BREAKING: Ron Paul OFFICIAL STATEMENT on DELEGATE STRATEGY

[tbone717]

By the way, if anyone wants to learn how to be an effective activist in their local community, PM me and I will be happy to share some info with you.

 

[kathy88]

I think Ron might not know where the 'brawling' came from and that some might have used that to make him feel responsible for violence rather than that we were the ones hit. I don't know that, but I could see it.

Benton probably told him "his supporters" were starting fist fights at the conventions. LOL.

 

[rb3b3]

even if the campaign felt they couldbnt win, why would they tell all of us that? to me thats giving up and quitting!!! i can not believe they would come out with this statement!!! all the heard earned money i invested into this caMPAIGN, all the momentum we have created over the last month, just when things started to get good and there was a sense that maybe just maybe we can win this thing, NOW they come out today and tell us they cant win barring a miracle???????? WOW i cant tell all of you how so very dissapointed i am!!! sound slike they are conceding... whats next? a ron paul endoresment of MITT ROMNEY?? FKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

 

[DrHendricks]

I just don't see where this campaign strategy is coming from? What is the motive for this?

How do we get from winning delegate races in states all over the country and delegates being free agents to this???

After the last few wins I had real belief that we could force a brokered convention. WHY THIS???

 

[tsai3904]

The problem is that in 5 or so years I can see the conversation we're having right now being illegal on the internet.

As Ron Paul said (and I'm paraphrasing), if you understand the problems and yet do nothing in your power to fight it, you are just as at fault as the perpetrators.

 

[tbone717]

even if the campaign felt they couldbnt win, why would they tell all of us that? to me thats giving up and quitting!!! i can not believe they would come out with this statement!!!

Personally, I think that they did this prior to the money bomb for a reason. Ron is a very honest man, and if he knew that the funds would not go for winning the nomination, he wanted it to be clear to all that there is a shift in course, so that they could donate with that in mind.

Just my opinion of course, but that does seem to be the logical reason for the timing.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Disagree. You imply that we are stupid or delusional. We are neither. We knew there was not going to be any momentum. But we are fearless and tireless and we are the good guys in this war. People are pissed because the campaign's recent "releases" give off the impression (whether it is true or not) that Ron is distancing himself from grassroots. After all the blood, sweat, tears and financial help people are pissed. We knew what the deal is. We may have argued about it not being so, but again, we are not stupid or delusional. Ron promised to keep going until Tampa a long time ago. This release sounds defeatist in nature.

If anything I'll work that much harder to get our delegates to Florida. Benton may have tried to save face by asking us to play nice but, well..... fuck him.

I might just be your cheerleader all day long.

Anyone see any merit to this? (I do):

This move on their part, I think, is three-fold:

1. They probably realize that anything can happen in Tampa (the "unforeseen" events), including Paul faction "stealing" the nomination from Mitt Romney. This move is calculated to place the blame on the grassroots.
2. How do you make sure you gain enough delegates to affect the platform, but not freak-out the GOP? By conceding the nomination.
3. It also signals to the GOP what has been always true: the official campaign has never been able to control the grassroots. If chaos happens in Tampa, it will not be the official camp's fault... Protecting Rand Paul.

https://twitter.com/#!/aheram

I don't really fault the campaign either. They are a political organization. I never trust a political organization. Ron started a bushfire, time to get a little radical.

We aim to misbehave.

Yes, I believe there is some merit to what you are saying. They have never controlled us, so I don't see why anyone is letting them do it now. This was never going to be easy.

 

[sailingaway]

I agree that Ron Paul should and most likely will have a significant role in leading the liberty movement. My point is that we are not utilizing our scarce resources (phone banks) effectively to leverage Ron Paul's future role. What would have a more lasting effect...an extra 20k votes in California or Texas or controlling the State GOPs in Michigan and Washington? Our phone banks are calling California and Texas for what purpose? If we can turn those around and call Michigan and Washington supporters to get people to file as Precinct Committee People by the end of the week, that will give Ron more leverage in the future.

that might be true. Or, maybe not for Texas where it is still a convention process (and Ron's own home state, so let's do our best for him), but in CA it ISN'T. Although, maybe in CA the phone banks are going to areas they have researched to be Ron's best, for district wins. Even so, with no media in a media dominated area, it is going to be tough here. But we will do our best.

 

[jay_dub]

Actually I have read the fairvote piece and the original source. The fairvote piece addresses a "unit rule" which is prohibited under Rule 38 of the RNC. A "unit rule" is an old tactic that used to occur quite often when the nomination was decided in the proverbial smoke filled rooms. Essentially, what would occur is for example, a state has 10 delegates, the delegates would vote prior to the convention vote and let's say the results were 7 votes for Smith and 3 for Jones. The state delegation would then vote as a unit and cast all 10 ballots for Smith. That is no longer allowed under RNC rules, and does not apply to any of the situations we are seeing this year. Under current rules each vote, even if it is unanimously for one candidate, is considered an individual vote. Therefore a state like VA this year cannot nullify the 3 delegate votes that Paul has and cast all of their votes for Romney.

The quote from Jennifer Sheehan originally was cited here - http://utahcountygop.com/blog/mr-jenkins-goes-to-st-paul/. If you read that piece (which was published in 2009) the article speaks of the situation that Utah faced in 2008. Utah's delegates were bound to Romney by way of the primary results, Romney dropped out and the delegates became unbound because of that withdraw. All but 2 of the delegates were voting for McCain. The two delegates were permitted to still vote for Romney because they were unbound. Utah would have violated Rule 38 if they required the other two delegates to vote for McCain. That is the context where the two sentences from Sheehan originally appeared. The context of the original article suggests that the letter was referencing the Utah situation. Applying that quote unilaterally without having the entire context of the letter is a logical fallacy.

The conclusion from all this, which is again stated today by the campaign, is the delegates bound to Romney today will be bound to Romney in Tampa, unless for some odd reason Romney withdraws. At that point, and only at that point, delegates will be unbound.

Rather than engaging in a back and forth, I think it's more instructive to post the FairVote article for all to see.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Our piece focuses on the Republican National Committee rules governing how delegates are chosen for the Republican national convention next August and what those delegates are bound to do – and not do -- at the convention. Our conclusion is that RNC rules conflict with the conventional interpretation of the meaning of upcoming primaries and caucuses, and may well lead to challenges to seating delegates at the Republican convention next summer.

While not predicting a “brokered convention,” we explain the legal and political arguments for why it might happen. The combination of Rule 38, widespread use of winner-take-all primaries, and a Republican electorate that to date is not thrilled with its announced presidential candidates may invite a convention challenge. Some critics, like Barone, have claimed that we misread Rule 38’s prohibition against what’s called “the unit rule,” but in fact they misunderstand our point.

Barone say we have it wrong that the unit rule ban doesn’t allow state parties to use winner-take-all primaries in which the plurality winner of a state earns all that state’s delegates. But we aren’t claiming that the rule prevents winner-take-all primaries (at least after April 1st, as the party in 2010 did vote to prohibit winner-take-all primaries before April 1st except in the four states given special rights: Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and, the one state using a winner-take-all primary, South Carolina).

Rather, we explain that the RNC rules’ provision on the unit rule make it clear that delegates aren’t bound to vote according to how most delegates from their state are voting. In fact, delegates can vote according to their own judgment and conscience, and that this is most likely to take place in a state where a state party’s winner-take-all rule has allowed a candidate to win all delegates primarily due to a split in the majority vote, or due to votes cast by non-Republican voters participating in the contest.

To explain our case, we look to the language of Rule 38, which was adopted in its current form in 1964. The rule states: “no delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule.” The unit rule does not prohibit a state from using a winner-take-all primary in the same way that Rule 15(b) prohibits most states from using a winner-take-all primary when holding a contest earlier than April 1st. However, the unit rule does prohibit binding delegates to vote according to how a majority of delegates from their state vote – again, a scenario most likely to occur in a state using the winner-take-all rule.

As set out in the Rules of the Republican Party, delegates have the ability to vote according to the delegates’ preference, even if that is contrary to the outcome of each state’s primary. According to one source, the legal counsel for the Republican National Convention in 2008 stated: “[The] RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose.” Thus, if a delegate were to challenge his or her ability to vote as a free agent, he or she would have grounds under Rule 38.

For further clarification on the meaning of Rule 38, it is instructive to look to the debate in 1964 when the RNC debated whether to strike the Rule 38 language from a proposed amendment that was adopted that year. The debate begins on page 64 of this source (source link below). The RNC voted 59 to 41 to keep the rule in the amendment, noting that it helped to clarify a longstanding practice that a delegate was free to take exception to the roll call, and was free to vote his or her preference. Those who sought to strike the rule feared that its inclusion in the rules would give delegates freedom from both a non-existent legal obligation and a moral obligation to vote according to instructions from their state. However, even these opponents of the rule admitted that there never has been any legal obligation for a delegate to do so.

http://www.fairvote.org/response-to...-party-rules-may-surprise-in-201#.T7KKGVJggri

Additional source used by FairVote:

http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1103565212150-4/1964+Unit+Rule+Debate.pdf

 

[tbone717]

that might be true. Or, maybe not for Texas where it is still a convention process (and Ron's own home state, so let's do our best for him), but in CA it ISN'T.

Only half the states have the convention process still, is that correct?

 

[Carlybee]

As Ron Paul said (and I'm paraphrasing), if you understand the problems and yet do nothing in your power to fight it, you are just as at fault as the perpetrators.

What do you think we have been doing? You dont fight it by acquiescing to those who voted for and continue to vote for the patriot act and laws like sopa. There are now going to be talking surveillance cameras in quite a few cities.. we are snowballing toward a police state....not inching toward it.

 

[LKMN]

This long-term pro[WIKI][/WIKI]ject stuff is BS. First of all, even if Romney agrees to anything we want added to this so-called "platform", he's not going to uphold it. And if Ron is setting the stage for his son, game over.

Lmao...I wouldn't vote for Romney under any circumstances anyway.

I never said I would either. I am saying that we ARE changing the dialogue on the inside. If even one of RPs pet projects get attention/debated in this election cycle, and comes to fruition during the term it would be better than nothing. Of course I'm not going to vote for Mittens. But they don't know that. If they pander to us as a constituency and give us some of what we want then that is sure as hell better than nothing.
It's what RP has been talking about the whole time for cryin' out loud - the second reason for getting a lot of delegates even if it weren't enough to get the nom.
I'm not an idiot, I'm just re-iterating what has been said over and over already by the man himself.

 

[sailingaway]

Only half the states have the convention process still, is that correct?

I don't know. But I live in CA, so I know CA. I think it is on the thread stickied to the top of the forum.

 

[tbone717]

Rather than engaging in a back and forth, I think it's more instructive to post the FairVote article for all to see.

As I stated this article is concerning Rule 38, which deals with "unit rule" not with binding in the general sense. I don't think anyone has suggested that any state is trying to impose a "unit rule".

 

[tsai3904]

that might be true. Or, maybe not for Texas where it is still a convention process (and Ron's own home state, so let's do our best for him), but in CA it ISN'T.

Yea, I want to get as many votes as we can everywhere but we're at a crossroads right now because of the many deadlines where we can fight for votes in this one election or we can fight for the future of the party for the next TWO YEARS. If we miss this opportunity, we're stuck with the same establishment people running the GOP for the next two years. These are positions of influence where the media looks for quotes and press releases. We need to control these positions to give Ron Paul leverage in the future.

I remember during the Washington caucuses, we had phone banks calling all our supporters reminding them to go vote. What we need RIGHT NOW is those same phone banks calling the SAME supporters to get them to file as candidates for PCO. But...it's not going to happen...and we will be stuck with the same King County Chairwoman who tried to rule one of the caucuses ineligible because a Ron Paul supporter was elected Chairman and the same Chairwoman who tried to appoint people she knew into the PCO positions right before the caucus. All this can be prevented in the future but there needs to be significant grassroots action in the next couple days before the Friday deadline.

 

[tbone717]

I don't know. But I live in CA, so I know CA. I think it is on the thread stickied to the top of the forum.

I'll look into it when I have time. Despite all of the excitement today, I am actually getting some real work done.

 

[romancito]

Totally agree. As someone that has been at this since 1988, I can attest to this. If you are involved locally, you have a seat at the table and your issues and concerns will be heard. If you sit on the sidelines, then you don't have a chance. It is very important for all those that want to be involved to do so at whatever level you are able to help. Some of us can run for local offices, some for party leadership positions, some for state or federal office, and some of us are simply those go to people that can be used to knock on doors, make phone calls, and work the polls on election day. We can all have a role in this.

The problem is you don't factor in how quickly and pervasively power within government corrupts the people within. Long term change effects are subject to change themselves. A rEVOLution requires quick and fast changes that are intuitive and natural rights and not subject to scientific processes. We all know that Ron Paul is a rare individual that has resisted corruption for 40 years and that is why we love him. For maximum effect this rEVOLution requires that Dr. Paul be nominated from the floor of the Convention and that all his supporting delegates walk-out from the floor if not permitted to vote their conscience and alternate delegates do likewise. It has to be Ron Paul or no one else - Ron Paul or nothing else.

 

[tbone717]

The problem is you don't factor in how quickly and pervasively power within government corrupts the people within. Long term change effects are subject to change themselves. A rEVOLution requires quick and fast changes that are intuitive and natural rights and not subject to scientific processes. We all know that Ron Paul is a rare individual that has resisted corruption for 40 years and that is why we love him. For maximum effect this rEVOLution requires that Dr. Paul be nominated from the floor of the Convention and that all his supporting delegates walk-out from the floor if not permitted to vote their conscience and alternate delegates do likewise. It has to be Ron Paul or no one else - Ron Paul or nothing else.

Not trying to be obtuse, but don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. Just deal with the reality of the situation that we are in and work accordingly.

 

[BenMuldowney]

The problem is you don't factor in how quickly and pervasively power within government corrupts the people within. Long term change effects are subject to change themselves. A rEVOLution requires quick and fast changes that are intuitive and natural rights and not subject to scientific processes. We all know that Ron Paul is a rare individual that has resisted corruption for 40 years and that is why we love him. For maximum effect this rEVOLution requires that Dr. Paul be nominated from the floor of the Convention and that all his supporting delegates walk-out from the floor if not permitted to vote their conscience and alternate delegates do likewise. It has to be Ron Paul or no one else - Ron Paul or nothing else.

and given the tone of the communications coming from the campaign and jesse benton, this sounds like the last thing they want.

 

[tsai3904]

What do you think we have been doing? You dont fight it by acquiescing to those who voted for and continue to vote for the patriot act and laws like sopa. There are now going to be talking surveillance cameras in quite a few cities.. we are snowballing toward a police state....not inching toward it.

Yes, that is what we HAVE been doing but many here are willing to give up now.