Maddow: Ron Paul could be nominated at RNC, only needs one more state

[sailingaway]

I thought LA was still up in the air?

Heck, they CHALLENGED everything. But it is clear we are in the right. They can DECLARE Ron has no delegates at all, but that doesn't make it so.

 

[69360]

QUESTION: If Ron Paul is nominated from the floor...with drama naturally-read-that-PREDICTABLY ensuing, including enthusiastically slapping Mitt Romney in the face...how does that NOT jeopardize the GETTING RAND IN GOOD GRACES WITH BAD GUYS game plan?

I don't see how that hurts Rand unless insiders are spiteful for no reason at all.

I mean Romney has enough bound delegates to take the nomination on the first ballot. Ron being nominated on the floor won't change that, it will just get Ron an unedited prime time speech.

The GOP doesn't get their perfect circle jerk convention but the end result will be the same right?

 

[Pauls' Revere]

Do we/Will we have a live link at Nebraska?

 

[sailingaway]

I don't see how that hurts Rand unless insiders are spiteful for no reason at all.

I mean Romney has enough bound delegates to take the nomination on the first ballot. Ron being nominated on the floor won't change that, it will just get Ron an unedited prime time speech.

The GOP doesn't get their perfect circle jerk convention but the end result will be the same right?

If we are more concerned with GOP establishment opinion than our own goals, we might as well give up.

 

[anaconda]

QUESTION: If Ron Paul is nominated from the floor...with drama naturally-read-that-PREDICTABLY ensuing, including enthusiastically slapping Mitt Romney in the face...how does that NOT jeopardize the GETTING RAND IN GOOD GRACES WITH BAD GUYS game plan?

It's not in Rand's hands. It's not really even in Ron's hands. Right? Besides, Rand endorsed Mittens.

 

[anaconda]

Heck, they CHALLENGED everything. But it is clear we are in the right. They can DECLARE Ron has no delegates at all, but that doesn't make it so.

I was assuming that the challenges were still being reviewed. Has LA decided which slate they are sending? Wasn't this the parking lot extended convention?

UPDATE: Just got off my lazy ass and found this article published just yesterday...

http://theadvocate.com/home/3275474-125/state-gop-fight-blocks-delegates

 

[sailingaway]

I was assuming that the challenges were still being reviewed. Has LA decided which slate they are sending? Wasn't this the parking lot extended convention?

UPDATE: Just got off my lazy ass and found this article published just yesterday...

http://theadvocate.com/home/3275474-125/state-gop-fight-blocks-delegates

this was not the parking lot delegation. This was the one where the rightly elected chair had his newly implanted surgical hip dislocated and had to be taken away by ambulance, and where the newly elected rules chair (the real one) had fingers broken. WATCH this -- the first 2:27 is just people making motions and being ignored, which is important because it gives grounds to remove the chair. ALSO important is the fact that the temporary self declared chair was removed BEFORE fake rules by the fake rules committee chair were ratified, so they didn't apply, meaning a majority of the delegates still had the rule of the room. You can see the rest for yourself:

 

[anaconda]

this was not the parking lot delegation. This was the one where the rightly elected chair had his newly implanted surgical hip dislocated and had to be taken away by ambulance, and where the newly elected rules chair (the real one) had fingers broken. WATCH this -- the first 2:27 is just people making motions and being ignored, which is important because it gives grounds to remove the chair. ALSO important is the fact that the temporary self declared chair was removed BEFORE fake rules by the fake rules committee chair were ratified, so they didn't apply, meaning a majority of the delegates still had the rule of the room. You can see the rest for yourself:

Thanks.

I found an anti-Paul article from last month which has a good explanation from presumably a pro-Paul commenter at the very bottom. The comment is by an "Anonymous" on 7-7-12 at 10:39 P.M.

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/10152-how-ron-paul-lost-louisiana

Sailingaway, I'm not quite clear on the "rules ratification." According to "Anonymous" there was a rules committee meeting the day before the convention, where the new rules committee chair was elected and some new "supplemental rules" were voted down by presumably pro Paul forces elected at the local conventions. Are you saying that a whole set of rules needs to be approved before the convention could proceed? Plus I don't see how anyone could claim any legitimacy for the Romney side of things. And couldn't there be assault charges filed? Why did the rules chair who was voted out the previous day get up and start making a "rules report?" I wonder if this individual was interviewed? Would he claim that the rules meeting the day before was somehow illegitimate?

 

[WhistlinDave]

I was assuming that the challenges were still being reviewed. Has LA decided which slate they are sending? Wasn't this the parking lot extended convention?

UPDATE: Just got off my lazy ass and found this article published just yesterday...

http://theadvocate.com/home/3275474-125/state-gop-fight-blocks-delegates

Parking lot convention was Oklahoma, I'm pretty sure.

 

[sailingaway]

Thanks.

I found an anti-Paul article from last month which has a good explanation from presumably a pro-Paul commenter at the very bottom. The comment is by an "Elizabeth."

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/10152-how-ron-paul-lost-louisiana

Sailingaway, I'm not quite clear on the "rules ratification." According to "Elizabeth," there was a rules committee meeting the day before the convention, where the new rules committee chair was elected and some new "supplemental rules" were voted down by presumably pro Paul forces elected at the local conventions. Are you saying that a whole set of rules needs to be approved before the convention could proceed? Plus I don't see how anyone could claim any legitimacy for the Romney side of things. And couldn't there be assault charges filed? Why did the rules chair who was voted out the previous day get up and start making a "rules report?" I wonder if this individual was interviewed? Would he claim that the rules meeting the day before was somehow illegitimate?

The rules chair refused to recognize being voted out and a new rules chair being voted in and they said they had new rules. They IGNORE that the rules chair was voted out and replaced. The beginning of the video above, at about 2:27 is where the self designated chair of the convention was trying to rush in a ratification of the rules changes which they said were new rules. The committee can't just make rules, they have to be ratified, and these weren't. The chair was removed before the body could vote on them. OUR guys elected a new rules chair at the rules committee meeting the day before, but the self appointed convention chair, trying to rule the convention by personal reputation, refused to hear him and had him dragged off by off duty police, resulting in his fingers being broken.

the point of my posting the video is the strength of the evidence we have. Any normal person watching that is going to see the vast majority were following OUR chair, and only a tiny group in the front around the stage were following the self appointed chair. It is pretty compelling imho, and when added to close ups of the guys being dragged off, is even more compelling.

the Elizabeth commenter I see there is pretty anti Paul from my view. There was nothing vague about what happened. and the Paul supporters WERE the peaceful ones. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong comment.

 

[anaconda]

Any normal person watching that is going to see the vast majority were following OUR chair, and only a tiny group in the front around the stage were following the self appointed chair. It is pretty compelling imho, and when added to close ups of the guys being dragged off, is even more compelling.

But who can we appeal to? This reminds me of Massachusetts. They do whatever they want without any accountability to rules.

 

[anaconda]

the Elizabeth commenter I see there is pretty anti Paul from my view. There was nothing vague about what happened. and the Paul supporters WERE the peaceful ones. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong comment.

I am mistaken. It's the comment posted by "Anonymous" but at the bottom like I said. Actually, I'll just copy and paste it here:



"What is interesting is how many people have commented here, including the author, without watching any of the cell phone videos available on YouTube.

I’ve read several reports, and watched videos of the Rules Committee meeting and of the opening of the Convention. Here is a summary as I see it:

* At the LA Caucus on Apr. 28th, Ron Paul wins 111 of 150 delegates. The LAGOP State Central Committee gets to appoint an additional 30 delegates so Ron Paul has 111 of 180 delegates going to the state convention.

* Rules Committee delegates worked for about 1 month to develop the rules for the convention.

* The day before the Rule Committee meeting just prior to the convention, the executive committee of the LAGOP publishes 16 pages of “supplemental” rules that they say will govern the convention and all committee meetings. According to Ron Paul supporters, these new rules violate the LAGOP bylaws and RNC rules.

* The day before the convention at the Rules Committee meeting, the majority of the members of the committee rejected the new rules and 16 of the 21 members voted to remove the Rule Committee chairman, who was Scott Wilfong, the 2012 LAGOP Caucus Director, and voted to install Alex Helwig as the new Rules Committee chairman. The Rules Committee then met and adopted the rules for the convention. All actions were accomplished in accordance with Roberts Rules of Order, which Mr. Wilfong had stated would govern the meeting.

* At the convention the next day, Roger Villere (Convention Chairman) calls for the report from the Rules Committee, and introduces Mr. Wilfong. A woman delegate then twice asks a request for information, but she is ignored by both Mr. Villere and Mr. Wilfong. Alex Helwig then attempts to tell Mr. Villere that Mr. Wilfong is not the Rules Committee chairman, that Mr. Wilfong was removed the day before. Mr. Wilfong then states that he is still the Rules Committee chairman. After some argument, Mr. Villere asks for Mr. Helwig to leave, and then asks the sergeant-at-arms to have him removed. As the off-duty police officers approach Mr. Helwig, he calls for a vote to remove the Chairman, which is immediately seconded by several people.

* As Mr. Helwig is escorted from the room**, Mr. Wilfong attempts to gives his report. But many delegates then start chanting “the chairman was removed” — clearly a message to Mr. Villere that Mr. Wilfong was not the Rules Committee chairman. While Mr. Wilfong is speaking, Mr. Henry Herford is nominated and then elected by an overwhelming (per voice vote) majority of the delegates. The majority of the delegates then turn their chairs around with their backs to Mr. Villere and proceed with the meeting. Mr. Herford runs the meeting for the majority of the delegates using a portable PA system, while Mr. Villere also continues from the dais with a smaller group. Mr. Villere then tells Mr. Herford to turn his microphone off. Mr. Herford does not, and Mr. Villere then asks the sergeant-at-arms to shut off Mr. Wilfong’s microphone and have him removed.

* After Mr. Helwig is removed*** by the off-duty police officers, the majority of the delegates then elect Connie Bernard as the new Chairman. They proceed with the convention.

Anyone have other information to add?

Leaving aside the issue of personal injuries (see below), do the actions of the LAGOP sound like they were proper?

I went to the Democratic candidates’ forum for Alexandria, VA City Council last week, and I was so appalled by what I heard that I was going to attend the Alexandria GOP meeting last night to see what Republicans are running. But I am rather disgusted with some of the Republican leadership at this point, so at the last minute I decided not to go. Maybe my vote, and my money, won’t go to the GOP this year, either.

** According to a statement released by the Ron Paul campaign, “Alex Helwig, Chairman of the Rules Committee who made the motion to remove the chair, was arrested by Shreveport police and released. During his brief detainment, some of his fingers were broken and when he returned to the event he was walking with aid of a cane.”

*** Also according to the Paul campaign, “Mr. Herford has a prosthetic hip and according to a doctor at the scene it appears as though the prosthetic was dislocated and may require replacement.” Herford’s injury can be seen on several videos on the web.

 

[cajuncocoa]

QUESTION: If Ron Paul is nominated from the floor...with drama naturally-read-that-PREDICTABLY ensuing, including enthusiastically slapping Mitt Romney in the face...how does that NOT jeopardize the GETTING RAND IN GOOD GRACES WITH BAD GUYS game plan?

Besides, everyone who wants to work within the GOP cite the main reason for doing so as "it's what Ron Paul wants"...doesn't it seem counter to "what Ron Paul wants" to insist on nominating him from the floor at the convention? I get the feeling he really doesn't want his delegates to do that.

 

[anaconda]

Besides, everyone who wants to work within the GOP cite the main reason for doing so as "it's what Ron Paul wants"...doesn't it seem counter to "what Ron Paul wants" to insist on nominating him from the floor at the convention? I get the feeling he really doesn't want his delegates to do that.

Dr. Paul has said recently on national t.v. that the convention should include a healthy debate, like conventions of yesteryear. A speech would help the cause of free debate that he seeks. My guess is that he would want to be nominated from the floor. Plus the convention rules allow for nominating a candidate with a plurality of delegates from 5 states. How can they argue with their own rules? How is observing their own rules not working within the party? Plus Dr. Paul has already said "no way" to supporting Romney, so perhaps his definition of "working within the party" does not preclude an ample dosage of contentiousness.

 

[sailingaway]

But who can we appeal to? This reminds me of Massachusetts. They do whatever they want without any accountability to rules.

the credentials committee at RNC but what we have discovered is that when media runs with it they tend to follow their rules more in credentials committee. Georgia wouldn't have been thrown out but for us getting video to media who picked it up and the same with St Charles in MO. We have to spread the Louisiana videos so a LOT of people know what happened before the credentials committee makes its ruling at RNC.

 

[sailingaway]

Dr. Paul has said recently on national t.v. that the convention should include a healthy debate, like conventions of yesteryear. A speech would help the cause of free debate that he seeks. My guess is that he would want to be nominated from the floor. Plus the convention rules allow for nominating a candidate with a plurality of delegates from 5 states. How can they argue with their own rules? How is observing their own rules not working within the party? Plus Dr. Paul has already said "no way" to supporting Romney, so perhaps his definition of "working within the party" does not preclude an ample dosage of contentiousness.

He outright said he wanted to be nominated from the floor because it got him an unedited speech. In his speech before the Texas state GOP convention Ron said that 1976, when he was a delegate for Reagan 'was the last time the people got to pick the nominee', it is clearly a process of which he approves. Some in the campaign are trying to water that down to nominating him for VP for some unfathomable (to me) reason, unless they think Romney's delegates would actually VOTE for Ron for VP, which I don't think any of us expect. Both would get him the unedited speech, but he isn't running for VP.

Ron Paul said we should be respectful but not be pushed around.

 

[WhistlinDave]

Ron Paul said we should be respectful but not be pushed around.

Exactly. Nominate him from the floor, and if RP truly does not want that, then he is free to decline it. Don't try to read his mind or guess. He is running for President. He said "no way" when asked if he endorses Romney, and he has not come out and said "don't nominate me" or "I don't want to be President any more."

So if we have the ability to nominate him for President, anyone suggesting the delegates shouldn't do it can stick it up their a** quite frankly.

And if he truly doesn't want the nomination then he can decline it and concede to Mitt at that point. (I think anyone thinking clearly knows that will not happen.)

 

[devil21]

Ron wants the prime time speech. It's the biggest platform the media will ever give him. If we can get him nominated from the floor then he gets it.

Btw, I guarantee he will do it even if he doesn't want it. He's as loyal to us as we are to him. Can you imagine RP giving a keynote speech on live tv at the RNC? People in droves will wonder why they voted for Mitt once they compare the speeches. I don't have illusions of winning the nomination (though I never gave up) but this is a huge opportunity to advance the Liberty movement. Ron won't turn that down.

(On a pure political strategy note, if the party gives him this without shenanigans it will go a long way to winning some extra votes for Mitt)

 

[freedomordeath]

How much would a 1min cable TV ad cost anyways reagrding the Lousianna delagtes story, I think this would be an excellent idea, we got his far we might as well go down fighting. We should air the advert and add the contact details for the RNC in the advert to ask them to re-instate the correct slate.

 

[airborne373]

Well ... if Rachel Maddow on MSNBC says so it must be true.