Is NC RP leadership going to fight for RNC delegates at convention??

[aclove]

I have no idea. I'm not planning to make that motion. If someone else is going to do it, I guarantee it's someone who's decided to do it regardless of what Sharon or Jeff or anyone else is trying to accomplish. I also guarantee that that motion will fail and accomplish nothing.

 

[slacker921]

FWIW I've also heard rumors of Santorum and Gingrich supporters getting together and putting forth a slate (without any Paul supporters on it of course)... and if that happens then the establishment will break out their own "Romney only" slate.

Another point that I'd make is that at my district convention the Paul delegates got about twice as many votes as there were known "Paul supporters" there. i.e. a lot of the people that we thought were establishment were actually tea party supporters who voted for the Paul delegates. .. they didn't have any Santorum or Gingrich delegates running so they voted for the only anti-Romney candidates available. Now.. go back and read the first statement I wrote above and consider why a "Santorum/Gingrich" slate is being created.

I also agree on the guesstimates on the number of Paul delegates going.. I hope everyone shows up and there are over 200 Paul supporters there, but I kind of doubt that will happen. Just as in '08 we won't have the numbers and the best thing we can do is lay low and continue to gain positions of influence over the next couple of years so we're better prepared for 2016.

I was there in '08 when they cheated us out of delegates. On a related note, if you look at the results from 2008 there were NO votes from Paul from NC at the national convention. Richard Burr refused to report anything but McCain votes to the convention. It's a shame he hates Democracy so much.

 

[aclove]

That's correct. Even though Paul was entitled to bound delegates from NC in '08, Richard Burr refused to report them.

 

[lib3rtarian]

I have no idea. I'm not planning to make that motion. If someone else is going to do it, I guarantee it's someone who's decided to do it regardless of what Sharon or Jeff or anyone else is trying to accomplish. I also guarantee that that motion will fail and accomplish nothing.

I know of at least 2 people who are planning to do this. And the impression I got was that while the motion might fail, there would be no harm in trying. And mind you, this is not about running an alternate slate or anything. Just that the delegates needed to be voted on individually, to allow them a chance to speak so that the body can get to know them better. I expect even the non-Paul folks on the floor might like the idea. No? What's the downside? Delaying the convention?

Which actually brings me to my next question - if all we are doing is to just vote on the Chairman's slate and I expect it will pass unanimously anyway, and even in a worst case scenario, we are just talking about losing 1 delegate here, _and_ if we are not running anyone for the RNC committeeman and committeewoman seats, is there any value in spending time and money to be there, other than the "experience" this might provide? Especially on Friday, when many folks have to take off from work and lose income to be there?

I have 3-4 delegates looking to me for directions and I am kind of in the dark myself. One guy has to fly down from Seattle to be at the convention and so far, I have asked him to make it, but if the convention is going to be a nonevent, is there a point?

 

[devil21]

If anyone is going to do that then it doesn't matter what Sharon or Jeff thinks since there's no stopping it.

Im pretty sure the parlimentary procedure for that is:

1) a motion to suspend rule 11D (slate rule) would need to be made first, seconded and then passed by 2/3 vote
2) then a motion to vote on delegates individually (or just open nominations from the floor) made, seconded, debated then passed by majority vote

FWIW I've also heard rumors of Santorum and Gingrich supporters getting together and putting forth a slate (without any Paul supporters on it of course)... and if that happens then the establishment will break out their own "Romney only" slate.

This wouldn't surprise me at all. And the result is we get left out entirely. We certainly can't predict what the supporters of other candidates will do!

 

[musicmax]

That's correct. Even though Paul was entitled to bound delegates from NC in '08, Richard Burr refused to report them.

Of course. He's the same Senator Dick (R-Monsanto) who co-chaired the national platform committee that drafted strong anti-bailout language, but then voted for TARP.

 

[MozoVote]

With regard to "what's the point in going" ... We *should* have better turnout than '08. I don't know "how much" better, but we'll probably win a few debates in coalition with other factions. We don't know who will challenge Lewis and Forrester for the RNC spots. Someone might pop up that gets our attention. Conventions are unscripted, and only those who show up and vote will steer the outcome.

Part of how the party keeps the delegates in line, is that there are only a few conventions a year, and only so many opportunities to see parliamentary motions being played out. Most people sit in their chairs and vote "aye" or "no" but don't get involved or develop parliamentary skills. I won't claim it's worth flying from Seattle for - but anyone in NC that is a delegate from county who is free that weekend, really should try and be at state to see for themselves "how it all goes down".

 

[MozoVote]

FWIW I've also heard rumors of Santorum and Gingrich supporters getting together and putting forth a slate (without any Paul supporters on it of course)... and if that happens then the establishment will break out their own "Romney only" slate.

That's a nighmare scenario for the convention planners. A total free-for-all that will run late into the evening counting ballots. But at least we'd be free to join the chaos, rather than be the instigators.

 

[m0r14rty]

FWIW I've also heard rumors of Santorum and Gingrich supporters getting together and putting forth a slate (without any Paul supporters on it of course)... and if that happens then the establishment will break out their own "Romney only" slate.

Wouldn't that still help more than a Romney slate? I say put the blame on the Santorum/Gingrich supporters, and combine the votes. Ensuring a brokered convention matters more right now. I'll take 100 Gingrich and Santorum supporters over 10 Paul at this point, simply to broker the convention. Bonus points for it taking the blame off of us.

 

[musicmax]

Wouldn't that still help more than a Romney slate? I say put the blame on the Santorum/Gingrich supporters, and combine the votes. Ensuring a brokered convention matters more right now. I'll take 100 Gingrich and Santorum supporters over 10 Paul at this point, simply to broker the convention. Bonus points for it taking the blame off of us.

I doubt a Newt/Rick delegate would burn his/her bridge with the party by abstaining or voting against how s/he's "bound".

And I actually think Romney delegates would be easier to ply with respect to other convention business such as platform.

 

[devil21]

Wouldn't that still help more than a Romney slate? I say put the blame on the Santorum/Gingrich supporters, and combine the votes. Ensuring a brokered convention matters more right now. I'll take 100 Gingrich and Santorum supporters over 10 Paul at this point, simply to broker the convention. Bonus points for it taking the blame off of us.

I think Newt/Santorum delegates would vote for Romney first round so they're irrelevent for a brokered convention. We need PAUL delegates elected.