GOP insiders: "Ron Paul rule" was just for 2012 and no longer exists

[TNforPaul45]

This is not surprising at all. Infuriating, but not surprising.

 

[jbauer]

I got the impression after reading the Washington Examiner article in OP that Rule 40 was dead for the purposes of 2016, but these excerpts below from factcheck.org and The Hill seem to contradict that. I really hope the rule does stay in place and the Republican Party has to reap what they sowed in 2012 r[/url]

Dang straight burn GOP. You f'ed yourself.

 

[CPUd]

This is Ron's guy who was there during the challenges/rule changes in 2012

 

[Feelgood]

I ask in all seriousness:
Why bother having primaries at all? They just make themselves look like asshoels...attacking each other, cheating, breaking their own rules...why doesn't the RNC just pick their man and then have more time to attack the Dems?

 

[erowe1]

It's news to me. First time I have seen anyone claim that it applied only to 2012.

But you did know that they came up with that rule then at the 2012 convention right?

So, just like that convention, the 2016 will run according to whatever rules they come up with in 2016.

 

[Henry Rogue]

This is Ron's guy who was there during the challenges/rule changes in 2012

Hope to see those events made into a movie someday.

 

[CPUd]

Someone was definitely paying attention to Ron 2012:

 

[CPUd]

Just about every article I see out there is misinterpreting the rule

Rules of the Republican Party, 2012, Rule 40: (b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination.

It is being assumed that the rule means the candidate must win a majority of bound delegates from those delegations. This is not how it was handled in 2012, where the members of a delegation signed a separate petition per delegation- if the number of signatures meets a majority of the delegation, that was "demonstrating the support". There were Mitt delegates who signed the petition for Ron in 2012 (especially after the Maine delegates walked out) because they sided with the grassroots, knew Ron was not a threat at that point, and wanted to see Ron delegates treated fairly.

 

[MelissaWV]

In all seriousness? It's about fundraising. The whole point of a primary for the national campaign is to have several different candidates working to add donors to the lists. They also want to develop narratives on pseudo-political issues that keep people paying attention to them.

But remember, it's their party. That's why we were trying to become the party at the local level. To make it our party.

This, and so that they can simultaneously put several points of view out there on a particular issue to test the waters and garner attention without being even worse flip-floppers. It's harder to develop revolutionary-level hate against multiple candidates at once.

I do think we're seeing a decline in primaries, though; the fundraising has largely been for dollars that are already out the window, and at least a few people are starting to notice that the math is suspicious. I don't operate under the illusion that the primaries going away will help anyone's cause on RPF, but taking over local politics remains the best way to to fix a small corner of the mess we're in and it has the added benefit of trying to fix the corner where you and yours live.

 

[Badger Paul]

"Republicans who wanted to help 2012 nominee Mitt Romney adopted the rule as a way to shut out Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and his vocal supporters in Tampa Bay. Under a previous rule that allowed a candidate on the ballot with a majority of delegates in five states, Paul would have been on the convention ballot."

The irony is the Paul campaign team a.k.a "The Claque" was doing everything it could to give away its majorities in the five states and the VI (remember the infamous Louisiana deal where we had a majority and the state party violated its own rules only to give it away?) in order to make nice with Romney. There was no need for this rule in the first place. And even if Paul's was put in nomination, so what? He would have lost and the convention would have moved forward anyway. What was the point of trying to make it look unanimous when it wasn't? By being so obstuse and demanding of total obediance, all the Romney camp did was piss off people who could have helped them had they'd been a little more magnanamous. Instead all they got was convention where the highlight was Clint Eastwood talking to an empty chair.

 

[CPUd]

"Republicans who wanted to help 2012 nominee Mitt Romney adopted the rule as a way to shut out Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and his vocal supporters in Tampa Bay. Under a previous rule that allowed a candidate on the ballot with a majority of delegates in five states, Paul would have been on the convention ballot."

The irony is the Paul campaign team a.k.a "The Claque" was doing everything it could to give away its majorities in the five states and the VI (remember the infamous Louisiana deal where we had a majority and the state party violated its own rules only to give it away?) in order to make nice with Romney. There was no need for this rule in the first place. And even if Paul's was put in nomination, so what? He would have lost and the convention would have moved forward anyway. What was the point of trying to make it look unanimous when it wasn't? By being so obstuse and demanding of total obediance, all the Romney camp did was piss off people who could have helped them had they'd been a little more magnanamous. Instead all they got was convention where the highlight was Clint Eastwood talking to an empty chair.

By then, all they really wanted was to put Ron's name in; the way it was handled definitely hurt them for the general election, they even had to pay people to do phone banking.

 

[Badger Paul]

"By then, all they really wanted was to put Ron's name in;"

Eaxctly! What harm would that have caused? This isn't f'ing North Korea!

 

[erowe1]

There was no need for this rule in the first place.

The reason there was a need was that Paul's own delegates didn't respect his wishes not to be nominated. By upping the threshold, they spared Ron Paul of having to disappoint his own delegates by declining the nomination, and instead took it out of his hands.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Regardless, I think we should look for an official apology to Ron Paul and his supporters (us).

I think what with the political winds being what they are, we might get that as a likely outcome - if we push for it at the right time.

 

[Badger Paul]

"The reason there was a need was that Paul's own delegates didn't respect his wishes not to be nominated."

And he said he didn't want to be nominated when and where? Hmmm? You mean he couldn't make a simple announcement not wishing to have his name put in nomination and he staff colluded with the RNC and the Romney campaign on a convoluted way to make the party look like the bad guys?

Yeah, not only do they look like the bad guys, but they institute a rule which will give them Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. Nice work guys!

 

[erowe1]

And he said he didn't want to be nominated when and where?

His campaign communicated it clearly to the delegates multiple times in the days leading up to the convention. The delegates who colluded with one another to submit his name for nomination knowingly went against his express wishes.

See this post at DailyPaul from around that time:
http://archive.dailypaul.com/250848

Notice this statement made twice by Debbie Hopper in her emails to the delegates:

If you’re a delegate in an un-bound state, you are free to vote your conscience on the Republican nomination.

But please note, we do not have the five states necessary to nominate Dr. Paul, and he has expressed a desire not to be nominated since it is clear we don’t have the numbers to win a floor fight.

 

[Badger Paul]

"His campaign communicated it clearly to the delegates multiple times in the days leading up to the convention."

"His campaign" you say but not him. "His campaign" could mean Rand or Benton or Tate or any number of flunkies who, as I said before, were more interested in sucking up to Romney than taking care of their delegates. If he had said so and said so publicly it would not have taken place.

As I seem to remember there was some poor flunkie who was part of a national conference call a couple of weeks before the convention who let the cat out of the bag inadvertantly about their strategy was only to cause a huge outcry and cause Tate to come in on the call to say everything was still proceeding as planned.

 

[Scott_in_PA]

His campaign communicated it clearly to the delegates multiple times in the days leading up to the convention. The delegates who colluded with one another to submit his name for nomination knowingly went against his express wishes.

http://www.snappytv.com/tc/1640700 @00:38

 

[erowe1]

"His campaign communicated it clearly to the delegates multiple times in the days leading up to the convention."

"His campaign" you say but not him. "His campaign" could mean Rand or Benton or Tate or any number of flunkies who, as I said before, were more interested in sucking up to Romney than taking care of their delegates. If he had said so and said so publicly it would not have taken place.

According to them, he did say so. They spoke for him, with his authority, and quoted him saying so. The delegates should have respected that, and they didn't.

 

[erowe1]

http://www.snappytv.com/tc/1640700 @00:38

All he does is accurately recount what the RNC did. He doesn't at any point indicate that he had any desire to give a nomination speech, or be nominated at all, after Romney had secured the nomination. Nor has he ever. And I would defy anyone to find him saying or implying that he did.