Did Ron Paul get the Nevada Delegates?

[VegasBoy]

I did a search but didnt find nothing

Just answer me with a Yes or No.

Did Ron Paul get the Nevada Delegates?

[Jeremy]

No.

The GOP didn't follow the rules and the court said that it's the party's matter. But I think they're going to the national GOP and complaining now.

[acroso]

He got ZERO?

lol can't help but laugh it's such a fraud.

[UtahApocalypse]

I did a search but didnt find nothing

Just answer me with a Yes or No.

Did Ron Paul get the Nevada Delegates?

There is no answer yet. It will all be decided by the Credentials committee at the RNC. We all can guess how that will go.

[Alawn]

From my understanding the judge said they sued too early and dismissed the case because at that point they weren't sure whether they were actually going to pick their own delegates like they ended up doing.

[pauletteNV]

I feel certain there will be further action. If I were a delegate "appointed" by an executive Committee over the delegates, especially after a vote of over 2/3rds of the original delegates, I would feel shame. The rules state delegates must be chosen at the convention, not over the phone. I would be very, very reluctant to accept such an appointment.

So, o.k., if you were a state delegate to the first day and did not go because a $10 hotdog was more appealing, why do you deserve to go? When I was a State Delegates, I felt it was my duty to attend all convention dates. The second and final day of the convention held on June 28th was very transparent, in keeping with The Party Rules and Robert's Rules and those who made the effort to be there or to make sure that the delegates who were chosen before the illegal recess were still elected...now they are the deserving ones. To hear it from a Nominating Commitee member, privy was given to those who had made donations and given of their time to the party. So, that's what a delegate has to do apparently...buy one's way to the Convention Floor. It is a MLM process...youse pays your dues and you get elevated a bit...pay more, you get elevated a bit more...etc. No wonder the power hungry are willing to invest a billion dollars to become president. Here, all along, I thought it had something to do with the will of We The People and the candidate who best meets the needs of the country...silly me.

[RPTXState]

The way I would argue the case is this:

The Convention was Recessed, not Adjourned. Unless it Adjourned 30 days before the Natl' Convention, it can't have any delegates. The NVGOP can't adjourn the convention without a quorum. So their slate can't really be considered, because to consider it means rejecting the Tehrune convention, the only one that actually Adjourned.

I don't think Nevada will get any delegates, RP or otherwise. The Natl. GOP will kick them both out of St. Paul.

[Cap'n Jack]

From my understanding the judge said they sued too early and dismissed the case because at that point they weren't sure whether they were actually going to pick their own delegates like they ended up doing.

Actually, the judge dismissed the case saying the court had no jurisdiction (http://www.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080726/NEWS/807260350). It had nothing to do with the timing.

"The delegates were chosen from a pool of party members who had submitted resumes to the committee well in advance. The committee selected the delegates based on past service to the party, prominent political recommendations and military service. Presidential preference was not a criteria." At least that's according to Heidi Smith (http://www.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080726/NEWS/807260350), Washoe County GOP Chairwoman.

The RNC gave the Nevada GOP the green light to select its delegates by Executive Committee after certain rogue elements decided to boycott the reconvening on July 26. Seems the Old Guard doesn't care for kids who play games.

Mike Weber (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1600544) has filed a petition, but it's DOA.

Everybody give Paulette and her friends a big pat on the back for the fine job they've done! :)


To hear it from a Nominating Commitee member, privy was given to those who had made donations and given of their time to the party... Here, all along, I thought it had something to do with the will of We The People and the candidate who best meets the needs of the country.

That's one way to look at it -- If you're a snivelling whiner. Another way would be to acknowledge that people who have demonstrated a commitment to the party are rewarded for their loyalty. Okay, so you don't like it. Guess what? The people who matter don't really give a shit.

[BKom]

Actually, the judge dismissed the case saying the court had no jurisdiction (http://www.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080726/NEWS/807260350). It had nothing to do with the timing.

"The delegates were chosen from a pool of party members who had submitted resumes to the committee well in advance. The committee selected the delegates based on past service to the party, prominent political recommendations and military service. Presidential preference was not a criteria." At least that's according to Heidi Smith (http://www.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080726/NEWS/807260350), Washoe County GOP Chairwoman.

The RNC gave the Nevada GOP the green light to select its delegates by Executive Committee after certain rogue elements decided to boycott the reconvening on July 26. Seems the Old Guard doesn't care for kids who play games.

Mike Weber (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1600544) has filed a petition, but it's DOA.

Everybody give Paulette and her friends a big pat on the back for the fine job they've done! :)



That's one way to look at it -- If you're a snivelling whiner. Another way would be to acknowledge that people who have demonstrated a commitment to the party are rewarded for their loyalty. Okay, so you don't like it. Guess what? The people who matter don't really give a shit.

These assertions certainly sound like our old friend Mike of the Republican Liberty Caucus. Seems this Cap'n Jack joined right about the time Mike went silent.

I can't say for sure, but the writing style seems about right.

First off, you don't have the facts, once again. A lot of people never got their applications to be delegates. And many got them too late to return them in time. And finally, since it was a complete black box operation, nobody except the committee knows what went into the decision. We can only guess. Yeah, that's that great open and accountable party we know and love. I've been a member for a long time now, and it warms my heart that they have people like you here to misrepresent the truth. And it may or may not surprise you that Heidi Smith was voted in as national committeewoman at the original convention, but has been so upset with the machinations of the party that she has now resigned that position. I hope she reconsiders, but that's the scuttlebutt.

And I think it's fine that showing a commitment to the party be taken into account when considering nominations to be delegates. But should that be the only consideration? We don't know what was actually considered because, once again, we were not involved in that process at any point. We don't know who submitted applications, we don't know if all applications were considered, and we don't even know if the delegates were picked before ever considering any applications. We asked to have someone on the nominating committee but were denied.

I do really wish people would move on from this topic. But the misinformation put up by this poster in all of his incarnations is just insane. He is either the RLC guy or he's the conservative blogger as far as I can tell. And in either case, he needs to get the facts right for once.

[Alawn]

Actually, the judge dismissed the case saying the court had no jurisdiction (http://www.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080726/NEWS/807260350). It had nothing to do with the timing.

That judge doesn't know what he is talking about. The Democratic Party tried that same thing a few decades ago. They said only white people could vote in the Democratic Party primary and that they could make whatever rules they wanted because they are a private organization not the government. The Supreme Court heard the case and ruled that government is involved enough with the election process that they cannot just make up any rules they want.

Plus it is also a contract dispute since they agreed to the rules ahead of time and broke them so they would have jurisdiction to hear it.

[Cap'n Jack]

And I think it's fine that showing a commitment to the party be taken into account when considering nominations to be delegates. But should that be the only consideration?
Uh... Thanks for the interest. I think. Mind if I focus on just this one point?

If it were an actual contest, sure, other things should be taken into account. But it's not.

Now that the primaries and caucuses are all wrapped up, McCain has 1490 pledged delegates. Paul has 35.

If it was even remotely close, then by all means presidential preference should be considered. But since there's only 1 candidate in the race, and he has far and away more pledged delegates than he needs to win, it's done. Over. Finished.

Our good friend Paulette needs to deal with it.

Don't be hatin'. I'm really just pointing out the obvious.

[BKom]

Mind if I ignore the irrelevant drivel in the rest of your post and focus on just this one point?

If it were an actual contest, sure, other things should be taken into account.

But it's not.

Now that the primaries and caucuses are all wrapped up, McCain has 1490 pledged delegates. Paul has 35.

If it was even remotely close, then presidential preference should be considered. But since there's only 1 candidate in the race, and he has far and away more pledged delegates than he needs to win, it's done.

Our good friend Paulette needs to deal with it.

You do really wish people would move on from this topic? Yeah, I think I'm starting (http://eforum.reviewjournal.com/lv/showthread.php?p=417087) to see (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=149317) why (http://www.politickernv.com/jkcooper/1952/cd-1-republican-candidate-hits-lowden-song).

Sure, Mike or Chuck or Barney, ignore any drivel you want to. And please, feel free to call Chris Dyer or email him and tell him his attempt at humor was disgusting and ill advised and counterproductive. However, I just don't see what that has to do with me or any of hundreds of Republicans who attended the state convention.

In fact, I was going to donate to Chris' campaign and help him, and when I saw that song, I reconsidered and did not. He has been a major disappointment.

Yeah, if it were a contest, other things would be taken into account. Let's take a short walk down memory lane. This was the first convention in the country. So, at that time, although McCain had been awarded a lot of delegates by the lazy media, as was evident by how our convention was proceeding, not all of those candidates actually belonged to McCain.

It's pretty easy to say what would have happened knowing what we know now. But since it was the first convention in the nation, it was worth pulling out all the stops. Could have caused a landslide. But it didn't. And that's why it's time to move on. We got outmaneuvered and out-Machiavellied. That's a fact. However, it is nothing to be proud of and it's certainly not something for anyone who loves freedom to crow about.

So, it begs the question. What is your agenda in spreading misinformation. Yeah, Paulette had the judge's position wrong. But your glee at coming here and gloating is a big unseemly and smacks of being a poor winner. And I'll ask? With a McCain candidacy or presidency, what exactly have you won?

[BKom]

Uh... Thanks for the interest. I think. Mind if I focus on just this one point?

If it were an actual contest, sure, other things should be taken into account. But it's not.

Now that the primaries and caucuses are all wrapped up, McCain has 1490 pledged delegates. Paul has 35.

If it was even remotely close, then by all means presidential preference should be considered. But since there's only 1 candidate in the race, and he has far and away more pledged delegates than he needs to win, it's done. Over. Finished.

Our good friend Paulette needs to deal with it.

Don't be hatin'. I'm really just pointing out the obvious.

Did a little editing, did ya?

Yeah, I thought your post was a little gloaty and over the top, too. And for some reason I had become responsible for Chris Dyer. You're either Chuck or Mike and either way, you really should stop and just let people vent a little. It's healthy, to a point.

[pauletteNV]

"That's one way to look at it -- If you're a snivelling whiner. Another way would be to acknowledge that people who have demonstrated a commitment to the party are rewarded for their loyalty. Okay, so you don't like it. Guess what? The people who matter don't really give a shit."

If that were true they wouldn't be on this site debating the point. I think donations and time spent are an important consideration, of course, but to say that people who did participate in the caucus, then the county convention, then the statement convention aren't on a level playing field...then I say, why play? Remember the Party Rules about the Open Tent, and every candidate have an equal opportunity and recognition? Do you then think that only wealthy people should go to the convention because they can afford to donate more? No wonder we need to make changes within the political parties....there should be representation for all, imo.

[Perry]

Actually he did get some. Those who were shrewd went in under the radar.

[Mike Davis]

So, it begs the question. What is your agenda in spreading misinformation. Yeah, Paulette had the judge's position wrong. But your glee at coming here and gloating is a big unseemly and smacks of being a poor winner. And I'll ask? With a McCain candidacy or presidency, what exactly have you won?
You're seeing ghosts, Brian.

I can't speak for anyone else, but if you think I'm gloating, you are truly mistaken.

I've been a Republican for 23 years, and my candidate was Ron Paul. Unfortunately, my candidate lost.

It makes me want to vomit to see the way certain individuals have turned his campaign and my party into a sad, sick joke.

If Paulette or Mike Weber or any other ninny wants to trash the Nevada GOP and permanently alienate that large slice of the middle who may have been open to Paul's message, well... It's a free country. Be my guest.

I hope you don't mind me pointing out that the rest of us see things a little differently. There seems to be a considerable amount of evidence to support our view.

That isn't misrepresentation and it's not misinformation, friend. That's a fact.


I think donations and time spent are an important consideration, of course, but to say that people who did participate in the caucus, then the county convention, then the statement convention aren't on a level playing field...then I say, why play? Remember the Party Rules about the Open Tent, and every candidate have an equal opportunity and recognition? Do you then think that only wealthy people should go to the convention because they can afford to donate more? No wonder we need to make changes within the political parties....there should be representation for all, imo.
Yeah, it's unfortunate that the people who just voted in the caucuses and showed up for a couple meetings didn't get the same treatment as those who've volunteered a considerable amount of time, or money, over many years.

If you look at the delegates who were selected, though, they're not all "wealthy people."

Party Rules and Open Tents only go so far, Paulette. The game is building friendships, establishing networks, and gathering favors. That's just the way it works. If you come through the door like gangbusters with the mindset that the people who are already there are corrupt, the enemy, and need to be purged, you're not gonna make a whole lot of friends. In fact, you might just find yourself shut out.

[Cap'n Jack]

Did a little editing, did ya?

Aye mate. You hit my funny bone. ;)

Sorry for not fixing that before you saw it.

[James Gragg]

Putting aside all of the conjecture, as well as some of the provoking B.S., the "Nevada issue" and how it is handled by the RNC credientials committiee will be "THE PROOF" of the character of the party as a whole. I don't hold out much hope that those folks will act with much in the way of ethics. "Party loyality" and following "orders" seem to be the rule of the day. I could be wrong, and this could be the first time that the party actually follows the rule of law (and its own published rules), and they seat the lawfully "elected delgates" instead of the "star chamered appointed ones." NOT! Which leaves only a "floor fight" over ANYTHING "improperly done" by that group. And they have to "know" that.

Either way, the world will be watching and judging the outcome. Complete honesty and transparency is what will be required. Anything less will on this "issue" ALONE gureentee a large loss in November.

[ninepointfive]

Putting aside all of the conjecture, as well as some of the provoking B.S., the "Nevada issue" and how it is handled by the RNC credientials committiee will be "THE PROOF" of the character of the party as a whole. I don't hold out much hope that those folks will act with much in the way of ethics. "Party loyality" and following "orders" seem to be the rule of the day. I could be wrong, and this could be the first time that the party actually follows the rule of law (and its own published rules), and they seat the lawfully "elected delgates" instead of the "star chamered appointed ones." NOT! Which leaves only a "floor fight" over ANYTHING "improperly done" by that group. And they have to "know" that.

Either way, the world will be watching and judging the outcome. Complete honesty and transparency is what will be required. Anything less will on this "issue" ALONE gureentee a large loss in November.


This is one of the clearest points made about the Nevada issue.

[pauletteNV]

"Yeah, it's unfortunate that the people who just voted in the caucuses and showed up for a couple meetings didn't get the same treatment as those who've volunteered a considerable amount of time, or money, over many years.

If you look at the delegates who were selected, though, they're not all "wealthy people."

Party Rules and Open Tents only go so far, Paulette. The game is building friendships, establishing networks, and gathering favors. That's just the way it works. If you come through the door like gangbusters with the mindset that the people who are already there are corrupt, the enemy, and need to be purged, you're not gonna make a whole lot of friends. In fact, you might just find yourself shut out.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps you are right, we should only allow the elite a voice in our elections.
:rolleyes: Multi-level Marketing and you buy your way in. Bob Beers said we might be ready positions in 10 or 15 years - read that: Bob has paid his dues and expects to have 10 or 15 years of service before he is ready for someone else to take over his job? Do we really think this country has 10 or 15 years of "business as usual" or do we think those with the focus, gumption, and vision to get back to some level of conservative government are the people to elect.

Your statement here about "the game," "gathering favors," "making friends," is very telling. Solicting funds for gain, sounds ripe for corruption. Yes, I realize that not all are wealthy, but not all who went to the caucuses, "and a couple of meetings" are newbies to the Republican Party, donating and participating either. Here I see room for political backing of those without wealth in order to garner power...for someone. Whether you bought and paid for your position yourself, or if someone else with the money did...what do they expect in return? My gosh, do you people keep a scorecard and have it on a database? Favors, earmarks, what follows?

Personally, I would rather vote for a brand new candidate on the block with Ron Paul values who has possibly never done one durn thing for the Republican Party other than promote transparency, legality and have a Republican outlook than a candidate who has only "been a good little soldier." I am seriously concerned about the posters who claim they are Ron Paul supporters, knowing that it is Ron Paul's goal to return the Republican Party back to its "roots" so to speak, and yet they seem so anxious to follow and support the old guard and protect their "investment." This is not a "game"...this is our lives, our children's lives and the future of the political focus of this country.

[pepperpete1]

The RNC gave the Nevada GOP the green light to select its delegates by Executive Committee after certain rogue elements decided to boycott the reconvening on July 26. Seems the Old Guard doesn't care for kids who play games.

Just who at the Republican National Committee gave the NVGOP the green light?

Per the RNC rules:
RULE 15
In all elections of delegates or alternate delegates to the national convention, the following rules shall apply:

(1) Delegates and alternate delegates to the national convention may be elected only in one of the following manners:

(i) by primary election;

(ii) by the Republican state committee, where specifically provided by state law;

(iii) by state and congressional district conventions;

(iv) by any method consistent with these rules by which delegates and alternate delegates were selected to the most recent Republican National Convention from that state;

(v) by Rule No. 13 (a)(2) of these rules.

In addressing rule(ii) the Nevada state election law says that the delegates will be elected at the state convention.

This matter can be brought up before the credentialing committee or the whole convention fiasco should have been contested prior to August 3, 2008

I am sure hoping that a contestment was filed prior to the deadline as stated in the RNC rules.

[Mike Davis]

Just who at the Republican National Committee gave the NVGOP the green light?
Check the R-J and the RGJ. There are several articles dealing with the whole brouhaha. As I recall, after the Terhune faction decided to boycott the reconvening and that judge dismissed their case for lack of jurisdiction, the Ex Com got the go-ahead from "the powers that be."

Mike Weber did file a petition of contest (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1600544) before Aug 3. It's dead in the water.

To the OP's question:

Yes, there are some Ron Paul delegates in the Nevada Delegation. Presidential preference was not a consideration.

No, the delegates at the June 28 Rump Convention will not be seated.

Hope this helps.

[pepperpete1]

Check the R-J and the RGJ. There are several articles dealing with the whole brouhaha. As I recall, after the Terhune faction decided to boycott the reconvening and that judge dismissed their case, the Ex Com got the go-ahead from "the powers that be."

Mike Weber did file a petition of contest (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1600544) before Aug 3.

It's dead in the water.

To the OP's question:

Yes, there are some Ron Paul delegates in the Nevada Delegation. Presidential preference was not a consideration.

No, the delegates at the June 28 Rump Convention will not be seated.

Hope this helps.

Where can one get a list of the chosen delegates?

Which member of the credentials committee told you none of the delegates from the June 28th convention will not be seated and just when was the petition of contest decided?

[BKom]

Check the R-J and the RGJ. There are several articles dealing with the whole brouhaha. As I recall, after the Terhune faction decided to boycott the reconvening and that judge dismissed their case for lack of jurisdiction, the Ex Com got the go-ahead from "the powers that be."

Mike Weber did file a petition of contest (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1600544) before Aug 3. It's dead in the water.

To the OP's question:

Yes, there are some Ron Paul delegates in the Nevada Delegation. Presidential preference was not a consideration.

No, the delegates at the June 28 Rump Convention will not be seated.

Hope this helps.

There are some Ron Paul delegates in the appointed Nevada delegation? Really? Maybe you can post the list of delegates and I'll recognize those Ron Paul supporters' names. That would be quite helpful.

Brian Kominsky

[Mike Davis]

Where can one get a list of the chosen delegates?

The executive board appointed the delegates (http://elizabethcrum.blogivists.com/2008/07/26/ron-paul-renegades-lose-in-district-court-nevada-gop-finally-chooses-delegates/) recommended by the Nominating Committee.


Maybe you can post the list of delegates and I'll recognize those Ron Paul supporters' names. That would be quite helpful.
Call Zac. You guys are tight. I'm sure he'll hook you up. :)

[pepperpete1]

Has anyone else noted that Mr. Davis picks and chooses the questions he opts to answer?

[BKom]

The executive board appointed the delegates (http://elizabethcrum.blogivists.com/2008/07/26/ron-paul-renegades-lose-in-district-court-nevada-gop-finally-chooses-delegates/) recommended by the Nominating Committee.


Call Zac. You guys are tight. I'm sure he'll hook you up. :)

Yeah, Zac's a peach.

I suppose that since there has always been a contention that the nominating committee selected 4 "Ron Paul" delegates, and since the executive committee took those recommendations, they must have included the famous bone of contention Ron Paul delegates.

I won't hold my breath. But if you would like to hold your breath, I will not object.

[brooklyn]

What about the CD delegates?
Can anybody tell me what happens to the CD delegates that were elected at the April convention?
Do they just disappear like the rules of electing delegates have?:confused:

[pepperpete1]

What about the CD delegates?
Can anybody tell me what happens to the CD delegates that were elected at the April convention?
Do they just disappear like the rules of electing delegates have?:confused:

Unless justice prevails with the contest committee and the credentialing committee.

[speciallyblend]

no