GOP Leaders: Only Half of Maine's Ron Paul Delegates will be Seated

[parocks]

I don't believe that. I find it hard to believe you even believe it.

What is "it"? Rand Paul was not given a speaking spot because Ron Paul ran for President in 2012. But he probably wouldn't have ran and won in 2010 if Ron Paul didn't run in 2008.

Is Romney planning on showcasing unknowns and retired politicians? Is he planning to completely shut out any tea party voices?

 

[sailingaway]

What is "it"? Rand Paul was not given a speaking spot because Ron Paul ran for President in 2012. But he probably wouldn't have ran and won in 2010 if Ron Paul didn't run in 2008.

Is Romney planning on showcasing unknowns and retired politicians? Is he planning to completely shut out any tea party voices?

You mean like Palin and Bachmann etc? I am not going to argue this.

 

[parocks]

You mean like Palin and Bachmann etc? I am not going to argue this.

Well, you know that 2010 was the first year there were "tea party" candidates. And Rand was one of the very few to win. Leaving Ron Paul completely aside, one would think that Rand Paul would be a natural for a RNC speaking slot.

I think you might have a case, that you could say something that could make me agree with you, but you aren't making that case.

Rand Paul, on his own merits, deserves a speaking slot. He is a US Senator who is popular with Ron Paul supporters and with others who don't like Ron Paul. I'm not arguing that being Ron Paul's son didn't get him most of the way to being US Senator.

Of course, Romney putting out anything but a RINO parade might be surprising.

You haven't made the argument that Romney is such a Liberal Republican, a country clubber, a RINO that anything other than RINO at the RNC is a shock. You can also argue it's a shock that Romney is letting any Paul speak because he does not want to help Ron Paul in any way.

If I argue that it's natural and obvious that Rand Paul, a US Senator, popular with different types of Conservatives, should be speaking, you can argue that Romney would rather hurt specific Conservatives than help his own chances of winning. That's a decent argument and may very well be true.

 

[wgadget]

Well, he WAS popular with Ron Paul supporters until he backed Romney. Bleh.

 

[AJ Antimony]

So you believe they are adding Paul delegates to other states to make up for the ones they took away?

Not necessarily "adding," more so dropping challenges in other states and raising challenges in others. What we know for sure is that all of NV, MN, and IA will be seated. There are no possible objections to these delegations. ME should be seated to, because really the only people objecting to this delegation are those two sore losers from ME. I wish I could comment on LA, but I still don't understand exactly what happened at the LA convention.

Then you have a state like MA where the entire time the GOP has been adamant that our delegates were illegitimate.

Yet what are some of the details about the deal? They want to, for example, let us have a good chunk of our MA delegates but they also want us to give up half of our legitimate ME delegates. There's nothing conclusive here, it's all just speculation.

But if I were Ron Paul and I knew I had won, say, 400 delegates to go to Tampa, and if I were Mitt Romney who just didn't want Ron to have a 5-state plurality, then a good compromise would be to let Ron have 400 delegates and to just distribute them among 10 or 15 states, rather than 5.

 

[sailingaway]

Well, you know that 2010 was the first year there were "tea party" candidates. And Rand was one of the very few to win. Leaving Ron Paul completely aside, one would think that Rand Paul would be a natural for a RNC speaking slot.

I think you might have a case, that you could say something that could make me agree with you, but you aren't making that case.

Rand Paul, on his own merits, deserves a speaking slot. He is a US Senator who is popular with Ron Paul supporters and with others who don't like Ron Paul. I'm not arguing that being Ron Paul's son didn't get him most of the way to being US Senator.

Of course, Romney putting out anything but a RINO parade might be surprising.

You haven't made the argument that Romney is such a Liberal Republican, a country clubber, a RINO that anything other than RINO at the RNC is a shock. You can also argue it's a shock that Romney is letting any Paul speak because he does not want to help Ron Paul in any way.

If I argue that it's natural and obvious that Rand Paul, a US Senator, popular with different types of Conservatives, should be speaking, you can argue that Romney would rather hurt specific Conservatives than help his own chances of winning. That's a decent argument and may very well be true.

No, I made my argument and I am not interested in discussing it.

 

[AJ Antimony]

the majorities in the states are everything. That would be a horrible deal.

The 5-state plurality is only "everything" if Ron Paul and his campaign actually want to ruin Romney's Sweet 16 party.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

No deal! No deal!

Stand strong, men!

 

[sailingaway]

Not necessarily "adding," more so dropping challenges in other states and raising challenges in others. What we know for sure is that all of NV, MN, and IA will be seated. There are no possible objections to these delegations. ME should be seated to, because really the only people objecting to this delegation are those two sore losers from ME. I wish I could comment on LA, but I still don't understand exactly what happened at the LA convention.

Then you have a state like MA where the entire time the GOP has been adamant that our delegates were illegitimate.

Yet what are some of the details about the deal? They want to, for example, let us have a good chunk of our MA delegates but they also want us to give up half of our legitimate ME delegates. There's nothing conclusive here, it's all just speculation.

But if I were Ron Paul and I knew I had won, say, 400 delegates to go to Tampa, and if I were Mitt Romney who just didn't want Ron to have a 5-state plurality, then a good compromise would be to let Ron have 400 delegates and to just distribute them among 10 or 15 states, rather than 5.

adding 10 for 1 if they take MAJORITIES in a state is a losing deal and should not be agreed to. Louisiana should never have been agreed to, imho.

 

[sailingaway]

The 5-state plurality is only "everything" if Ron Paul and his campaign actually want to ruin Romney's Sweet 16 party.

Ron said he wanted to get nominated for the speech. I agree the campaign has been working in a seemingly different direction, but from Ron's speeches and interviews even after that divergence appeared, if he is on board, it only happened very lately, and in my mind possibly by people near him convincing him that by now it was a done deal. And I haven't seen him give up fighting at all. Ever, actually.

 

[Badger Paul]

" Louisiana should never have been agreed to, imho."

I agree but unfortunately they did and did largely because the campaign too wishes for peace and calm on the convention floor and had a pliant state campaign manager willing to give it to them unlike Maine.

I'll be a lot of Louisiana delegates would have wish to hold out as well but it sounds like they were never polled.

 

[sailingaway]

" Louisiana should never have been agreed to, imho."

I agree but unfortunately they did and did largely because the campaign too wishes for peace and calm on the convention floor and had a pliant state campaign manager willing to give it to them unlike Maine.

I'll be a lot of Louisiana delegates would have wish to hold out as well but it sounds like they were never polled.

Speaking of Maine, if you have a twitter account retweet this: https://twitter.com/x0x0robinXoXo/status/238653990605316097

 

[AJ Antimony]

" Louisiana should never have been agreed to, imho."

I agree but unfortunately they did and did largely because the campaign too wishes for peace and calm on the convention floor and had a pliant state campaign manager willing to give it to them unlike Maine.

I'll be a lot of Louisiana delegates would have wish to hold out as well but it sounds like they were never polled.

Apples and oranges. The ME convention cleanly elected their delegation. The LA convention was a fiasco and produced two different delegations. Whether or not they are correct, the RNC can 'threaten' and challenge the LA delegates much easier than the ME delegates.

 

[Badger Paul]

"Whether or not they are correct, the RNC can 'threaten' and challenge the LA delegates much easier than the ME delegates. "

They can challenge any delegation they want. They can throw out any delegation they want. I understand what they can do. But if they're going to do so, they have justify it and to deal with the reaction of Paul supporters on the convention floor.

 

[sailingaway]

The LA convention was a well documented VIOLENT fiasco of the brownshirt variety ON THEIR SIDE and on video.

Our delegates got 700+ votes. Theirs -- the ones who even actually ran and weren't pulled out of a hat later -- got 200+ votes.

Had the campaign put that in press releases with the video -- and they could have, it was MORE compelling than Maine. In Maine, however, we have people who brought their own law suit and apparently are doing what THEY feel right.

If the RNC seated no one, you put out the video and run independent on $39 million in matching funds. You don't give away the store -- the fifth state, very possibly, to get muzzled seats.

 

[twomp]

Not necessarily "adding," more so dropping challenges in other states and raising challenges in others. What we know for sure is that all of NV, MN, and IA will be seated. There are no possible objections to these delegations. ME should be seated to, because really the only people objecting to this delegation are those two sore losers from ME. I wish I could comment on LA, but I still don't understand exactly what happened at the LA convention.

Then you have a state like MA where the entire time the GOP has been adamant that our delegates were illegitimate.

Yet what are some of the details about the deal? They want to, for example, let us have a good chunk of our MA delegates but they also want us to give up half of our legitimate ME delegates. There's nothing conclusive here, it's all just speculation.

But if I were Ron Paul and I knew I had won, say, 400 delegates to go to Tampa, and if I were Mitt Romney who just didn't want Ron to have a 5-state plurality, then a good compromise would be to let Ron have 400 delegates and to just distribute them among 10 or 15 states, rather than 5.

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've read from you. These delegates were ELECTED! Do you know what that means? It means they were VOTED IN? If the RNC has given itself the power to REDISTRIBUTE ELECTED delegates, what is the point in voting any more? How do you suppose to take over the GOP if they have the power to REDISTRIBUTE delegates? That is FRAUD!

 

[helmuth_hubener]

That is FRAUD!

Well I don't think AJ is in favor of it, he is just saying that this redistribution may be what the RNC is trying to do. Which is possibly true. And you are reminding us it's fraud. Which is definitely true.

 

[CPUd]

and another:

http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/RNC-announces-new-slate-of-Maine-delegates.html


Looks like a few here have already hit the comments.

If they don't seat all 20, will the 10 that were seated walk out?

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Remember when the official campaign said they were fighting this? Obviously, they didn't do a thing.

These "compromises" are only being offered because they benefit the party's agenda. It's all to nullify Ron of the plurality in 5 states. The delegates should reject all deals, we should get a chipin going for competent lawyers to represent them, and we should take the Republican party down for their blatant breaking of laws.

 

[sailingaway]

and another:

http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/RNC-announces-new-slate-of-Maine-delegates.html


Looks like a few here have already hit the comments.

If they don't seat all 20, will the 10 that were seated walk out?

I come down on the side of hoping not. We need to keep our gains. It would probably be a mistake to leave and give people rationale for cutting our gains. If the next Ron Paul turns up by the next election, we will want them.

regardless of what else we do.