’s too reminiscent of the tactics of Occupy and the left in general, where their observable actions are contrary to their stated values.
I do not want to connect Ron Paul supporters to Occupy — but I can’t help but notice that both groups seem to value GETTING ATTENTION and BEING DISRUPTIVE over getting results.
“Contrarian” is a good term. No matter the position, they act superior to you, they know better than you, they even know better than all those stupid voters and if you’d just join their group they’d MAGICALLY FIX EVERYTHING because they’re so super smart, and why can’t you see that?
I played tabletop RPGs for a number of years, and what the Palistinians did is indicative of the behavior of certain type of player you’d usually get at least one of in every group. This player knew every rule intimately and knew exactly how to use those rules to gain every advantage. That player didn’t care whether what he was doing was according to the spirit of the game or not. All he cared about was that he could gain every advantage over everyone else at the table and have every possible advantage over anything the GM might throw at him. It often made the game pretty poor fun for everyone else, and the smart GM often had to take extraordinary measures to keep the peace and control this player, and every GM walked a fine line between control and outright table tyranny.
We called him the Rules Lawyer. And this is exactly what the Paulistinians are doing and the response they have provoked. Only time will tell if the party has broken the line into tyranny or not with the rules changes.
True to form, the neoconvict apologists accuse the rest of the party of what they actually do themselves.
Who do you crooks think you are fooling?
You seem to have trouble understanding and accepting rules of law and will of the people.
The Ron Paul campaign followed the rules to get these delegates. Guess what, smart asses, the RNC is also FOLLOWING THE RULES to change them.
These Paul Cultists are acting like a group of immature, whiny, little turds because they didn’t get their way. If you want to get your message out, convince people, don’t force it on them.
And this joke coming from Limbaugh, Palin, and Levin that this is hurting the grassroots? WTF??? The GRASSROOTS voted during the elections at each one of these state primary’s and Caucuses. GRASSROOTS does not mean a horde of snobbish little pricks rabble-rousing a delegate station to get their way. Guess what? Romney won the grass roots at the state election. The voice of the people choose Romney.
You Paultards are a bunch of brownshirt, cultists. You hate the rule of law. For all your Constitution touting, do you think Madison, Washington, Jefferson or Adams would have approved of this BS? Did they force their ideology on people? NO! They gained peoples’ support the right way.
Go home and try again, work on your communication skills and get a new, less mentally insane, candidate for 2020, AND, DAMMIT, BEAT OBAMA IN NOVEMBER!
There is really nothing to post, CF’s post sums up the truth pretty well.
Actually, the Paulistinians did NOT follow the rules – they planted delegates who planned to nominate Paul, even if it violated their state’s delegate rules. They attempted to cheat the system.
Exactly.
People are forgetting that PEOPLE VOTED during the Primaries and Ron Paul LOST. It wasn’t even close. He got his butt handed to him.
So instead of respecting the will of the people on who voted, Ron Paul wants to kick and scream and throw a tantrum? All that does is PROVE he was never cut out to be President in the first place.
People are ALSO forgetting that we need to JOIN TOGETHER to defeat Barack Obama. This is election has SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES.
Ron Paul supporters who refuse to help defeat Obama should think hard about what they will explain to their grandchildren. “Well, we didn’t help get rid of that socialist because… we were pouting about the primaries.”
Oh — and if libertarian-leaning Ron Paul supporters want to win in the future — you might want to work on GETTING VOTERS. Acting like tantrum children, however, only guarantees that people like me will never support Ron Paul for President. Know when to bow out with class, not drag everybody down into the mud.
The Paulistinians attempted to violate state delegate laws; they wish to circumvent the will of the people, and the rule of law.
They were outed and routed.
I am a small-l libertarian but I am not a member of the Ron Paul cult and I will vote for Romney/Ryan.
Ron Paul cultists who are promising to vote for Gary Johnson or Obama now, were never going to vote for Romney anyway.
Did you know this? Marines vs. Zetas: U.S. Hunts Drug Cartels in Guatemala By Robert Beckhusen August 29, 2012
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/marinesvszetas/
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m very upset about this rule change – and I’m definitely not a Ron Paul supporter.
Just look at what can happen here, particularly if Romney wins the election and becomes the pro forma 2016 candidate. If you thought crony capitalism was bad, imagine the cronyism which would occur for that convention. As I understand the rule, there is no guarantee a person could be duly elected to be a convention delegate yet serve – if the Romney people in a state wanted someone else to take your place, out you go.
In our state (Maryland) we elect three convention delegates and alternates per Congressional district (a total of 24 each) and 10 at-large delegates and alternates at our state convention. That state convention election turns out to be very much a name recognition contest, but a group push can get people elected (case in point: since the Eastern Shore was snubbed in 2008, we made it a point to vote for delegates/alternates from our part of the state, and picked up several.)
But if these rules are followed, anyone who questions the establishment may never see the convention floor, regardless of the merits of their criticism. I suspect it will be a topic of discussion leading into our next state convention.