[Doug Wead] Shocker: Ron Paul and rule 40, the new Romney nightmare

[jct74]

Shocker: Ron Paul and rule 40, the new Romney nightmare

At least one of the cats is out of the bag. The story is now public that an obscure, overlooked GOP rule, passed in January, 2008, has opened the way for Ron Paul delegates to place his name in nomination for vice president at the RNC in Tampa. And maybe for president? Experts say no. More on that.

Rule 40 came at a time in 2008 when there was concern that the GOP presidential field would be split between candidates Huckabee, McCain, Romney, Thompson, Giuliani and Paul, with no one candidate winning a majority in five states. It was accepted that this possibility was remote, due to the sequential power of successive caucus and primary victories which would winnow the field and give one or two candidates momentum but the deadlock was at least a mathematical possibility.

The rule change declared that only a plurality within a delegation, not a majority, was needed in five states to place a name in nomination. It means that a candidate can be nominated for president or vice president if he or she has the most delegates in at least five states. It is a threshold that Ron Paul has very possibly passed. And it may explain why the Romney forces have been apoplectic, even self defeating, in their crushing of the duly elected Ron Paul delegates at the various remaining state conventions.

Romney people insist that it is all a moot point in the presidential contest since Ron Paul delegates in many states are bound to vote for Romney if he was the winner of their primary. Although curiously, Romney sees no problem in taking delegates in states such as North Dakota where Ron Paul beat him.

In the contest for vice president, there is not much that Romney can do to stop Ron Paul delegates from putting his name in nomination. Unless they find a way to quickly change the rule. And Ron Paul’s name in nomination at the national convention could do more for his message than anything he has done in the last eight years, including his participation in the national debates.

The specter that haunts the Romney folks is the convention of 1992, when the sitting GOP president, George H. W. Bush, sought to rally his base by giving Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan a voice. Robertson and Buchanan represented the evangelical and conservative Catholic base of the GOP and Bush had neglected them, even arguably spurned them. (The Bush administration stoutly defended government sponsorship of the arts which included grants to an artist whose demonstrative talents included putting pictures of Jesus on a cross in bottles of urine.)

There is a big difference in 2012. Ron Paul, who only polls a high of 17% among the GOP, actually beats president Obama in a face to face contest, doing better than Romney, because he pulls strength from general election voters, youth, Independents, Hispanics and Democrats. While Robertson and Buchanan represented the base of the GOP, Ron Paul represents its future and its most important general election voters.

Stay tuned. There’s more.

See: Jon Ward’s breaking story in the Huffington Post

http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/shocker-ron-paul-rule-40-the-new-romney-nightmare/

 

[tod evans]

Kind of off topic...

What access to "The Media" would a contentious vice presidential nominee have?

 

[pmbug]

It's what I've been saying for a while now.

 

[sailingaway]

Binding only counts on the VOTE ON BALLOT not the nomination. Romney folks are now saying they WON'T agree to back our delegates from Louisiana at convention even though Ron Paul won the Louisiana caucuses in an landslide and the self appointed establishment chair was replaced before draconian rules changes in an improper rules meeting were ever ratified -- making Ron's delegates the winners. Plurality nothing, we ASSUME the other establishment selections will band together. Ron has a MAJORITY in five states with Louisiana. The others are Nevada, Maine, Minnesota and Iowa. THIS must go viral!

Ron Paul is entitled to a speech as nominee into consideration at the convention, when Louisiana delegates, where he WON the caucus in a landslide, are counted. Noises are being made that maybe they won't be counted, but let those who know parliamentary procedure watch the video synopsis I post. Note the first 2:15 is boring, being motions and points made which the self declared chair ignored contrary to Roberts Rules of Order -- making him subject to removal by the body. The actual removal comes after that. The newly elected chair, a recent hip replacement recipient was driven to the ground despite shouts that he was handicapped, and was taken away by ambulence. The rules chair you see in the video, who objected to a false rules chair giving a false rules committee report had fingers broken by the security hired by the party establishment, as he was dragged off. The second video shows Henry Herford, there is a third video with the rules chair assault. In fact the whole thing is on video. Please spread this, as Romney's folks now deny they said they would support the Ron Paul delegates in credentials committee to be seated. With Louisiana, Paul has five states to be nominated at convention.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k884ZKUNwbo&feature=player_embedded#t=0s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgTpLOUxC6Q&feature=player_embedded#t=0s

As for Vice President, if Romney's folks really wanted to win, they would not only let us nominate Ron for that TOO (twice as long to speak) but would vote for it as well. An INDEPENDENT Ron Paul on the ticket would get votes Romney never could otherwise.

 

[Bruehound]

It seems to me a certainty that there is indeed a plan the campaign is going to execute. We are not privy to ( nor should we expect to be) all of the options the campaign is considering. I wish people around here would exercise more patience and confidence in RP's political skills. Ask any of Dr. Paul's opponents in his congressional campaigns and most will tell you "don't underestimate how cagey the old man is".

 

[Unknown.User]

..

 

[sailingaway]

I hope you are right. The last election post-super tuesday announcement leads me to believe otherwise.

If our delegates are seated in all his states, it will be THEY who make the motions on the floor.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Ron hasn't been playing possum and keeping $3.3mill in the checking account for nothing.

 

[Bruehound]

Ron hasn't been playing possum and keeping $3.3mill in the checking account for nothing.

Yup. Chill the funk out, people.

 

[specsaregood]

Ron hasn't been playing possum and keeping $3.3mill in the checking account for nothing.

Some said that before he created the C4L last time. just saying.

 

[sailingaway]

Some said that before he created the C4L last time. just saying.

That kept a focus for grass roots so we were organized to take off running when he ran this time. It wasn't useless. Different leadership, including Ron Paul at the actual head, Gary Howard as press secty or whatever would cure people's objections to it, anyhow.

But, again, if we get our delegates seated, our delegates are the ones running the show as to their own actions.

 

[specsaregood]

That kept a focus for grass roots so we were organized to take off running when he ran this time. It wasn't useless. Different leadership, including Ron Paul at the actual head, Gary Howard as press secty or whatever would cure people's objections to it, anyhow.

I did not mean to imply it was a negative thing. But there were a fair number of people that got and still are upset about it.

 

[TheGrinch]

I guess the question remains, do we even want Dr. Paul to be the VP selection?

Don't get me wrong, it'd be extremely tough for me not to vote for a ticket that has a Paul on it, but the position only really has power if you have a pushover president, establishment backing and no regard for the Constitution... I've heard it said before that Cheney had much power as VP, but that was only because he had the establishment and president backing him to do whatever he pleased and piss all over the Constitution... Dr. Paul will abide by his constitutional restrictions, which makes the position very inconsequential on policy matters.

Also, although Romney might not have a choice in the matter, it's definitely safe to say that this stands to hurt him more than help him, when the two hit the campaign trail and their rhetoric directly contradicts one another, while the Obama rhetoric machine gets into a full gear pushing the same message.

We know Dr. Paul isn't going to compromise his rhetoric or ideals, and so unless Romney does another total flip-flop (just as highly unlikely that he'd flip-flop to anti-establishment rhetoric), then all they're going to do is contradict one another...

Romney's worst nightmare indeed (aside from the possibility that the delegates become completely unbound), but I'm unsure that this is really something we should be shooting for either.... It very might well serve to do nothing more than tie us in with Romney, either in a losing campaign or tied to his "mistakes" as president. I'm very skeptical that this helps our goals either...

 

[Bruehound]

It is all about getting an unedited speech. With all the international press shaming our own "media" this could indeed be a "come to Jesus" moment for America.

 

[sailingaway]

If either Romney or Obama is going to win, I would vote for Ron Paul, even as VP, as better, more like replacing his House seat so he has a bigger profile. I have faith in Ron. Even if he ends up resigning, the potential of that action itself could be a better check than any other we would have, and an 'excuse' for Romney acting better if he really wants to and is just placating neocons himself (one theory floating out there). If Ron resigned, as a resigned VP he would continue, FOREVER, to have a higher profile.

I'd vote for it. I'd want us to nominate him from the floor though, so it is shown at least that nomination was won on his own strength.

But I want his speech as nomination for President. He has the states, we just need to get the Louisiana circumstances out there so it is clearly a scandal if Romney's credentials committee doesn't seat them.

 

[TheGrinch]

I'd vote for it. I'd want us to nominate him from the floor though, so it is shown at least that nomination was won on his own strength.

Good point... It would show our strength in numbers for this to be something that we accomplished, and not something that Romney conceded so he could pander to us.... I guess we do have to take every gain we can, particularly one like this that, like you said, really stands to put him and our ideals on a bigger national stage.

Not like we're loaded with a bunch of better choices at this stage, so I wouldn't be opposed to it... I jsut wanted to make sure it wasn't one of those "cut off the nose to spit on your face" sort of deals, but one thing's for sure, that we need all the mainstream exposure we can get.

 

[IDefendThePlatform]

Aren't we only 1 or 2 delegates short of majority in Massachusetts as well? So we could potentially get Ron nominated if we can convince just 1 or 2 delegates from there to at least vote to nominate Ron (or even just vote for santorum or Gingrich, giving Ron a plurality). We need names, addresses and phone numbers for these delegates to try to send them persuasive material. Maybe a call from Ron himself?

 

[TAnn]

Your post does not take into consideration the Lawyers For Ron Paul lawsuit that is in the process. Once the ruling confirms that all delegates are unbound by law, this will all be a mute point.

 

[TAnn]

I think that if Ron Paul won't endorse Romney, and there are so many differences in opinion, he wouldn't accept a VP position on a Romney ticket anyway. I certainly would NOT vote for Romney even if he had GOD on as VP. I would just throw my support behind Gary Johnson.

 

[TheGrinch]

Your post does not take into consideration the Lawyers For Ron Paul lawsuit that is in the process. Once the ruling confirms that all delegates are unbound by law, this will all be a mute point.

Not necessarily, unless you think Dr. Paul is mistaken about us only having 1/2 of the delegates we need (that includes bound "stealth" ones).

This isn't to deny the possiblity that we could have more than estimated and can persuade other delegates to vote with their conscience and not for the cheaters, but we have to prepare for the likelihood that we will still likely be short of the numbers we need... Who knows...

Again, I'm not trying to say that unbounding the delegates won't work, but we have to prepare for the opposite possiblity that unbounding the delegates might be every bit as much of a moot point with regard to the nominee... If that's the case, then they need to have a backup plan such as this, to still make every gain we can at the convention.