More Spin: Ron Paul campaign sends in a clown

[IPSecure]

Here we go... (Spinning and Spinning, and Twirling...)

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/47810

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20080502/OPINION/560136604

Jeff Greenspan, Ron Paul's paid out-of-state political operative who helped engineer last weekend's fiasco at the Nevada Republican Party convention in Reno, is tying himself in knots trying to spin his way out of responsibility for the embarrassment he caused.

The story line that the Paul people desperately want to believe - as it fuels the already abundant level of paranoia that flows uncontrolled through their ranks - is that the Nevada GOP had been conspiring behind closed doors to block any Paul supporters from going to the Republican National Convention in Minnesota later this summer. In their conspiracy-addled minds, the Republican Party ranks right up there with the Council on Foreign Relations.

What many of them have been crushed to discover since Saturday, however, is that Greenspan had been working hand-in-glove with the party all along. Contrary to the fashionable notion that the party was doing everything in its power to disenfranchise the Paul delegates, the party had actually been negotiating with Greenspan to include them.

What the whole brouhaha is about is how to divvy up the limited 31 delegate slots to attend the GOP national convention among some 1,500 Nevada Republican convention attendees. The agreement the party leadership and Greenspan reached was to allot slots based on the percentage of the vote each presidential candidate received at the Jan.19 caucus. Mitt Romney received more than 50 percent of the caucus vote, so his supporters would be allotted about half of the delegates. Paul came in second with less than 14 percent of the vote, so his supporters would get four slots. And so on.

Reasonable. Fair. So let it be written; so let it be done. Only ...

As it turns out, Greenspan didn't have the authority to make this deal. "Neither I nor probably any other delegate was aware of (Greenspan's) alleged back room deal," writes delegate Harold J. Reynard of Pahrump. "Mr. Greenspan has no authority to require that delegates obey his wishes in this setting."

Authority or not, according to Greenspan he broke the deal and threw the convention into chaos because he somehow came to believe on Saturday morning "that the nominations committee, or certain parties on it, had no intention on holding up their end of the bargain." Because of this, Greenspan claims, he unleashed what he describes as his "contingency plan" to scrap the deal he made with the party and instead back efforts to open the convention to nominations from the floor, thereby turning the entire convention into a circus.

Let's be clear here: Greenspan is accusing the nominations committee, or unnamed "certain parties" on the nominations committee, of conspiring at the last minute to strip the four Paul delegates (hand-picked by Greenspan, by the way) who would appear on the official slate of candidates the nominations committee was preparing to submit to the convention. That's a pretty serious accusation.

But Greenspan has yet to offer any reason why the party, after negotiating with him (as well as the McCain folks) directly and in good faith for months, would suddenly change its mind. Furthermore, Greenspan gives no evidence to back up his claim that "certain parties" on the nominations committee had no intention of holding up their end of the bargain, nor does he name the "certain parties" on the nominations committee whom he accuses of welching on the deal.

If Greenspan, of Arizona, is going to make a serious charge that brings into question the honesty and integrity of longtime and highly respected Nevada Republican leaders, he better produce some proof. The burden is on Greenspan to tell everyone why he broke the deal - which, as it turns out and unbeknownst to the GOP, he had no authority to make - since he's the one making the accusation.

Greenspan, if you have evidence that any party leaders reneged on their deal with you, put up ... or shut up.

[speciallyblend]

Bs Lies

[Bradley in DC]

I don't think I've met Chuck in person, but we know the same people and I think we've emailed. I know (of) him through the Republican Liberty Caucus and he worked closely with Dr. Paul's congressional office.

Chuck had been responsible, if memory serves, of successfully brokering a deal between the Nevada LP and Republicans to give them a working majority of the a chamber in the statehouse (or something like that). My point is I do know that Chuck has a record of successfully brokering the kinds of deals that apparently failed Greenspan (whom I know to be two-faced at best and compadre of ghemminger on lots of antics).

I don't think we should rush to judgement. I know Chuck was a supporters of Dr. Paul's.

http://conservablogs.com/muthstruths/?s=ron+paul

Including:
http://conservablogs.com/muthstruths/2007/12/24/dr-no-meets-the-press/


Anyway, I’ve made no secret of the fact that I’m a Ron Paul supporter. Have been for years. Long before many of his current legions had ever even heard his name. And in the interest of full disclosure, I’ve made two donations to his campaign, something I’ve never done for any other presidential candidate.
So it’s fair to say my views on his campaign aren’t entirely objective, though I have, despite my support, been critical of the campaign from time to time and have been consistent in my opinion that I don’t think he’s going to win the Republican nomination. I can’t tell you how much I hope I’m proved wrong on that, but there it is.

[slamhead]

I don't think I've met Chuck in person, but we know the same people and I think we've emailed. I know (of) him through the Republican Liberty Caucus and he worked closely with Dr. Paul's congressional office.

Chuck had been responsible, if memory serves, of successfully brokering a deal between the Nevada LP and Republicans to give them a working majority of the a chamber in the statehouse (or something like that). My point is I do know that Chuck has a record of successfully brokering the kinds of deals that apparently failed Greenspan (whom I know to be two-faced at best and compadre of ghemminger on lots of antics).

I don't think we should rush to judgement. I know Chuck was a supporters of Dr. Paul's.

http://conservablogs.com/muthstruths/?s=ron+paul

But he is so out of tune with the power of the movement. He is going old school back room way. Who says the GOP has a right to pick any delegates. It is up to the delegates themselves. He is trying to get "four" when we can get all of them. Romney dropped out of the race. If you ask me he is not entitled to any delegates. And considering he bussed in his Mormons his win is just a farce.

[jasonhlasvegas2008]

It was never communicated to Ron Paul supporters that there would ever be a deal. In fact, throughout the whole process it was implied that the State GOP was not very communicative, and that if we lost the rules vote we would not gain any delegates.

In the days leading up to the convention the State GOP gave and/or sold our delegate information to McCain's campaign. The McCain campaign conducted a deceptive poll to gauge our numbers. The very next day the State GOP party leadership conducted another deceptive phone poll meant to gauge our numbers. These two actions sent a very loud and clear message to the Ron Paul supporters that the State GOP leadership was not interested in playing fairly.

[constituent]

It was never communicated to Ron Paul supporters that there would ever be a deal. In fact, throughout the whole process it was implied that the State GOP was not very communicative, and that if we lost the rules vote we would not gain any delegates.

In the days leading up to the convention the State GOP gave and/or sold our delegate information to McCain's campaign. The McCain campaign conducted a deceptive poll to gauge our numbers. The very next day the State GOP party leadership conducted another deceptive phone poll meant to gauge our numbers. These two actions sent a very loud and clear message to the Ron Paul supporters that the State GOP leadership was not interested in playing fairly.

very interesting. have you put all this down in one loooong cohesive blog or something yet? i've seen you bring it all up in pieces, just wondering if you've tied it together yet (?).

it would probably be a great service to those who have yet to attend state conventions and things of the like.

[Bradley in DC]

But he is so out of tune with the power of the movement. He is going old school back room way. Who says the GOP has a right to pick any delegates. It is up to the delegates themselves. He is trying to get "four" when we can get all of them. Romney dropped out of the race. If you ask me he is not entitled to any delegates. And considering he bussed in his Mormons his win is just a farce.

I'm sure why you quoted me as nothing here seems to address anything I said. :confused:

[constituent]

I don't think I've met Chuck in person, but we know the same people and I think we've emailed. I know (of) him through the Republican Liberty Caucus and he worked closely with Dr. Paul's congressional office.

Chuck had been responsible, if memory serves, of successfully brokering a deal between the Nevada LP and Republicans to give them a working majority of the a chamber in the statehouse (or something like that). My point is I do know that Chuck has a record of successfully brokering the kinds of deals that apparently failed Greenspan (whom I know to be two-faced at best and compadre of ghemminger on lots of antics).

I don't think we should rush to judgement. I know Chuck was a supporters of Dr. Paul's.

http://conservablogs.com/muthstruths/?s=ron+paul

Including:
http://conservablogs.com/muthstruths/2007/12/24/dr-no-meets-the-press/

i was waiting to hear what you were going to say about the ordeal.

i'm still having trouble grasping exactly what this alleges to have happened though.

[Bradley in DC]

It was never communicated to Ron Paul supporters that there would ever be a deal. In fact, throughout the whole process it was implied that the State GOP was not very communicative, and that if we lost the rules vote we would not gain any delegates.

Which goes to my point about Greenspan being incompetent and two-faced.

http://conservablogs.com/muthstruths/2008/04/28/greenspans-tall-tale/



Sue,
Since before the convention, we were clear that it was our intention to have a unified convention. I think we went way out of our way to reach out into the state party organization to make this clear and to try to establish, up front, some kind of mutually agreeable solution that could be presented to all delegates to satisfy all interests.
In advance, we tried to work out a solution with the nominations committee that would ensure that state delegates that support Ron Paul would be part of that unified convention as well.
Naturally, we also prepared for continengies. Unfortunately, we had to put the contingency plan into action as soon as I found out that the nominations committee, or certain parties on it, had no intention on holding up their end of the bargain.
Now, as before, we are prepared to work out a solution in advance, such that the convention, when it reconvenes, will be a unity convention. And we will be prepared again for contingencies again, though I sincerely hope this time all parties will uphold their agreements.
Now, as before the convention, I am available to discuss this. As always, I am at your and the state party’s disposal. Just call me.
Sincerely,
–
Jeff Greenspan
Regional Campaign Coordinator
Ron Paul 2008
www.ronpaul2008.com

[Badger Paul]

It is exactly that, a straw poll. It meant nothing. Only the stupid media who have no clue as to how Republicans pick their delegates, acted as though it meant something. Otherwise Romney would still be campaigning. It's not the fault of Ron Paul supporters that Romney's supporters basically went to the precinct caucuses, voted and then left. If they had stuck around and gotten themselves elected a precint delegates, they would have had the majority in the state convention. But they didn't. Ron Paul suporters did stick around. They played by the rules of the game and did what they were supposed. They outorganized everybody and now everybody doesn't like it. Why shouldn't Ron Paul supporters get the majority of the Nevada delegation if he has the votes on the convention floor? Hmmm?

Bradley you're the same damn person who whines constantly about how incompetent the leadership of the campaign is, and yet here you are attacking someone who's actually shown he knows what he's doing all because he realized he could get more delegates than the piddly little four they were offering them and even that number seemed to be at risk. They went to the convention floor and overturned the rule IN A FAIR VOTE!

Yes it would have taken a long time to vote for all the delegates, but hey, conventions don't have time limits. They can be very long affairs as people in politics ought to know. The bottom line is the McCain ran away because they knew they were going to be embarassed, so they adjoured because of the lack of a quorum. It's the oldest trick in the political book.

Maybe Chuck Muth should write articles about how badly organized the McCain campaign is that they can't pick up these delegates rather than attack people who played by the rules and have every right to get their reward for doing so. Maybe he should write articles about how this party need new blood and needs to be more open and transparent to its rank n' file than act like its clubhouse has been invaded.

[jasonhlasvegas2008]

http://conservablogs.com/muthstruths/2008/05/01/writer-slams-ron-paul-losers/#comments

Jeff defends himself on Chuck's blog.

[Bradley in DC]

Bradley you're the same damn person who whines constantly about how incompetent the leadership of the campaign is, and yet here you are attacking someone who's actually shown he knows what he's doing

If the Nevada caucus was your example of the official campaign staff knowing what they're doing ... :rolleyes:

I have written many times we need to get as many delegates as we can and to rely on local people who know the local rules, local traditions, local personalities, etc. With that bias, yeah, Chuck with years of experience in Nevada Republican politics probably knows more than an out of towner.

[constituent]

http://conservablogs.com/muthstruths/2008/05/01/writer-slams-ron-paul-losers/#comments

Jeff defends himself on Chuck's blog.

CAUTION:

http://www.flayme.com/images/polysyllabic.jpg


FLAME WAR!!!!!!!!

[Bradley in DC]

It was never communicated to Ron Paul supporters that there would ever be a deal. In fact, throughout the whole process it was implied that the State GOP was not very communicative, and that if we lost the rules vote we would not gain any delegates..

And you point out Greenspan "defending himself:"


Jeff Greenspan, on May 2nd, 2008 at 12:30 am Said:
I certainly asked for them and have been quite open about it. Now, will Mr. Hirsch please reveal how many and which names he selected from among Ron Paul supporters for the recommended nominating committee’s ballot.
I’ve been completely open about the fact that I wanted to negotiate a solution acceptable to everyone prior to the convention.
Heck, I told EVERYONE precisely how many Ron Paul delegates would be there that day = 600. Maybe no one believed it? Tough luck.
The nominating committee reneged on the deal, and the delegates on the floor got a rule change. So what? That’s how conventions work.
Did you expect 600 people to just rollover?
You live in fantasyland. Or your mental abailities are escapting you at the moment.

Either you or Greenspan is lying. I have no reason to question your truthfulness.

[jasonhlasvegas2008]

Bradley, I was not precise. We were told that a deal was unlikely, that the State GOP was not very communicative. That was all I was told anyway. It was never communicated to Ron Paul supporters that a deal would be sealed. That does not necessarily contradict what Jeff is saying in my view. Given the way the two parties had been communicating over the past several months there would have been no way for Jeff to know the deal was actually sealed until he saw the nominations committee list.

Also, the State GOP and the McCain camp conducted two very deceptive phone calls meant to gauge our numbers. This tactic on part of the State GOP created bad blood among the Ron Paul supporters, and is one of the primary reasons why an "insurgent" mood had developed.

I've had many interactions with the Nevada State GOP, and my impression is that they are out of touch. However, the thing that makes me distrust the Nevada State GOP the most is the proposed rules they tried to pass. The rules proposed by the party leadership were incredibly undemocratic and intended to stifle discussion and dissent. That's another reason why a supermajority of the assembled delegates voted to amend the rules.

Also, I think the nominations committee list would answer many unanswered questions.

[constituent]

is greenspan still representing the campaign in an official capacity?

[Bradley in DC]

Bradley, I was not precise. We were told that a deal was unlikely, that the State GOP was not very communicative. That was all I was told anyway. It was never communicated to Ron Paul supporters that a deal would be sealed. That does not necessarily contradict what Jeff is saying in my view. Given the way the two parties had been communicating over the past several months there would have been no way for Jeff to know the deal was actually sealed until he saw the nominations committee list.

Also, the State GOP and the McCain camp conducted two very deceptive phone calls meant to gauge our numbers. This tactic on part of the State GOP created bad blood among the Ron Paul supporters, and is one of the primary reasons why an "insurgent" mood had developed.

I've had many interactions with the Nevada State GOP, and my impression is that they are out of touch. However, the thing that makes me distrust the Nevada State GOP the most is the proposed rules they tried to pass. The rules proposed by the party leadership were incredibly undemocratic and intended to stifle discussion and dissent.

Hi Jason,

No worries. I wasn't there and only know what I read in the papers, as it were. My main point, reiterated now, is that we not rush to judgement as the thread had started out.

Again, thank you for all of our work supporting Dr. Paul. After nearly two decades in it, I was never under any delusions that politics ain't always pretty (which is why I have stressed the importance of our movement finding local/state people on our side with experience and why I'm naturally suspicious when one makes generalized statements like Steve Parent is prone to do).

However, Greenspan himself claims explicitly, "The nominating committee reneged on the deal" which is very different than what you heard (third hand?). Objectively, Nevada did not go well. I'm sure there are lots of reasons for that, and I'm sure Greenspan, by his admission, was a part of it.

Best,
Bradley

[constituent]

However, Greenspan himself claims explicitly, "The nominating committee reneged on the deal" which is very different than what you heard (third hand?). Objectively, Nevada did not go well. I'm sure there are lots of reasons for that, and I'm sure Greenspan, by his admission, was a part of it.



ok, so it appears that the crux of the deal is that mr. greenspan made some sort of "back room" deal to ensure a smooth convention(?).

-not a very good priority imo

some are angry that there was a back room deal, whether it was meant to work in our favor or not, and some angry that the GOP went back on the deal... i think is what this is about?


it seems everything gets a little worse/more ridiculous every day.

[Badger Paul]

Compared to the way you handled yourself in D.C., I'll take Jeff Greenspan over you in a heartbeat. Through their hard work, they were in position to take 29 Nevada delegates before the little McCaniac cowards ran out of town as fast as they could.

What did you do in DC? Whine constantly for three months about how the national campaign did you wrong. Nice. Doesn't take a lot talent to do that now does it?

What so difficult for you to figure out? Greenspan negotiated in good faith for four delegates on a unity slate, then he found out the party brass wasn't going to keep their word so they changed the rules by a fair vote mind you, and use their numbers to elect their delegates. That's Politics 101.

Open your eyes and look at what's going on in the country. The word has gone out from the very top of the RNC to deny Ron Paul delegates slots by any means fair or foul. It's happened all over the place (what you don't read these forums?). We're up against some pretty crooked assed people and all you can do is attack the campaign's leadership for trying to get what's rightfully ours by playing by the rules of the game?

You can go to hell. You're nothing.

[Bryan]

I wasn't there- I don't know what happened but have two comments:


The story line that the Paul people desperately want to believe - as it fuels the already abundant level of paranoia that flows uncontrolled through their ranks ... In their conspiracy-addled minds, the Republican Party ranks right up there with the Council on Foreign Relations.
Statements like this seriously damage the credibility of the writer.



Because of this, Greenspan claims, he unleashed what he describes as his "contingency plan" to scrap the deal he made with the party and instead back efforts to open the convention to nominations from the floor, thereby turning the entire convention into a circus.
How is it that the actions of one man (not the chairman) can turn an entire convention into a circus? If no one agrees with this person then they get shut down fast, it enough people do agree to change the course then how is that a "circus" - it is simply the will of the majority, what is the point of attempting to degrade that in this story? Isn't this the point of parliamentary procedures?

Again- I wasn't there but I can't take this writing very seriously as-is.

[speciallyblend]

im not rushing any judgement. I'm stating a fact any delay of the nv convention =bs tactics from the corrupt nvgop. The fact is ron paul was going to win with a super majority of the delegates,anything less is BULLSHIT.....

[speciallyblend]

If the Nevada caucus was your example of the official campaign staff knowing what they're doing ... :rolleyes:

I have written many times we need to get as many delegates as we can and to rely on local people who know the local rules, local traditions, local personalities, etc. With that bias, yeah, Chuck with years of experience in Nevada Republican politics probably knows more than an out of towner.

years of experience in the nv republican politics and reading his article = corrupt sob ,if you ask me. RON PAUL SUPPORTERS HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG,but chuck sounds to me as part of the problem,just vote on the delegates like the rules say,bring it to the floor.. anything less is just corrupt gop nv members talking the same ole lies and smack. BRING ON THE RUMP CONVENTION,no more crap from these corrupt assholes. FINISH THE CONVENTION NOW ,BOTTOM LINE IS RON PAUL WINS 90% IN NV OR EVEN HIGHER,anything less or deals with the gop is BULLSHIT.

[Bradley in DC]

Compared to the way you handled yourself in D.C., I'll take Jeff Greenspan over you in a heartbeat.

You can go to hell. You're nothing.

Take a poll of the DC area volunteers. There would be a landslide against (nearly all of) the official campaign staffers. Just this week, when a volunteer couldn't understand the ineptness of HQ, I explained that they were incompetent control freaks running it. He replied, "omg, this guy that was in front of me at the RP book signing was saying the same thing how the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing he was saying how much he hated them." This is what people say, all the time, openly, at RP events here, including in front of the good doctor. Often, it's not that nice.

I organized the DC grassroots a year ago, we all worked together well until HQ got involved. After I washed my hands of it and started working on a congressional race, HQ took over, alienated everyone, threw out the plan ALL of us had been working on together, then did nothing in its place, then at the last minute tried to pick up whatever they could (after waiting months the official campaign staffer was calling volunteers the day before the deadline to register to get them to call LP members, unregistered RP supporters, et al.--everyone just laughed at him).

Frustrated with the official campaign's obvious ineptness and their control freak extremism, the grassroots asked me to lead them again. I helped them for a group exclusive of the official campaign, and we started doing great work again--despite the opposition from HQ.

We held lots of fundraisers and donated a lot of money (proportionately) to HQ but they did next to nothing to win DC (one postcard that arrived after I voted and one email the week before the primary). When we asked for money to run a newspaper ad, etc., we were told no. Despite them, we did better than they did in NH and better than any other primary until PA where no one else was competing. HQ's "goal" was to win 500 votes of the 700 donors from DC. :rolleyes: Go Greenspan and team!

[belian78]

Compared to the way you handled yourself in D.C., I'll take Jeff Greenspan over you in a heartbeat. Through their hard work, they were in position to take 29 Nevada delegates before the little McCaniac cowards ran out of town as fast as they could.

What did you do in DC? Whine constantly for three months about how the national campaign did you wrong. Nice. Doesn't take a lot talent to do that now does it?

What so difficult for you to figure out? Greenspan negotiated in good faith for four delegates on a unity slate, then he found out the party brass wasn't going to keep their word so they changed the rules by a fair vote mind you, and use their numbers to elect their delegates. That's Politics 101.

Open your eyes and look at what's going on in the country. The word has gone out from the very top of the RNC to deny Ron Paul delegates slots by any means fair or foul. It's happened all over the place (what you don't read these forums?). We're up against some pretty crooked assed people and all you can do is attack the campaign's leadership for trying to get what's rightfully ours by playing by the rules of the game?

You can go to hell. You're nothing.

i would have to back you up on this badger. all i've seen from Bradley is telling everyone else how much more qualified and experienced he is than everyone else, and trashing the national campaign. not that they dont deserve some criticism, but i've not seen anything productive come from Bradley since I've been here. which has been from the beginning.

[Bradley in DC]

i would have to back you up on this badger. all i've seen from Bradley is telling everyone else how much more qualified and experienced he is than everyone else, and trashing the national campaign. not that they dont deserve some criticism, but i've not seen anything productive come from Bradley since I've been here. which has been from the beginning.

There are LOTS of people far better qualified than I--starting with Tom Lizardo--who say the same things about HQ as I and everyone else. I would think you and a random sampling from the forum here (or even the phone book) would have done a better job. To me, spending $100 for Dr. Paul to appear in the Oregon voting guide seems like a no brainer, eg.

I purposefully want people NOT to defer to HQ so that we can win despite them. Lots of people in the grassroots have and are doing amazing things.

The point in question was my organizing the DC grassroots to which you and Badger are now experts? :p Slamming me won't magically make HQ competent and Dr. Paul the nominee.

[moostraks]

I don't think I've met Chuck in person, but we know the same people and I think we've emailed. I know (of) him through the Republican Liberty Caucus and he worked closely with Dr. Paul's congressional office.

Chuck had been responsible, if memory serves, of successfully brokering a deal between the Nevada LP and Republicans to give them a working majority of the a chamber in the statehouse (or something like that). My point is I do know that Chuck has a record of successfully brokering the kinds of deals that apparently failed Greenspan (whom I know to be two-faced at best and compadre of ghemminger on lots of antics).

I don't think we should rush to judgement. I know Chuck was a supporters of Dr. Paul's.

http://conservablogs.com/muthstruths/?s=ron+paul

Including:
http://conservablogs.com/muthstruths/2007/12/24/dr-no-meets-the-press/

Wow...with friends like him who needs enemies. Basicallly he filleted all the Dr.'s supporters as being kooks. This bs is going on all over and you seem to want to side with those who are mailgning the movement because you have some grudge against headquarters. Aack!!!

They are screwing us and then making us look like psycho's when things don't go their way. Sure paint us as whiners to shut down anyone using their brains in the national convention (meaning what few people we can try to approach to think outside what they are being spoonfed to do at the local level because the party has this wrapped up for McCain nonsense and how we all agree that McCain is the best the gop can offer). What do you think this type of information does for us? What the h*ll good does your constant berating hq do??

I watched something on par to this fiasco in my local convention (GA hasn't had state yet). They make new rules up to suit their purposes too. Then they had everyone so confused and frustrated that the old folks who were there just voted to shut everyone up because we had been there for 5 hours and they were hungry and wanted to go... It is foul and you don't need to be a tin foil hatter to see they are the ones playing games trying to out think the area Paul supporters. :mad:

[moostraks]

Hmmm...Appears that McCain's little gop army is pulling the same shenanigans in Oklahoma to gauge Paul supporters....I am sure it is all another paranoid rant though from us tinfoil hatters...

[Badger Paul]

Yes I'm sure you did your part Bradley but Jeff Greenspan put together what many people feel was one the best statewide Ron Paul campaigns in the country, helped to get RP second over McCain in the Straw Poll and get RP supporters elected as precinct delegates through his organizing and made sure those delegates went to the county conventions and got elected to the state convention. There were over 600 RP supporters on the floor and they managed to get a rule change to allow their delegates to get voted on. I'd say that's pretty good work.

And now you're criticzing him because a party apparatchick like Chuck Muth said so? You're not there, how the hell do you know what happened? Why the hell would you take Muth's side over some one who's shown time and again he can get the job done?

You have no business attacking him. Aim your fire at McCain for crying out loud.

[Bradley in DC]

And now you're criticzing [Greenspan] because a party apparatchick like Chuck Muth said so? You're not there, how the hell do you know what happened? Why the hell would you take Muth's side over some one who's shown time and again he can get the job done?

You have no business attacking him. Aim your fire at McCain for crying out loud.

Because I don't know what happened, I urged against rushing to judgement. Funny, the "taking sides" always the defense when one criticizes incompetence at HQ. Of course, it's funnier with "Dr." Steve's supporters: I get the facts right, but am a "divider" which is worse than Steve who gets them wrong but helps the movement by being wrong and starting fights among the grassroots.

I posted public quotations from Greenspan in his own words. Apparently you've judged that his own words constitute an "attack" on himself.

I have made, and will continue to make, my opinion of McCain known: he is, because of his temper, completely unqualified to be president (aside from the fact I disagree with most of his positions), but that would be highjacking the thread.

[Badger Paul]

Bradley, you called Jeff incompetent and two-faced just because you happen to be buddies with Chuck Muth. The man helped Ron Paul win seven out of nine CD delegates was and about to deliver pratically the entire state delegation to RP and you consider him incompetent? As compared to whom? Yourself?

I think the record speaks for itself. Jeff Greenspan - At least seven delegates and maybe more. Bradley - no delegates but plenty of bile.

People around here like myself have put up with your whining and bitching long enough. Maybe headquarters wasn't the greatest but the nice thing about this campaign was you could do things on your own or with some like minded people that it didn't matter what headquarters did or said. Instead of damning the torpedoes, all you did was play your little violin for the past six months.

The bottom line is Jeff Greenspan busted his tail to put Ron Paul in a position to win a lot delegates and you criticize him because your buddy Chuck and his Bolshevik friends didn't like the way he went about it.

Take your rotten attitude someplace else okay? We've heard enough from you.

[speciallyblend]

group hug

[constituent]

http://www.gamerevolution.com/images/misc/Image/couple_bickering.JPG

[ARealConservative]

Bradley, you called Jeff incompetent and two-faced just because you happen to be buddies with Chuck Muth. The man helped Ron Paul win seven out of nine CD delegates was and about to deliver pratically the entire state delegation to RP and you consider him incompetent? As compared to whom? Yourself?

I think the record speaks for itself. Jeff Greenspan - At least seven delegates and maybe more. Bradley - no delegates but plenty of bile.

People around here like myself have put up with your whining and bitching long enough. Maybe headquarters wasn't the greatest but the nice thing about this campaign was you could do things on your own or with some like minded people that it didn't matter what headquarters did or said. Instead of damning the torpedoes, all you did was play your little violin for the past six months.

The bottom line is Jeff Greenspan busted his tail to put Ron Paul in a position to win a lot delegates and you criticize him because your buddy Chuck and his Bolshevik friends didn't like the way he went about it.

Take your rotten attitude someplace else okay? We've heard enough from you.

I don't know the guy you are arguing with, but I have come to respect him.

With that said, what you say now does have some truth. Perhaps Bradley's grapes have turned a bit bitter. I went through a similar spell shortly after the Iowa caucus, and eventually bounced back.

You guys are on the same side eventually.....just something to keep in mind.

[Bradley in DC]

Bradley, you called Jeff incompetent and two-faced just because you happen to be buddies with Chuck Muth.

I think the record speaks for itself. Jeff Greenspan - At least seven delegates and maybe more. Bradley - no delegates but plenty of bile.

I said he was incompetent and two-faced because of my dealings with him and his public comments I posted here: specifically getting RP volunteers to believe the party was not interested in a deal AND claiming there was a deal and he told EVERYONE (he put it in all caps) about it. I'm not "buddies" with Chuck.

Hmmm, Greenspan's JOB was responsible for getting delegates, I'm a friggin' volunteer!

[Badger Paul]

And the record shows he did a pretty good job despite what you think.

[Bradley in DC]

And the record shows he did a pretty good job despite what you think.

At the risk of staying on the thread topic, I think (because Greenpan says so) that he brokered a deal with the state party (some question his authority to do so, I have no idea) and that he claims to have told EVERYBODY (again, because he says so).

I also think Nevada ended up being a huge clusterf*ck (almost certainly for a variety of reasons knowing how those things go) and that part of the reason was the wrong impression RP supporters like Jason had (and others in different postings on the web) at least in part because of different messages going around (despite Greenspan telling EVERYONE a different story) about expectations, motives, etc.

As Debbie Hopper has pointed out rightly, one of the ways we'll measure success in our movement is will be where we are in the party over the next few cycles. In her example, the Pat Robertson forces took over several state parties over the next years. From what I can see from here, Greenspan and company seem to have done a better job dividing the RP supporters (such as Chuck) and alienating others.

[cjhowe]

I said he was incompetent and two-faced because of my dealings with him and his public comments I posted here: specifically getting RP volunteers to believe the party was not interested in a deal AND claiming there was a deal and he told EVERYONE (he put it in all caps) about it. I'm not "buddies" with Chuck.

Hmmm, Greenspan's JOB was responsible for getting delegates, I'm a friggin' volunteer!

That's the problem with America today. Everybody walks around passing responsibility off on someone else. Everyone waits around for someone else to carry the load. When someone goes and picks up what they can carry, they get ridiculed. There's a lot of work to do, even still.

The delegates going to the national convention are going as representatives of the states or territories that have chosen them. Bindings aside, the Irish proverb holds true.

May those who love us,
Love us.
And those who do not love us,
May God turn their hearts.
And if He doesn't turn their hearts,
May He turn their ankles,
So we'll know them by their limping.

Individual Liberty demands Personal Responsibility. If the delegates going to the national convention representing you as a Republican are going to advance John McCain's brand of Republican, you still have work to do.

[Badger Paul]

What do you mean he has no authority to make any deals? He's the state chairman and regional coordinator is he not?

If Chuck thinks we should have taken our four delegates and be satisfied with that (assuming the state party was being honest, open question there) he's nuts. How the hell else is Ron Paul going to be nominate at the RNC unless he gains the majority representation of five state delegations, Nevada being one of them? Hmmm? Do you honestly think the McCain forces are going to give Ron a chance to speak at the convention without his name going into nomination? Hmmm?

No! Why would they? They want the convention to be akin to political rally in North Korea, not something that anything democratic was going on. They want to cheer on cue.

Unless we fight, we will get nothing in the end, because they're not going to give up anything. They think this is a country club, not a political party. It's up to us to show them the difference.

[moostraks]

What do you mean he has no authority to make any deals? He's the state chairman and regional coordinator is he not?

If Chuck thinks we should have taken our four delegates and be satisfied with that (assuming the state party was being honest, open question there) he's nuts. How the hell else is Ron Paul going to be nominate at the RNC unless he gains the majority representation of five state delegations, Nevada being one of them? Hmmm? Do you honestly think the McCain forces are going to give Ron a chance to speak at the convention without his name going into nomination? Hmmm?

No! Why would they? They want the convention to be akin to political rally in North Korea, not something that anything democratic was going on. They want to cheer on cue.

Unless we fight, we will get nothing in the end, because they're not going to give up anything. They think this is a country club, not a political party. It's up to us to show them the difference.

QFT + 1000 seen it here too...

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

Why do Muth and Greenspan assume that Greenspan had something to deal to Republican party honchos in exchange for anything? It doesn't sound like the Republican party honchos were foolish enough to believe that some guy representing one of the presidential candidates had anything to deal to them.

The honchos had 750 delegates on their hands who were told that the purpose of their being elected to the state convention was to elect the delegates to the national convention. And the honchos were smart enough to realize that no presidential campaign worker who wasn't even a delegate to the convention had anything to deal to them. Does anybody besides Greenspan really think that the honchos thought that we were all waiting for Greenspan to tell us how many delegates he dealt us in exchange for our votes? Greenspan seems to promote this false explanation as much as Muth.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

wrong thread

[Bradley in DC]

What do you mean he has no authority to make any deals? He's the state chairman and regional coordinator is he not?

Perhaps it would help if you read what I actually say instead of just mindless ranting against me when you know nothing about me (same goes for your baseless accusations about my efforts here)?


At the risk of staying on the thread topic, I think (because Greenpan says so) that he brokered a deal with the state party (some question his authority to do so, I have no idea) and that he claims to have told EVERYBODY (again, because he says so).

[BKom]

If the Nevada caucus was your example of the official campaign staff knowing what they're doing ... :rolleyes:

I have written many times we need to get as many delegates as we can and to rely on local people who know the local rules, local traditions, local personalities, etc. With that bias, yeah, Chuck with years of experience in Nevada Republican politics probably knows more than an out of towner.

Okay, Bradley. I've seen you pontificating for months here. And now, I see you pontificating about things you know nothing about. In fact, Muth may ideologically be a pretty smart guy and a Ron Paul supporter, but he clearly fashions himself as a party insider. And he appears to be writing to ingratiate himself to the powers that be.

He appears to be directly tied to the party that stole the convention from us. He has become their mouthpiece. And now you have become his. What Jeff Greenspan did during the run up to the Nevada convention, and during the convention, was masterful and possibly the first sign of competence in this entire campaign. And you think that's a negative?

He did what he could to hand Ron a state by organizing and keeping our diverse group on the same page. And he had that done, until the party was forced to run from its own convention. Exactly what the heck have you accomplished with all your pontificating? Not a dang thing.

I've worked closely with Jeff Greenspan for the last 6 months and have found him to be absolutely dedicated to the cause of making Ron Paul president. I have also found him to be somewhat abrasive and not to suffer fools gladly, which i see may be your problem. But to denigrate what he accomplished you'd either have to be a fool or jealous. If you want to blame anyone for what the party did, then blame the proper culprit: the corrupt nature of party politics and its influence over those who would never act the same way in other parts of their lives.

Ask the other seventeen county coordinators in this state, and I am certain they'll all tell you the same thing. Swing and a miss for you.

Brian Kominsky
Clark County Nevada Coordinator
Ron Paul 2008

[Thomas_Paine]

I read this article when it first came out and was appalled by the ugly hatred of the author and his slimy tactics. Here's a hint that the article is a "hit piece", no statements from Greenspan himself. I happen to have worked with Jeff Greenspan at the Nevada caucus and I found him to be an adept organizer and leader.

[Bradley in DC]

Okay, Bradley. I've seen you pontificating for months here. And now, I see you pontificating about things you know nothing about.

What Jeff Greenspan did during the run up to the Nevada convention, and during the convention, was masterful and possibly the first sign of competence in this entire campaign.

Exactly what the heck have you accomplished with all your pontificating? Not a dang thing.

I've worked closely with Jeff Greenspan for the last 6 months and have found him to be absolutely dedicated to the cause of making Ron Paul president. I have also found him to be somewhat abrasive and not to suffer fools gladly, which i see may be your problem. But to denigrate what he accomplished you'd either have to be a fool or jealous.

Hi Brian,

I've been asking lots of questions--and not really getting a lot of clear answers. Thanks for jumping in.

What was the deal Greenspan brokered with the party?
Did he have the authority to broker it?
Was the fact that there was a deal explained to the rest of the RP people/delegates/caucus goers?
Who then broke the deal? Why/how?
What is the specific rule for the chairman to call for a recess? (see my question to Brook)

I'm happy you know so much about me to be my judge though, that reassures me about you soooo much. (SOP denigrate and challenge motives, not very original :rolleyes:) But you may be right--it might have been the first competent thing the official campaign has done.

[I realize you may have only been here a few months, but nearly a year ago I was here posting the rules from 2004 for each state and territory urging everyone to update their state's rules as they were finalized so we had the right, state-specific information on the delegate process in many states even before the call of the convention finalized them. But knowing the delegate selection process, I guess to you, don't amount to a damn thing.]

[BKom]

Why do Muth and Greenspan assume that Greenspan had something to deal to Republican party honchos in exchange for anything? It doesn't sound like the Republican party honchos were foolish enough to believe that some guy representing one of the presidential candidates had anything to deal to them.

The honchos had 750 delegates on their hands who were told that the purpose of their being elected to the state convention was to elect the delegates to the national convention. And the honchos were smart enough to realize that no presidential campaign worker who wasn't even a delegate to the convention had anything to deal to them. Does anybody besides Greenspan really think that the honchos thought that we were all waiting for Greenspan to tell us how many delegates he dealt us in exchange for our votes? Greenspan seems to promote this false explanation as much as Muth.

I was not privy to whether there was any deal or not. But when we got to the convention, nobody in the campaign, including Greenspan, was ever shown the slates. If Jeff had brokered a deal, and the party had reneged, how stupid would he have looked when we had zero delegates for everyone's sacrifice? I know that others on the slates were told they were on them. No Ron Paul supporter was ever notified. Again, how many times does the party have to show you they're not going to honor a deal before you take the hint? And again, I didn't and don't know if there ever was a deal actually made. We're taking Muth's word for this, and he is the echo chamber for the party that ran away.

The truth is that we had a deal with that Mike Weber character to support his fairer rules. Five minutes before the start of business that pious fellow backed out on the deal when he was likely offered a spot on the party's slate. Did we whine and bytch like the party? No, we went to work and appealed to the fairness of the delegates. And that's why the rules were changed.

The party and its mouthpieces have tried to focus their venom on Greenspan as a strawman for the incompetence and laziness of the McCain campaign. They saved McCain's bacon by running away from the convention. And now, they're getting extra bang for their bucks as Bradley has taken up the megaphone.

Brian Kominsky
Clark County Nevada Coordinator
Ron Paul 2008

[Bradley in DC]

I was not privy to whether there was any deal or not. But when we got to the convention, nobody in the campaign, including Greenspan, was ever shown the slates. If Jeff had brokered a deal, and the party had reneged, how stupid would he have looked when we had zero delegates for everyone's sacrifice? I know that others on the slates were told they were on them. No Ron Paul supporter was ever notified. Again, how many times does the party have to show you they're not going to honor a deal before you take the hint? And again, I didn't and don't know if there ever was a deal actually made. We're taking Muth's word for this, and he is the echo chamber for the party that ran away.

Brian Kominsky
Clark County Nevada Coordinator
Ron Paul 2008

As far as I'm concerned, I'm still asking questions and not getting answers. Greenspan himself (or at least someone posting under his name) claimed to have brokered a deal. As the Clark County coordinator, shouldn't you have known there was a deal and what it would have been if Greenspan were doing his job?

Alternatively, there may not have been any deal, someone else may have been posting under Greenspan's name, etc. Again, lots of questions.

[BKom]

Hi Brian,

I've been asking lots of questions--and not really getting a lot of clear answers. Thanks for jumping in.

What was the deal Greenspan brokered with the party?
Did he have the authority to broker it?
Was the fact that there was a deal explained to the rest of the RP people/delegates/caucus goers?
Who then broke the deal? Why/how?
What is the specific rule for the chairman to call for a recess? (see my question to Brook)

I'm happy you know so much about me to be my judge though, that reassures me about you soooo much. (SOP denigrate and challenge motives, not very original :rolleyes:) But you may be right--it might have been the first competent thing the official campaign has done.

[I realize you may have only been here a few months, but nearly a year ago I was here posting the rules from 2004 for each state and territory urging everyone to update their state's rules as they were finalized so we had the right, state-specific information on the delegate process in many states even before the call of the convention finalized them. But knowing the delegate selection process, I guess to you, don't amount to a damn thing.]

Bradley: Yes, I know the rules. No, I never seemed to have to go to a forum to read them. Sorry for ignoring you. I'm sure you were being helpful.

In fact, we were the ones who informed the party that they didn't know how many delegates they were electing. We did the calculation and found out they were off by three. They thought they had 37. They also thought we got 1 delegate for each 150 voters in our Clark County Caucuses. Surprise, when we notified them they hadn't read the law, they almost stroked. It was 1 per 50. A slight difference. And delegates to the national convention are nominated by and elected by . . . . oops, the state party's rules left that little part out. Maybe you should ask Muth about those rules. Oh, no Ron Paul people on the rules committee. And none on the elections committee. And none on the nominations committee. But to protect our interests, McCain's paid state coordinator was on the nominations committee. So much for open and honest.

Try this scenario (and again, don't know about any deal.) We get 4 delegates and the state elects 37. The RNC then would chop off the extra 3 by rule. Guess whose delegates get chopped off? That means one delegate for all our efforts. Do we really think this may not have been the party's plan all along? That is, if there was a deal at all.

We were working in an information vacuum here. Did Jeff make a deal? No idea. And frankly, if he had, from the reaction of the Ron Paul supporters and non-Ron Paul supporters in the convention, once the genie was out of the bottle, there was nobody who could have honored any such deal. And Jeff was not behind the change in the rules. That was spontaneous.

Muth has a personal problem with Greenspan. And apparently so do you. Fine. I have had enough screaming matches with the guy to make me hoarse. But he has been tireless and unflinching in doing his job. And you say you're a volunteer. Nobody in this campaign has been paid in months. Jeff has been working for nothing and working his full time job at the same time. He has been dedicated and selfless. I should not question your motives. But I will point out you've picked the wrong side in this particular instance.

Brian

[BKom]

Hi Brian,

I've been asking lots of questions--and not really getting a lot of clear answers. Thanks for jumping in.

What was the deal Greenspan brokered with the party?
Did he have the authority to broker it?
Was the fact that there was a deal explained to the rest of the RP people/delegates/caucus goers?
Who then broke the deal? Why/how?
What is the specific rule for the chairman to call for a recess? (see my question to Brook)

I'm happy you know so much about me to be my judge though, that reassures me about you soooo much. (SOP denigrate and challenge motives, not very original :rolleyes:) But you may be right--it might have been the first competent thing the official campaign has done.

[I realize you may have only been here a few months, but nearly a year ago I was here posting the rules from 2004 for each state and territory urging everyone to update their state's rules as they were finalized so we had the right, state-specific information on the delegate process in many states even before the call of the convention finalized them. But knowing the delegate selection process, I guess to you, don't amount to a damn thing.]

Missed two. Should I have been included in a deal? Not necessarily. I was essentially the number 2 person in the campaign in the state. However, I have also been working at my day job for a while now. And I find it's best to allow one person to represent the campaign when possible. In fact, the party is now going around the campaign and trying to divide us. So, no, I didn't have to be privy.

And the rule: Should have reverted to Roberts' Rules. The chair should have accepted a motion from the floor (not made the motion himself, which is illegal) and called for a vote, which would be by simple majority. What was done was clearly not in agreement with our rules or Roberts' Rules. But I had to chase after the chair leaving the room and push through the sergeant at arms to get to him. Pretty hard to assert Roberts' Rules while running outside.

Brian

[Bradley in DC]

Bradley: Yes, I know the rules. No, I never seemed to have to go to a forum to read them. Sorry for ignoring you. I'm sure you were being helpful.

We were working in an information vacuum here. Did Jeff make a deal? No idea. And frankly, if he had, from the reaction of the Ron Paul supporters and non-Ron Paul supporters in the convention, once the genie was out of the bottle, there was nobody who could have honored any such deal. And Jeff was not behind the change in the rules. That was spontaneous.

I should not question your motives. But I will point out you've picked the wrong side in this particular instance.

Brian

Brian,

That was helpful (though you really should be more careful speaking about me--as far as I know we don't know each other). I have been urging everyone NOT to jump to conclusions (scroll up). For myself, I still have more questions than answers. I don't know anything about Nevada state caucus convention rules (and have never claimed otherwise). From a distance, yes, your caucus looked like a clusterf*ck, no offense intended.

I've had more interaction with Greenspan over the past year than with Muth over the past decade, FWTW. If Greenspan brokered a deal (I don't know if that's true), then it should have been better communicated to the RP people. What caused the genie to get out of the bottle, as you put it, if you know?

A specific question I hope you can answer: what, exactly, was the rule allowing the chair to recess the convention? Different sides each think different things, but no one has produced, that I've seen, the exact rule. Rules have words; words have meanings.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

And frankly, if he had (made a deal), from the reaction of the Ron Paul supporters and non-Ron Paul supporters in the convention, once the genie was out of the bottle, there was nobody who could have honored any such deal.

Exactly! How can Jeff Greenspan deal our votes. All he could do was beg the non-RP Republicans to be nice and nominate some delegates for us. And it sounds like he did as good a job as could be expected and in the end 750 delegates-most of whom didn't know Greesnpan from Adam--demanded that we get to vote on un-filtered nominations from the floor.

Moral of the story: All we can do is keep showing up to their committee meetings, caucuses, and conventions in bigger and bigger numbers and keep embarassing them by forcing them to cancel their elections, meetings, and conventions.

[Bradley in DC]

Missed two. Should I have been included in a deal? Not necessarily. I was essentially the number 2 person in the campaign in the state. However, I have also been working at my day job for a while now. And I find it's best to allow one person to represent the campaign when possible. In fact, the party is now going around the campaign and trying to divide us. So, no, I didn't have to be privy.

And the rule: Should have reverted to Roberts' Rules. The chair should have accepted a motion from the floor (not made the motion himself, which is illegal) and called for a vote, which would be by simple majority. What was done was clearly not in agreement with our rules or Roberts' Rules. But I had to chase after the chair leaving the room and push through the sergeant at arms to get to him. Pretty hard to assert Roberts' Rules while running outside.

Brian

I meant that if a deal had been concluded by Greenspan and the party, shouldn't you (and the rest of the RP people) have known about it (after the fact) before the convention?

When you say "our rules or Roberts' Rules" I'm more confused. I've certainly never chaired a Nevada caucus :p but I have been to lots of meetings run by rules (House Committee, Robert's Rules, etc.). One of the first things is to adopt rules for meetings. You say "should have reverted to Robert's Rules." So, if I get this right, you have your own rules but sometimes revert to Roberts? If it were Robert's Rules governing at that point, could you please point us to the specific rule (and what exactly happened)? (this is not accusatory, you just seem to be the only one on either side of the debate with whom I'm getting anywhere.)

[BKom]

Brian,

That was helpful (though you really should be more careful speaking about me--as far as I know we don't know each other). I have been urging everyone NOT to jump to conclusions (scroll up). For myself, I still have more questions than answers. I don't know anything about Nevada state caucus convention rules (and have never claimed otherwise). From a distance, yes, your caucus looked like a clusterf*ck, no offense intended.

I've had more interaction with Greenspan over the past year than with Muth over the past decade, FWTW. If Greenspan brokered a deal (I don't know if that's true), then it should have been better communicated to the RP people. What caused the genie to get out of the bottle, as you put it, if you know?

A specific question I hope you can answer: what, exactly, was the rule allowing the chair to recess the convention? Different sides each think different things, but no one has produced, that I've seen, the exact rule. Rules have words; words have meanings.

First off, I didn't think I spoke of you again. And I agreed that I should not question your motives. However, you keep doing Muth's work for him, and in turn the Republican Party of Nevada. If I tell you I wasn't involved in a deal, then I wasn't. Truly, I don't know what the big deal would be anyway. We have been lied to at every step of this process. And the ClusterF#$% you speak of was really not. The rules proposed by the rules committee were abysmal and soundly rejected by the convention. They were silent on nominations and elections. Which meant that the party through its committees considered the body of the delegates to be too stupid and/or unimportant to make such momentous decisions. The body decided that they weren't and the party wasn't prepared, except when they decided to head for the hills. Very Machiavellian, but not exactly the right thing to to. They lied when they said they could not keep the room. They lied when we gave them high speed printers, and they claimed that we hadn't. But what really happened is that they hadn't even compiled the ballot, although that job couldn't have taken more than an hour at most. But instead of doing that, they recessed for a 1-1/2 to 2 hour lunch break. What does that tell you about how trustworthy they are?

The rules change passed with well over half the delegates voting for it. About 752 to just over 400. We didn't have that many votes, or near that many votes.

And about the recess is exactly what I told you. There are not two sides to that rule. Our convention rules were silent, so it reverted to Roberts' Rules. My understanding of that is exactly what I told you. And you might want to get a copy of RONR and check it out. I'm pretty busy working to keep the party from screwing us yet again.

Oh, and even better, the state party made calls to each delegate prior to the convention asking us who we supported so we could be "seated by candidate." And guess what? They were just polling us. Seating was only by county. Do you really want to keep asking about Greenspan's honesty? Seriously?

Brian

[BKom]

I meant that if a deal had been concluded by Greenspan and the party, shouldn't you (and the rest of the RP people) have known about it (after the fact) before the convention?

When you say "our rules or Roberts' Rules" I'm more confused. I've certainly never chaired a Nevada caucus :p but I have been to lots of meetings run by rules (House Committee, Robert's Rules, etc.). One of the first things is to adopt rules for meetings. You say "should have reverted to Robert's Rules." So, if I get this right, you have your own rules but sometimes revert to Roberts? If it were Robert's Rules governing at that point, could you please point us to the specific rule (and what exactly happened)? (this is not accusatory, you just seem to be the only one on either side of the debate with whom I'm getting anywhere.)

Contained in our party bylaws is RONR. It kicks in when the rules are silent. There is a heirarchy of authorities and that would be RONR at that point. That's why I say that. And a lot of organizations follow the same heirarchy. Just like when Nevada Revised statutes apply to major party functions, they always say that they apply if the bylaws are silent on a subject. Otherwise, they are overruled by the party bylaws, which recognize RONR as the parliamentary authority.

Brian

[mdh]

This seems odd to me. When we cut a deal at the WV GOP convention with Huckabee's people, the campaign staff member who was around stated quite plainly that what we, as delegates, chose to do was solely up to us as individuals and that the campaign wouldn't endorse any course of action. I firmly believe that that is how the campaign should have acted in that matter.

If the national campaign is now making deals against the will of our boots-on-the-ground people, that's disturbing.

I have heard from some very hard working folks in NV that Greenspan was not a very helpful individual to have around (and I'm putting it mildly)...

[constituent]

If Jeff had brokered a deal, and the party had reneged, how stupid would he have looked when we had zero delegates for everyone's sacrifice? I know that others on the slates were told they were on them. No Ron Paul supporter was ever notified.

1. How stupid would Jeff Greenspan have looked if he brokered a deal that he wasn't authorized to broker (and ran counter to the sentiments of a vast majority of the grassroots) just to turn around and get screwed on it.... oh wait, i guess we'd all have been screwed too right alongside him, huh?

...moving on



Again, how many times does the party have to show you they're not going to honor a deal before you take the hint? And again, I didn't and don't know if there ever was a deal actually made. We're taking Muth's word for this, and he is the echo chamber for the party that ran away.

2.Someone should have asked mr. greenspan this question prior to this whole ordeal going down.

"if there ever was a deal actually made. We're taking Muth's word"

No, those of us who've been following this ugly bit of melodrama across teh internets have seen Mr. Greenspan himself take credit for the deal... remember on Mr. Muth's blog he said something along the lines of (and in a rather snarky fashion at that):


Yes, is that good enough for you?

Something along those lines.

Now that said, please understand my perspective and step outside of the personal chit you've got built up between all the primary actors and fringe elements here...

Greenspan decided to play decider ('cuz that how politics gets done, yee haw!), made a deal with the devil and got burned....

and clearly wants us all to now believe that his blisters are the fault of the devil.

how very conservative/libertarian.




The truth is that we had a deal with that Mike Weber character to support his fairer rules. Five minutes before the start of business that pious fellow backed out on the deal when he was likely offered a spot on the party's slate. Did we whine and bytch like the party? No, we went to work and appealed to the fairness of the delegates. And that's why the rules were changed.

3. "That pious fellow," get bent. Piety is not a quality of those involved in politics (in case you hadn't noticed). I know you weren't expecting it, you know you weren't expecting it... cut the crap.

"Did we whine and bytch..." i'm sure you didn't. tell that angry crowd of ron paul supporters that you tried to broker some deal behind their backs "'cuz you're on the cools" or whatever and it backfired. then, see if you get away with all of your bits and pieces in order.

After that, explain to them that we need a rule change to "cover my ass (naturally leaving that part off, "it's teh gops i tell ya") 'cuz i got burned in a deal i wasn't authorized to broker" and see what they really think of you(or mr. greenspan that is, a little loose w/ my pronouns this a.m.) as the whole room disintegrates.

right.

and you didn't see any of this coming?

the backlash somehow has taken you or others by surprise?

I find that incredible.



The party and its mouthpieces have tried to focus their venom on Greenspan as a strawman for the incompetence and laziness of the McCain campaign. They saved McCain's bacon by running away from the convention. And now, they're getting extra bang for their bucks as Bradley has taken up the megaphone.

4. Lemme see, what'd i do w/ that tin foil hat?

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Exactly! How can Jeff Greenspan deal our votes. All he could do was beg the non-RP Republicans to be nice and nominate some delegates for us. And it sounds like he did as good a job as could be expected and in the end 750 delegates-most of whom didn't know Greesnpan from Adam--demanded that we get to vote on un-filtered nominations from the floor.

Moral of the story: All we can do is keep showing up to their committee meetings, caucuses, and conventions in bigger and bigger numbers and keep embarassing them by forcing them to cancel their elections, meetings, and conventions.

Over and over and over again.

[BKom]

1. How stupid would Jeff Greenspan have looked if he brokered a deal that he wasn't authorized to broker (and ran counter to the sentiments of a vast majority of the grassroots) just to turn around and get screwed on it.... oh wait, i guess we'd all have been screwed too right alongside him, huh?

...moving on




2.Someone should have asked mr. greenspan this question prior to this whole ordeal going down.

"if there ever was a deal actually made. We're taking Muth's word"

No, those of us who've been following this ugly bit of melodrama across teh internets have seen Mr. Greenspan himself take credit for the deal... remember on Mr. Muth's blog he said something along the lines of (and in a rather snarky fashion at that):



Something along those lines.

Now that said, please understand my perspective and step outside of the personal chit you've got built up between all the primary actors and fringe elements here...

Greenspan decided to play decider ('cuz that how politics gets done, yee haw!), made a deal with the devil and got burned....

and clearly wants us all to now believe that his blisters are the fault of the devil.

how very conservative/libertarian.





3. "That pious fellow," get bent. Piety is not a quality of those involved in politics (in case you hadn't noticed). I know you weren't expecting it, you know you weren't expecting it... cut the crap.

"Did we whine and bytch..." i'm sure you didn't. tell that angry crowd of ron paul supporters that you tried to broker some deal behind their backs "'cuz you're on the cools" or whatever and it backfired. then, see if you get away with all of your bits and pieces in order.

After that, explain to them that we need a rule change to "cover my ass (naturally leaving that part off, "it's teh gops i tell ya") 'cuz i got burned in a deal i wasn't authorized to broker" and see what they really think of you(or mr. greenspan that is, a little loose w/ my pronouns this a.m.) as the whole room disintegrates.

right.

and you didn't see any of this coming?

the backlash somehow has taken you or others by surprise?

I find that incredible.




4. Lemme see, what'd i do w/ that tin foil hat?

Huh? This is the most illogical and difficult to follow ramble I've read in a while. How convenient that this poster hides behind an alias and brings out the tin foil hat canard. I'd say troll is the description that fits.

[BKom]

This seems odd to me. When we cut a deal at the WV GOP convention with Huckabee's people, the campaign staff member who was around stated quite plainly that what we, as delegates, chose to do was solely up to us as individuals and that the campaign wouldn't endorse any course of action. I firmly believe that that is how the campaign should have acted in that matter.

If the national campaign is now making deals against the will of our boots-on-the-ground people, that's disturbing.

I have heard from some very hard working folks in NV that Greenspan was not a very helpful individual to have around (and I'm putting it mildly)...


I think you have to put this in some perspective. Most of the people who have vilified Jeff Greenspan during this entire process didn't even bother to show up at the convention. And the vast majority of those who had been wary of him found his work at the convention to be remarkable. It's easy to complain about everything. And it's easy to second guess and blame. It's much more difficult to accomplish something and ignore the venomous attacks on one's character. Jeff has done what he was asked to do by the campaign and more. He very nearly delivered a state to the campaign and to all of you.

And apparently that's some kind of major felony around here. You've suddenly decided that even though the media and political pundits have been lying and ignoring and spinning us to death, suddenly, when they decide Jeff Greenspan is the devil, they are righteous and forthright.

What flaws are within ourselves that we are willing to believe the worst in our allies? What deep seated weakness is it that causes people to cling to negativity and hatefulness, especially against our own? I honestly don't get it.

We on this board and in this movement have been labeled as nuts, outsiders, tin-foil hat wearing loons and worse. And we have rightly chafed under those mis-characterizations. But some here are more than willing to throw a hard working, effective compatriot under the bus without a second thought, on the word of less than credible characters. I know all the players involved and most of you do not. You can believe me or not, but you are being fed a trail of half-truths and untruths. And some of you are swallowing them.

We Ron Paul supporters have been lied to, misled and outright cheated at many stages of the process in Nevada. I could document each occurrence and it would take the better part of the day. And when you heard what happened, you'd understand the well-founded mistrust of the party hierarchy here and the actions that were taken. But it's easier to assume the worst of one of our own because I guess that's just what we do here. And there is no surer way to fail than to excoriate your best and hardest working people.

I've heard from some very reliable people that you are all, and I so mean all, a bunch of geeks and freaks and loons and bottom feeding scum. Prior to this convention, no less than three county chairmen in my state (in writing) have joined the major network news teams, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and others in labeling you "Ron Paul people" as idiots and losers and destroyers. If they could have named each and every one of you individually they would have. But they didn't have the time to blacken every one of your names. Luckily, some of you have taken the time to focus equal venom on one person.

Want to fix things and make this a better country? Get the heck off the internet and go do something positive. And when people on this board criticize you without cause, just keep going and doing what you set out to do. And when you accomplish something, anything, then come back and tell me that Jeff Greenspan is the devil.

[constituent]

Huh? This is the most illogical and difficult to follow ramble I've read in a while. How convenient that this poster hides behind an alias and brings out the tin foil hat canard. I'd say troll is the description that fits.

Here, let me simplify it for you.

1) Greenspan decided to broker a deal he had no authority to broker. This runs counter to the spirit of the grassroots revolution taking place (typical hq).

2) The repugs called his bluff, he looked like a fool.
Now he cries that he got burned. Big f*n surprise, I say.

3) He couldn't admit that he was made to look like a fool, so (from what i gather) he determined to throw the whole room into a tailspin.

4) Result, everyone else looks bad, he plays double-crossed secret agent man, blames everyone else.

Too far off? Too difficult to understand? I've had my coffee now, and we can probe this as deep as you desire, friend.

[constituent]

1) He very nearly delivered a state to the campaign and to all of you.

nearly, but didn't. In fact, it appears that he failed miserably and ended up screwing everyone. I hope that this is an inaccurate statement on my part, please show me it is. From what I gather, the elected delegates were about to deliver the state for the campaign and all of us (ingrates as your tone suggests).

And apparently that's some kind of major felony around here. You've suddenly decided that even though the media and political pundits have been lying and ignoring and spinning us to death, suddenly, when they decide Jeff Greenspan is the devil, they are righteous and forthright.

Actually, this has nothing to do w/ the "media and political pundits lying and ignoring blah blah blah," but it does have everything to do w/ a paid representative of RP getting burned in a back room deal he shouldn't have been brokering in the first place; then throwing the whole room into upheaval, or so it appears from the sidelines. What happened? Why does everyone from hq seem so averse to accepting responsibility for their actions?

What flaws are within ourselves that we are willing to believe the worst in our allies? What deep seated weakness is it that causes people to cling to negativity and hatefulness, especially against our own? I honestly don't get it.

I love the way you plead for sympathy in the above paragraph and then begin to harp on us in the following screeds.

We on this board and in this movement have been labeled as nuts, outsiders, tin-foil hat wearing loons and worse. And we have rightly chafed under those mis-characterizations. But some here are more than willing to throw a hard working, effective compatriot under the bus without a second thought, on the word of less than credible characters. I know all the players involved and most of you do not. You can believe me or not, but you are being fed a trail of half-truths and untruths. And some of you are swallowing them.

Do you call what happened in Nevada effective?

We Ron Paul supporters have been lied to, misled and outright cheated at many stages of the process in Nevada. I could document each occurrence and it would take the better part of the day. And when you heard what happened, you'd understand the well-founded mistrust of the party hierarchy here and the actions that were taken. But it's easier to assume the worst of one of our own because I guess that's just what we do here. And there is no surer way to fail than to excoriate your best and hardest working people.

So lay it out, you've had the time to spend all day going back and forth w/ Bradley in some sort of forum war pissing match. How about informing us all of the full-situation as you know it be? Clearing the air would probably be a good thing, but i don't believe that's why you've arrived.

Ok, below is the screed i was referring to. First you implore us to not throw our own under the bus, etc. and then you drop some arrogant bullshit like this? Talk about a total canard. "And I [I]so mean all." Valley girl?

I've heard from some very reliable people that you are all, and I so mean all, a bunch of geeks and freaks and loons and bottom feeding scum. Prior to this convention, no less than three county chairmen in my state (in writing) have joined the major network news teams, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and others in labeling you "Ron Paul people" as idiots and losers and destroyers. If they could have named each and every one of you individually they would have. But they didn't have the time to blacken every one of your names. Luckily, some of you have taken the time to focus equal venom on one person.

Want to fix things and make this a better country? Get the heck off the internet and go do something positive. And when people on this board criticize you without cause, just keep going and doing what you set out to do. And when you accomplish something, anything, then come back and tell me that Jeff Greenspan is the devil.

As for the above paragraph, do you think we've not been 'off the internet do[ing] something productive?' Get lost. We weren't even paid. Oh, and btw, if it weren't for the hard work of so many folks on the internet, this campaign would have been fuck all (even worse).


see bolded, for clarity.

[rodo1776]

Sorry to intrude as I am not from Nevada. I have been trying to put this all into perspective and understand what happened in Nevada.

First I would say based on the supposed results from the votes in the three Cd's where we supposedly won 7 of 9 delegates that there HAD to have been an organized effort with all RP delegates KNOWING and SUPPORTING the "SLATE" of 3 RP delegates per CD.

That is the only way that we could have taken 7 of 9. Absolutely the only way. So WHO organized these slates and got all the RP delegates to vote correctly?
Was it a collaborative effort from Nevada grassroots leaders? Was Jeff Greenspan HQ involved with this?

This appears to me from sitting on the sidelines that there was an organized (and professionally I might add) attempt to secure National Convention Delegates. Assuming the 7 of 9 delegates were elected.

Anyone from Nevada care to comment on this?

[BKom]

Here, let me simplify it for you.

1) Greenspan decided to broker a deal he had no authority to broker. This runs counter to the spirit of the grassroots revolution taking place (typical hq).

2) The repugs called his bluff, he looked like a fool.
Now he cries that he got burned. Big f*n surprise, I say.

3) He couldn't admit that he was made to look like a fool, so (from what i gather) he determined to throw the whole room into a tailspin.

4) Result, everyone else looks bad, he plays double-crossed secret agent man, blames everyone else.

Too far off? Too difficult to understand? I've had my coffee now, and we can probe this as deep as you desire, friend.

Yes, that is clearer but incorrect. Greenspan was indeed negotiating with the party, although I don't know the extent of the negotiations. And of course, if he had had a hard and fast deal, that deal would have been announced to the RP delegates and their approval asked. That is why I doubt a deal was ever finalized. He could not have bludgeoned us with a deal, he would have had to persuade us.

The party called what bluff? It seems they were trying to play him and he got the message and therefor didn't announce any deal, thus making any deal that may have occurred or been about to occur meaningless.

Jeff doesn't mind looking like a fool if the situation calls for it, although he is far from a fool. But he didn't really have anything to do with throwing the room into a tailspin. Maybe it's been unclear, but I was responsible for changing the election rule. It was at my direction, as soon as Weber backed out on the consensus rules deal, that the rule change was introduced. And I did that because I felt the rule was unfair as written (actually, there was the absence of any rule regarding elections and nominations), and it so happens that 752 delegates on the floor agreed. Jeff isn't a Nevadan and wasn't a delegate. I am both and when the deal with Weber was broken by Weber, I started the process to include in our rules the part of Weber's rules that we were interested in, and that we felt was fair.

And I do not now hear Jeff claiming anything. He may or may not have felt he had a deal, and whatever occurred, he seems to have felt that the other side wasn't going to live up to any deal. He didn't complain and vilify the party. They, in fact, are trying to spin him as the devil via their mouthpiece. Want to see how trustworthy they are and how noble they are? Watch the video of the convention. See how they ended it. And read the lies they've spread about the reconvening. In fact, there will be no reconvening. And the promised list of credentialed delegates will not be given to us without a 10,000 payment. Senator Beers promised me that list in front of a reporter for the Nevada Appeal and we will not receive it as he told me two days ago. I was on NPR last week an Sue Lowden was supposed to be on the show but never showed. It is not we who are being devious here. What we did during the convention was well within the rules. What they did was not. What they promised us after the convention is not being delivered. And Jeff Greenspan is not the reason for this. The reason is simple, we won. And they can't have that. Oh, and they are going to invalidate the congressional district elections that resulted in 6-7 Ron Paul delegates out of 9. They will stop at nothing to ensure Zero Ron Paul delegates. Any rationale for doing so is merely bootstrapping.

Thanks for clearing up your post, anonymous one.
Brian

[constituent]

Yes, that is clearer but incorrect. Greenspan was indeed negotiating with the party, although I don't know the extent of the negotiations. And of course, if he had had a hard and fast deal, that deal would have been announced to the RP delegates and their approval asked. That is why I doubt a deal was ever finalized. He could not have bludgeoned us with a deal, he would have had to persuade us.

The party called what bluff? It seems they were trying to play him and he got the message and therefor didn't announce any deal, thus making any deal that may have occurred or been about to occur meaningless.

Jeff doesn't mind looking like a fool if the situation calls for it, although he is far from a fool. But he didn't really have anything to do with throwing the room into a tailspin. Maybe it's been unclear, but I was responsible for changing the election rule. It was at my direction, as soon as Weber backed out on the consensus rules deal, that the rule change was introduced. And I did that because I felt the rule was unfair as written (actually, there was the absence of any rule regarding elections and nominations), and it so happens that 752 delegates on the floor agreed. Jeff isn't a Nevadan and wasn't a delegate. I am both and when the deal with Weber was broken by Weber, I started the process to include in our rules the part of Weber's rules that we were interested in, and that we felt was fair.

And I do not now hear Jeff claiming anything. He may or may not have felt he had a deal, and whatever occurred, he seems to have felt that the other side wasn't going to live up to any deal. He didn't complain and vilify the party. They, in fact, are trying to spin him as the devil via their mouthpiece. Want to see how trustworthy they are and how noble they are? Watch the video of the convention. See how they ended it. And read the lies they've spread about the reconvening. In fact, there will be no reconvening. And the promised list of credentialed delegates will not be given to us without a 10,000 payment. Senator Beers promised me that list in front of a reporter for the Nevada Appeal and we will not receive it as he told me two days ago. I was on NPR last week an Sue Lowden was supposed to be on the show but never showed. It is not we who are being devious here. What we did during the convention was well within the rules. What they did was not. What they promised us after the convention is not being delivered. And Jeff Greenspan is not the reason for this. The reason is simple, we won. And they can't have that. Oh, and they are going to invalidate the congressional district elections that resulted in 6-7 Ron Paul delegates out of 9. They will stop at nothing to ensure Zero Ron Paul delegates. Any rationale for doing so is merely bootstrapping.

Thanks for clearing up your post, anonymous one.
Brian

then i apologize. thank you for clearing the air.

btw, i'm not anonymous to everyone ;)

[BKom]

I tried to delete a post I wasn't happy with. Is there no way to delete this post?

[BKom]

Sorry to intrude as I am not from Nevada. I have been trying to put this all into perspective and understand what happened in Nevada.

First I would say based on the supposed results from the votes in the three Cd's where we supposedly won 7 of 9 delegates that there HAD to have been an organized effort with all RP delegates KNOWING and SUPPORTING the "SLATE" of 3 RP delegates per CD.

That is the only way that we could have taken 7 of 9. Absolutely the only way. So WHO organized these slates and got all the RP delegates to vote correctly?
Was it a collaborative effort from Nevada grassroots leaders? Was Jeff Greenspan HQ involved with this?

This appears to me from sitting on the sidelines that there was an organized (and professionally I might add) attempt to secure National Convention Delegates. Assuming the 7 of 9 delegates were elected.

Anyone from Nevada care to comment on this?

When the rule vote passed, we quickly put together a list of CD delegates and distributed it. And our people and a lot of other people, apparently, voted for the slate. Impromptu and so effective it's going to be thrown out for spurious reasons.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

Excellent summary, BKom. Perhaps you should post it on Muth's "Final Thoughts" thread:

http://conservablogs.com/muthstruths/2008/05/03/the-ron-paul-convention-final-thoughts/

It would have been nice if Greenspan had put it as clearly as you, instead of that silly exchange that's on the record on Muth's blog.

[constituent]

Excellent summary, BKom. Perhaps you should post it on Muth's "Final Thoughts" thread:

http://conservablogs.com/muthstruths/2008/05/03/the-ron-paul-convention-final-thoughts/

It would have been nice if Greenspan had put it as clearly as you, instead of that silly exchange that's on the record on Muth's blog.

yes, please do. i can't imagine the traffic the blog is getting at the moment, and right now trying to follow the whole thing only causes confusion/frustration.

[rodo1776]

Man BKOM that is incredible!!!
You did this during the convention after the rule change vote and had no problem limiting it to 3 (or 6 I guess if the vote was for alternates as well) per CD? And made the selection AND got the word out during the process? No fight amongst yourselves as to who would be on the list?

You put this together just like that? And this was not suggested by HQ or Jeff beforehand?

I mean that is incredible and HATS OFF TO YOU and the others for doing that.

[BKom]

I have corresponded with Mr. Muth about some of this. But frankly, I feel he is not doing journalism here, but advocacy. And he has a longstanding conflict with Jeff G for some reason that neither has explained to me or anyone else. It has colored the coverage of the events. So, I've decided to steer clear of the blog now. Nothing to be gained. Just look at the screeds and misinformation he published from emailers criticizing the RP group. Some of these same people have been writing those things since before the convention and the caucuses. And they've been writing them about some of the best and most honorable people in our state.

Better to let them slip to the bottom of the page unanswered. Brian

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

Wow, he just added a new blog entry attacking the libertarians and Mary Ruwart for being too "fringe."

I suppose he'll have to withdraw his luke-warm support for Ron Paul after RP takes my advice and forms an anti-Imperialist League-style alliance with the good Reverend Wright.

[BKom]

Man BKOM that is incredible!!!
You did this during the convention after the rule change vote and had no problem limiting it to 3 (or 6 I guess if the vote was for alternates as well) per CD? And made the selection AND got the word out during the process? No fight amongst yourselves as to who would be on the list?

You put this together just like that? And this was not suggested by HQ or Jeff beforehand?

I mean that is incredible and HATS OFF TO YOU and the others for doing that.

Not Jeff or HQ. Many possible names had been gathered of those interested beforehand. The decision on slates for CDs was made by Nevada delegates. We only decided to print those slates when the rule passed. And I'm pretty sure those people won because they were well known supporters. Where they were not, we lost. Getting the word out didn't really happen, as far as I can tell.

[BKom]

Wow, he just added a new blog entry attacking the libertarians and Mary Ruwart for being too "fringe."

I suppose he'll have to withdraw his luke-warm support for Ron Paul after RP takes my advice and forms an anti-Imperialist League-style alliance with the good Reverend Wright.


Having a blog must be fun. Especially if you're unhappy in your life. It's the perfect ventilation device.

I rarely read blogs.