Romney Shadow State Party in Nevada

[maxoutco]

This peeves me to no end. What can we as the grassroots or the campaign do about this? Is this even legal?


http://www.dailypaul.com/234252/rnc-creating-new-organization-for-nv

 

[ClydeCoulter]

I llike the comment about the snake eating it's tail, that's what they are doing.

 

[bcreps85]

Scratching my head on this one...I don't see how it could even be remotely legal. I get all the arguments about it being a private organization, but it's members still enter into a contract based on the rules of that organization. If they just ignore the officials that were elected by their own rules because they don't like them, I'd think they should be able to get the crap sued out of them under contract law.

Even further, if they are concerting this effort with the Romney campaign like the article implies, it is probably the most blatant disregard for rule 11 we have seen so far.

 

[drummergirl]

Even further, if they are concerting this effort with the Romney campaign like the article implies, it is probably the most blatant disregard for rule 11 we have seen so far.

More fuel for the rule 11 fire. Reince Priebus needs to be fired.

 

[SilenceDewgooder]

Not sure what can be done except exposure, but don't miss the other side of the story of why Romney and the RNC are taking these measures. I think this move says volumes about the true delegate count; why else would it be necessary?

 

[wgadget]

So Team Romney is officially splitting up the GOP?!?!

 

[jhk07]

if that is true...... that is really f*%$#D up. Also would lead me to believe a bound delegate is not bound.

 

[hrdman2luv]

WT Friggin F

"Ron Paul's campaign released a statement on May 5 providing Chairman Priebus and the RNC their "full consent" to move forward with setting up Victory organizations. Certainly we do not need to wait for Tampa before assisting our presumptive nominee. I look forward to working with Chairman Priebus and Republicans across the state of Nevada as we build a top-notch ground game to beat Barack Obama and elect Mitt Romney to the White House.”

 

[jbauer]

So.....

Why can't we do the same thing is all the states we didn't win? We'll set up our own GOP party, we'll send delegates to Tampa. We'll nominate Paul and then we can battle this out in court as to who the REAL slimshaddy is?

Not sure how this is even legal. This should be headline news

 

[Ivash]

I know you guys might not even think of this as a 'plus side', but at least it means the delegate system will likely be changed for next time...

I hate the delegate system. It is far too complicated and unnecessary.

 

[TrishW]

Just keep playing nice... see where it gets you?

Time to fight, or time to surrender?

 

[sailingaway]

I know you guys might not even think of this as a 'plus side', but at least it means the delegate system will likely be changed for next time...

I hate the delegate system. It is far too complicated and unnecessary.

Step back from the 'us' part of this.

There are more independents than GOP. A third of the country that is REGISTERED TO VOTE says neither party represents them, and it is a segment bigger than the GOP. That doesn't even account for those who didn't bother to register because they were so disenchanted.

Disenfranchisement has historic parallels and they aren't pretty. Essentially, if the GOP refuses to be responsive, something has to give. None of the outcomes are good for the GOP. They might not get Ron elected, either, but they pretty much spell the end of the GOP.

IMHO they are better off going through the growing pains now, with a weak 'presumptive nominee' who will lose to Obama anyhow, then have the party together, and bigger, and more attractive to independents. Otherwise the problem won't go away and we will end up with three parties, two too weak to elect presidents, until OURS grows enough to, going forward.

There is no enthusiasm (only fear) and no momentum on the GOP establishment side, and the demographics are DECIDEDLY against it. Unless we are in it.

 

[sailingaway]

Just keep playing nice... see where it gets you?

Time to fight, or time to surrender?

We need to get money to the parties we take over. If we can't fund them, those who 'go along with us' for our enthusiasm and volunteer power will stop doing so because the reason the party is needed is to distribute money in support of candidates, as much as to organize.

So we just have to put our minds to that and make it a priority.

The problem is the conventions are NOW and they will have the Nevada example of going around the party to be afraid of, and not our response as delegates there vote for who will 'be in power'. We NEED other conservatives to vote for our delegates and people. It is important that the fundraiser Ron is doing for the MN GOP be a success this weekend, for example, because it is the only thing happening NOW. We will have to have money bombs or drives for 'our' party chapters, though.

 

[No Free Beer]

Am I the only one who is laughing so hard by this?

People, take a step back.

Look at how pathetic this is from the GOP.

If this isn't proof that we are winning, I don't know what is.

I am legit "lol"ing right now...

 

[Paul Fan]

Wow. Great job, Nevada, for revealing Romney's desperation and rule-breaking so clearly! I hope this is a sign of things to come elsewhere.

 

[Ivash]

Step back from the 'us' part of this.

There are more independents than GOP. A third of the country that is REGISTERED TO VOTE says neither party represents them, and it is a segment bigger than the GOP. That doesn't even account for those who didn't bother to register because they were so disenchanted.

Disenfranchisement has historic parallels and they aren't pretty. Essentially, if the GOP refuses to be responsive, something has to give. None of the outcomes are good for the GOP. They might not get Ron elected, either, but they pretty much spell the end of the GOP.

IMHO they are better off going through the growing pains now, with a weak 'presumptive nominee' who will lose to Obama anyhow, then have the party together, and bigger, and more attractive to independents. Otherwise the problem won't go away and we will end up with three parties, two too weak to elect presidents, until OURS grows enough to, going forward.

There is no enthusiasm (only fear) and no momentum on the GOP establishment side, and the demographics are DECIDEDLY against it. Unless we are in it.

The whole 'one third of the country is independent!' idea is simply false. The mass majority of independents vote reliably for one party or the other, and rarely (if ever) change their vote. It has been constantly noted that less than 10% of the current voting population (not including those that don't usually vote) are actually truly 'independent'- the others are 'independent in name only'.

There are a lot of obvious reasons why a person would want to declare themselves independent when they really aren't, as I'm sure you can imagine.

The odds of a counter-party to the Democrats not existing are extraordinarily slim in a 'first past the post' system. So are the odds of a third party being a consistent and regular power in elections. The GOP will have to change eventually, though it might be a while before that happens. Could you imagine what would happen if the world's economy collapsed under a Democratic President? It wouldn't even matter whether or not Obama could have done anything to stop it, the Republicans would have power for the next generation. Granted on social issues they'd be forced to change but on many other issues they could remain the same.

 

[SilenceDewgooder]

I know you guys might not even think of this as a 'plus side', but at least it means the delegate system will likely be changed for next time...

I hate the delegate system. It is far too complicated and unnecessary.

The only thing wrong with the system "possibly" is that some delegates may not be able to vote their conscience. It is not that complicated but very necessary. The MSM "delegate counts" are the problem.

 

[SilenceDewgooder]

Someone is forwarding my post to PolicyMic:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/8...s-back-creates-secret-party-loyal-only-to-him

 

[Ivash]

The only thing wrong with the system "possibly" is that some delegates may not be able to vote their conscience. It is not that complicated but very necessary. The MSM "delegate counts" are the problem.

It potentially disenfranchises voters, something that would be a major problem in the 21st century if it were to occur. People no longer thing of primaries as events that can be controlled by the establishment (as in the old day) or by motivated groups of supporters, but rather as democratic votes where the person that wins the most votes/states wins the primary. To change that perception would incur a major backlash, which is why the changing of the delegate system is extremely likely (though not inevitable- many campaigns like to reward not particularly important supporters with delegate positions).

 

[maxoutco]

I know some of you are lol'ing right now about this, but I don't find it funny at all. We have enough issues going on in the other states, and Nevada was suppose to be all said and done. This should be pissing us off even more than what went down in North Dakota or Arizona last weekend.

We really need a top notch grassroots lawyer with a chipin. Can we rely that the campaign will be putting their efforts in the courts to fight this, and how long would the courts drag it out to where it doesn't make a difference any longer.