Net Impact Of Delegate Push: Helpful Or Harmful?

"What would you do?"

We'll just say we are John McCain supporters at the remaining conventions but instead we'll vote for Ron Paul. It's no big deal and I'm not worried about our reputation. All freedom fighters reputations were called lunatics since Plato.

Actually, you don't *vote* for Ron Paul at the state conventions, do you? Isn't the voting about which people will become national delegates?

Also, I could care less about *your* reputation.

I care what *your* actions do to RP's reputation and to anyone associated with him.

Very specific question:

What would you do if you were a national delegate from a state that bound you to vote for McCain for the first round (assuming McCain was not eliminated for health/legal/other reasons)?
1. Vote for McCain in the first round as you were elected to do
2. Refuse to vote at all
3. Defy your state's rules and vote for RP in the first round and likely get ejected from the convention with front-page headlines?

Please answer.

What damage do you think action #3 would cause?
 
I ran for national delegate to the convention, but was not elected. Chalk it up to ignorance of the rules. (Not any longer)
Mitt Romney dropping out of the race allowed us to vote for 19 "uncommitted" delegates.
But let's say that I was elected as a McCain delegate. I would abstain.......legal to do.
Would not defy the state's rules as then my vote would not count. No point in doing so.

Now I have some questions for you.
Please answer.

1. Are you a national delegate for your state?

2. Have you even run as a delegate?

3. How about a precinct captain for the campaign?

4. Have you been out in the public trying to ethically educate them as to what the situation is with their current government?

5. Are you personally reminding people that Dr. Ron Paul is still a candidate?

Whether there is blowback from RP getting the GOP nomination or not is irrelevant. If there is we deal with it. Like we have dealt with the GOP's out and out breaking of party rules and state statutes.
We are following the rules and "game plan" of the RNC, and each individual state.
Definitely NOT like the LAGOP who's chairman took it upon himself to extend the qualifying deadline. Did not put out the call to the primary as dictated by the RNC rules, put names of persons as delegates on McCain's slate without their permission, and then at the convention even admitted they broke the rules and it is placed on the record.

Keep on fishing.
 
I for one am enjoying every day of new reports from the state conventions - exposing the party sheep for what they are, how low a priority constitutional freedoms have become, and how important it is to "stick together". Gag!

When someone sneaks out a videotape, I see enthusiastic new blood in the Party, and a bunch of silent frowning bluehairs upset at the "interlopers" who are keeping them from their afternoon plans.

I plan to stay on RP forums through 2009 and keep reading about the party elections, as RP folks get elected to committees and county chairman's positions. It's gonna happen. The party has to change from the inside, or it will wither away.
 
Double post. Sorry. :)

Think about this. We have succeeded in placing complete political greenhorns into national delegate positions. THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN in normal elections. The party bigwigs and loyalists "are supposed" to get these spots!

There may even be some state executives grudingly telling someone that donated $100,000 to the party, that there were not enough open delegate seats because "The Ron Paul people took too many of them".

Every delegate spot we can snag adds to this effect.
 
So we're just supposed to act like good little sheep and lay down and go back to sleep? Let the establishment do as it pleases???

WRONG! I'm not going to do that...

I want my children and grand children to live in a better world.....not one full of corruption and dictatorship...

This is the FREE WORLD.... that is why the Europeans came over here in the first place....



We're not talking about "tea in the harbor" this time. Would it be another Bhutto?

FWIW, I was taking the train into the city every day and politics was *not* being discussed. And if I mentioned RP, no one even knew who he was!

And what will make this "revolution" any more successful than the Sixties or the Ross Perot/United We Stand "movements"?

Any bets we're at war before the election, martial law will be implemented, and there won't be any election at all, so Bush can stay in power as dictator supreme?

Maybe all of these delegate issues in both parties are meant to be the *distraction* from what is actually going on behind the scenes?
 
It doesn't matter what I believe. What does matter is what the general public believes when you try to "spread the message" to them.

And if you already have to avoid any reference to "Ron Paul", exactly what happened to harm his good name?

I'm sorry, but many of the public posts on RPF and DP give very good reason for those monitoring the "RP people" to make their own plans to block us at every turn.

And how does that get anything accomplished towards RP's goals?

Very specific question:
What would you do if you were a national delegate from a state that bound you to vote for McCain for the first round (assuming McCain was not eliminated for health/legal/other reasons)?
1. Vote for McCain in the first round as you were elected to do
2. Refuse to vote at all
3. Defy your state's rules and vote for RP in the first round and likely get ejected from the convention with front-page headlines?

Please answer.

What damage do you think action #3 would cause?

I would hope everyone here would select #3. Otherwise they are just a fucking pussy. By the way, pussies get fucked by dicks.
 
Success in changing minds

I have had success in my county last county meeting by explaining how the party leadership are turning the Eleventh Commandment on it's ear. The 11th doesn't apply to conservatives returning the party to it's roots. It does apply to the McCain people and party leadership forcing the party to the left.

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0402/0402eleventhcommandment.htm

The "Eleventh Commandment"
By David C. Wilcox
web posted April 8, 2002
During Ronald Reagan's 1966 campaign for governor of California, Republicans established the so-called Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."
It was proposed by State Republican Chairman Gaylord Parkinson to help prevent a repeat of the liberal Republican assault on Barry Goldwater that laid the foundation for Goldwater's trouncing in the 1964 presidential election. Just as Nelson Rockefeller and his East Coast cronies had branded Goldwater as an "extremist" who was unfit to hold office, so candidate George Christopher and California's liberal Republicans were leveling similar personal attacks on Reagan. Party liberals eventually followed Parkinson's advice, and the rest is history.
Fast forward to March 5, 2002.
While it wasn't the only factor, failure to observe the Eleventh Commandment undoubtedly played a role in the unprecedented implosion of Richard Riordan's gubernatorial campaign in California. It was déjà vu for Republican veterans when, for example, in the death throes of his failed campaign, Riordan invoked the ghosts of Rockefeller and Christopher by branding Bill Simon as an "extremist." Following suit, Gray Davis invoked the ghosts of Lyndon Johnson and Pat Brown by repeating Riordan's charge.
Although Sheriff Lee Baca (a registered Republican) won in a non-partisan election landslide, about a third of the Republican vote was against him -- a huge number of defections by anyone's standards. As with Riordan, his serial violations of the Eleventh Commandment played a role.
Too frequently for their fellow Republicans' tastes, both Riordan and Baca have endorsed, and (in Riordan's case) even financed, Democrats running against their Republican colleagues. What, after all, would constitute a greater violation of the Eleventh Commandment than endorsing a fellow Republican's opponent? How much more ill can one speak of a Republican than saying a Democrat is preferable?
Riordan's conservative "teammates" -- roughly two thirds of the Republicans who voted on March 5th -- answered these questions by sending him to the bench in the March Primary. If Baca ever chooses to run for a partisan office as a Republican, it's likely he'll take a seat next to the former Los Angeles mayor.
It's not that conservatives won't get behind a "moderate." On the contrary, many conservatives joined the Riordan bandwagon early on to maximize the chances of defeating Gray Davis. But, there was always an undercurrent warning that Riordan's endorsement and contribution record left his Republican credentials suspect. The same was true of Baca.
With the declining fortunes of the California Republican Party, like Riordan and Baca, many elected Republican officials have gone out of their way to curry favor of Democrats. Displaying no sense of Party loyalty, numerous Republican City Council members, for example, often contribute money and endorsements to help Democrats. The March 2002 Primary should serve as a wakeup call, strongly suggesting that they should give teamwork a chance rather than thinking only of themselves.
To defend themselves, such "Republicans" often attempt to turn the Eleventh Commandment on its ear. They charge any Republican who dares criticize them for supporting a Democrat with an Eleventh Commandment transgression.
Is this expected to pass as rational thought?
Sometimes they claim that they "vote for the person, not the party," or they are independent minded, or they are original thinkers. Horse feathers!
Politicians never register with a political party without calculating the value in doing so. The honest thing for an elected official who wants to pick and choose candidates from both Republican and Democrat slates would be to register with no party specified.
Many voters indeed find some of their ideas in both parties and, as a consequence, split their ballots between Democrats and Republicans. They do so in the privacy of the voting booth, and it's their right to do so. They're doing their civic duty to the best of their ability. But, they are not using the prestige of an elected office to influence large numbers of voters at the expense of their colleagues.
Most serious politicians realize that choosing no political party is a non-starter that would severely restrict their chances of being elected to higher office. Belonging to either of the major political parties is a huge advantage in seeking partisan office, because minor parties rarely elect major candidates.
Thus, Republican loyalists are justified in expecting elected officials either to support their Party's candidates or to simply remain silent. An elected Republican who repeatedly violates the Eleventh Commandment by publicly endorsing a Democrat over a fellow Party member is pursuing a self-destructive course. As the March 2002 Primary results show, Golden State Republican voters will eventually impose the Golden Rule.
 
I haven't bothered reading this whole thread. I was involved in the first one, and it was a complete waste of time. However, I think all Sally's concerns are probably answered in her first post of this thread:

"RP Quotes in 3/6/08 Video:
The presidential campaign will soon wind down, but we do still encourage all effort to gain the maximum number of votes and delegates in all the remaining primaries..."

Ron Paul says what he means and means what he says, so quit trying to skew what he says like a Democrat trying to skew the founding father's words of the Constitution in order to make their agenda seem legal. Enough said.
 
Parsing - RP's "all" means what?

I haven't bothered reading this whole thread. I was involved in the first one, and it was a complete waste of time. However, I think all Sally's concerns are probably answered in her first post of this thread:

"RP Quotes in 3/6/08 Video:
The presidential campaign will soon wind down, but we do still encourage all effort to gain the maximum number of votes and delegates in all the remaining primaries..."

Ron Paul says what he means and means what he says, so quit trying to skew what he says like a Democrat trying to skew the founding father's words of the Constitution in order to make their agenda seem legal. Enough said.

Let me get this straight-

Does RP's "all" include:

1. Lying (answering as a McCain supporter)
2. Cheating
3. Stealing (as in vote fraud?)
4. Breaking/defying the rules under which you were elected at the RNC
5. Making "back room deals"
6. Paying bribes for votes
7. Negative campaigning using RP's name

I don't think so.

Sounds like Clinton's "is" to me.

And RP's (public posting) supporters are different than the "status quo" how, exactly?

Yet another post indicating that RP's "umbrella" includes many unethical people, which is now causing problems for the ethical supporters, particularly when posts on both RPF and DP have been quoted as *sources* for articles in the past day or two.

Take a look at the "impressive" public posts on the thread (note that views are over 3500 with 165 posts) referenced:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=132901

Talk about "aiding the enemy"-
 
curiously enough, the maine convention blowback flap cuts both ways.

ron paul at the university of phoenix in a question and answer session

did opinion obama is to certain to be in the whitehouse. he didn't quite

say where, when, how or in what capacity, however the inference was

IF obama easily bests hillary by FIVE superdeleagates, he traipses along

to the dust-up with john mccain! evidently ron paul expects obama to win

the electorial college near to even split, that seems to be in the wind. also at

the maine convention, it was learned that our own SteveMartin is a good

ol' fashioned "my man Blaine" ward healer voting block! when he was certain,

the Ron Paul voting block went with him totally. read the postings!!! he delivered!




his efforts got noticed by the "big boys" ... even though they segregated the

ron paul signs and chants to the back of the hall for the most part. unlike

mister fink and mister cohen who got ejected from the hall grandly! SteveMartin

was tolerated, respected, and then by his timing, ignored by the chair happily!

with my own ex-gov Mitt Romney delivering his speech and his troops to what

g.w bush and mccain think to be a fall juggernaut... i say go figure! do the math!

them danglin' chads and all those 269 verses 269 echoes of the florida count? (hint!)

we have an extremely tight fall election as a garnish on this inconclusive "them dems" bout!
 
Last edited:
pinkmandy... here is an example of my semi-readable "Aratus"... its going to
to take me several weeks to assimilate all that went on at the maine
convention! i know bush was lookin' happy on today's TODAY show... plenty
of SteveMartin's planking went elsewhere, and not on the maine platform!
not to slight anyone else, who was there... its just that as CGmike and Steve
give us more information happily and quietly, tactics in a nice way shall be
tweaked, and streamlined. kennebunkport's enclave was in the Walker family for
a 100 years, folks! so do not despair if ALL the "big guns" were out... including MITT!
 
Last edited:
Onward!!!

We are a million strong. That's no small cookie!

Don't you think that after 30 frickin' years of being shut down by both parties, RP knows of this corruption and its depths? Of course. IMO, we are being nudged out of the nest and forced to fly with our own wings. Anything less and we would be weak, roll over and take it! Roll over your delegates to someone else! Roll over *OR* learn firsthand, take some hits in the school of hard knocks.

They only make us stronger. At every turn, they make us stronger.

Blowback with a cherry on top.

To hold back and worry about spending years and years garnering the respect of people who questionably may or may not deserve ours is a horrendous waste of time. We have to move on all levels simultaneously.

Look what happens when we play nice... Now the state of MO is challenging 300 delegates and picking them off by hand, regardless of votes.

Does anyone really believe that Ron Paul is worried about us tarnishing his political career? I have seen nothing to indicate such a thing. If he directly spoke to indicate a feeling of displeasure I would expect everyone to honor that.

But you know, when he says that if they don't ask him to speak at the convention he will be speaking somewhere nearby instead... I imagine all kinds of things happening and none of those possibilities frighten me. So What. We might just end up on the news for once.
 
Given the outcomes of the recent Nevada and Maine state-level conventions, as they stand today, has the grass roots effort to honor RP's request in his 3/8 video succeeded or failed in meeting RP's intentions?

RP Quotes in 3/6/08 Video:
"The presidential campaign will soon wind down, but we do still encourage all effort to gain the maximum number of votes and delegates in all the remaining primaries and to continue the caucus process that's ongoing in the other states by loyal volunteers."

My interpretation of RP's request was for his supporters to become involved within the GOP organization, to do the necessary footwork to become respected elected officials at the local precinct/county/state levels as the prerequisite preparation to become national officials in the future.

Have we failed to honor his request of us?

Your interpretation of Ron Paul's request is blatantly wrong.
 
Back
Top