RNC to NV GOP: Don’t let Ron Paul delegates take over nat'l convention slots or don’t come

[sailingaway]

RNC to NV GOP: Don’t let Ron Paul delegates take over nat'l convention slots or don’t come

RNC to NV GOP: Don’t let Ron Paul delegates take over national convention slots or don’t bother coming to Tampa

In a letter delivered today to GOP Chairman Michael McDonald, the RNC's chief counsel said if Ron Paul delegates are allowed to take too many slots for the national convention, Nevada's entire contingent may not be seated in Tampa.

John R. Phillippe, Jr., said while his letter is not binding, "I believe it is highly likely that any committee with jurisdiction over the matter would find improper any change to the election, selection, allocation, or binding of delegates, thus jeopardizing the seating of Nevada’s entire delegation to the National Convention."

Clearly, the RNC fears that mischief at the Sparks convention this weekend could result in Ron Paul delegates taking Mitt Romney slots and then not abiding by GOP rules to vote for the presumptive nominee on the first ballot in Tampa. So they are trying to force McDonald to ensure that actual Romney delegates fill 20 of the 28 national convention slots, thus removing any mystery of who they will vote for.

more:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/ra...-gop-dont-let-ron-paul-delegates-take-over-n/

NOt sure why VOTING as the MAJORITY following the delegate process is 'mischief'.

here is the RNC letter: http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/...publican_Party_re_Allocation_of_Delegates.pdf

 

[Agorism]

I thought the GOP chairman there was a Ron Paul supporter.

 

[Vanilluxe]

Is that illegal, but the GOP already have broken too many laws and we need to hold them accountable or they will continue.

 

[The Dark Knight]

It does look kinda silly if we try to change the rules to unbind the delegates for Romney but hey, this is politics.

 

[sailingaway]

This vetting to make sure they 'actually support' someone is nonsense. I don't see him cite ANY rule on that.

 

[sailingaway]

Is that illegal, but the GOP already have broken too many laws and we need to hold them accountable or they will continue.

they JUST changed allocation to say Romney has more than he would have had Ron has a couple more and Santa has none. THEY do whatever they want.

The campaign has to decide how to handle this but note that in LA I'm pretty sure the rule to bind at all didn't happen until after Oct, and if they are just making up rules as they go, as with the 'star chamber to decide if someone actually supports a candidate' then they are just saying they can make it up as they go. In which case, at somepoint, .......

 

[sailingaway]

I REALLY think we have to challenge the RNC under Rule 11 to make them prove they have on file agreement from all fifty states that Romney can be treated as the presumed nominee even though many states haven't even voted and he doesn't have the delegates. AS a Californian, I want to hold my state responsible if they signed away any import of my vote. See discussion here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...aws-In-%93Its-Official%94-quot&highlight=rule

I think the campaign should challenge that, the RNC should NOT be working on Romney's behalf and their declaration of him as presumed nominee, and fundraising with and for him etc and this on his behalf is very likely in violation of Rule 11 imho.

note they are even reportedly saying they will help retire Gingrich's debt in connection with Gingrich's endorsement of Romney: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...hould-we-look-at-Rule-11-again&highlight=rule

and the NVGOP already changed delegate binding to favor Romney: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...e-Count-in-NV-per-NV-GOP/page4&highlight=rule

plus Rule 38 purportedly doesn't recognize state binding in any event at RNC: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ension-of-Rules-RNC-Convention&highlight=rule which seems contrary to the new pretense of a rule that people have to 'in their heart' support a candidate in particular also here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...onvention-eschew-the-Unit-Rule&highlight=rule

 

[drummergirl]

Exactly. Not to mention all the rules about the autonomy of the states in the manner in which they select and bind their delegates. This is just classic bullying. Call the bluff and pass the salsa please.

I REALLY think we have to challenge the RNC under Rule 11 to make them prove they have on file agreement from all fifty states that Romney can be treated as the presumed nominee even though many states haven't even voted and he doesn't have the delegates. AS a Californian, I want to hold my state responsible if they signed away any import of my vote.

I think the campaign should challenge that, the RNC should NOT be working on Romney's behalf and their declaration of him as presumed nominee, and fundraising with and for him etc and this on his behalf is very likely in violation of Rule 11 imho.

note they are even reportedly saying they will help retire Gingrich's debt in connection with Gingrich's endorsement of Romney: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...hould-we-look-at-Rule-11-again&highlight=rule

and the NVGOP already changed delegate binding to favor Romney: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...e-Count-in-NV-per-NV-GOP/page4&highlight=rule

 

[sailingaway]

They are saying a credentials committee run by someone else at RNC would find that way, or threatening it. Up to the campaign..... If it were me and I were certain Ron would have his five anyhow, I might just ignore the 'committment in their heart' stuff that has no shadow of a rule behind it as I understand it, that is contrary to how the GOP has picked insiders for these positions regardless of their love of candidate, for a long time. But I might stick with the binding here and deal with it at National, assuming we have the delegation chair....but it really depends. I'm THINKING that as of last OCTOBER Louisiana didn't bind its delegates at all, but I don't for sure remember. I do remember they changed their rules super late, but I think the RNC is way willing to write off states altogether or 'represent the states with RNC selected people' rather than let the process actually go forward as they designed it, when that design is being used against their wishes.

 

[JJ2]

I have feeling sparks are gonna fly in Sparks this weekend!

 

[joshnorris14]

I've got my popcorn.

 

[sailingaway]

It does look kinda silly if we try to change the rules to unbind the delegates for Romney but hey, this is politics.

they only changed it to stop us, because we were able to take them all over last time. It's not like the membership voted on it, the leadership did.

 

[RPit]

If they suspend the rules and bind all delegates to Ron Paul, that indeed is a problem. Because according to RNC rules, 'rules' for the delegates (essentially the State Rules) must be given to the RNC the October before election year, that means Oct 2011. If we change those rules and binding rules, that is a 'change to the state rules' and that is NOT acceptable by the RNC. Thus they have a legitimate reason to challenge and unseat the whole delegation. This is why it is important not to make these changes. Because otherwise they will legitimately kick us out. Remember when WA GOP Chairman was trying to get permission from RNC to allow re-convening of some county's convention- the reason he was asking RNC permission was because it would go against the 'submitted' rules to the RNC..

The best route is abstention on the vote- if its allowed. Don't give them any legitimate reason to challenge our delegates!

 

[JJ2]

If they suspend the rules and bind all delegates to Ron Paul, that indeed is a problem. Because according to RNC rules, 'rules' for the delegates (essentially the State Rules) must be given to the RNC the October before election year, that means Oct 2011. If we change those rules and binding rules, that is a 'change to the state rules' and that is NOT acceptable by the RNC. Thus they have a legitimate reason to challenge and unseat the whole delegation. This is why it is important not to make these changes. Because otherwise they will legitimately kick us out. Remember when WA GOP Chairman was trying to get permission from RNC to allow re-convening of some county's convention- the reason he was asking RNC permission was because it would go against the 'submitted' rules to the RNC..

The best route is abstention on the vote- if its allowed. Don't give them any legitimate reason to challenge our delegates!

But they're saying the submitted rules apply to allocation as well as binding. So it would be better to lose the whole state than have Mitt increase his delegate lead.

 

[sailingaway]

If they suspend the rules and bind all delegates to Ron Paul, that indeed is a problem. Because according to RNC rules, 'rules' for the delegates (essentially the State Rules) must be given to the RNC the October before election year, that means Oct 2011. If we change those rules and binding rules, that is a 'change to the state rules' and that is NOT acceptable by the RNC. Thus they have a legitimate reason to challenge and unseat the whole delegation. This is why it is important not to make these changes. Because otherwise they will legitimately kick us out. Remember when WA GOP Chairman was trying to get permission from RNC to allow re-convening of some county's convention- the reason he was asking RNC permission was because it would go against the 'submitted' rules to the RNC..

The best route is abstention on the vote- if its allowed. Don't give them any legitimate reason to challenge our delegates!

I disagree, I think the rule was not intended for the delegates and UNbinding, particularly when rule 38 of the RNC says they won't recognize state binding but consider delegates able to vote their conscience. That also makes as NONsense the idea that they internally have to love the candidate to whom they are bound. Also, the NV GOP already broke that rule if it was a rule by SHIFTING delegates between candidates last week.

But it is up to the campaign because they are clearly saying they plan to take that position and if they have the votes on the credentials committee....

 

[sailingaway]

But they're saying the submitted rules apply to allocation as well as binding. So it would be better to lose the whole state than have Mitt increase his delegate lead.

that is definitely something for the campaign to consider.

 

[JJ2]

that is definitely something for the campaign to consider.

I wonder if the RNC realizes that they are not giving the Paul campaign any incentive to play by their "rules."

If the state's delegation gets thrown out, the RNC benefits by not seating all of those Paul delegates.

But it's also a better option for the Paul campaign than simply allowing Mitt to win the majority of NV's delegates. They have no reason to comply with such a demand.

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

This is pretty much threatening.

"Do not allow Ron Paul delegates to succeed, by any means necessary."

That's just proof they advocate a message of election fraud, because they're threatening subordinates within the party with punishment, if they do not succeed as leaders at the RNC wish for.

 

[joshnorris14]

This is pretty much threatening.

"Do not allow Ron Paul delegates to succeed, by any means necessary."

That's just proof they advocate a message of election fraud, because they're threatening subordinates within the party with punishment, if they do not succeed as leaders at the RNC wish for.

Technically they are trying to prevent the NV GOP from breaking RNC rules. If we unbound delegates, the NV GOP's delegation will be stripped.

 

[sailingaway]

I wonder if the RNC realizes that they are not giving the Paul campaign any incentive to play by their "rules."

If the state's delegation gets thrown out, the RNC benefits by not seating all of those Paul delegates.

But it's also a better option for the Paul campaign than simply allowing Mitt to win the majority of NV's delegates. They have no reason to comply with such a demand.

we have to out vote Santa's people too.... but I agree vis a vis Romney there is leverage.