Reality Check: Why all RNC delegates are 'Free Agents' and unbound

[zachrbroussard]

From Ben's facebook:


"Reality Check tonight, I respond to the blog "Ben Swann got it wrong on Rule 38 and unbound delegates"
Some good points were brought up in that blog... which allows me to sharpen the argument. Share this page today because tonight (will post link after the show) I have something remarkable to share"

I'll paste the link when he posts it!


[update] video is now up:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anWsU93fFsk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anWsU93fFsk

http://www.fox19.com/story/18305604/reality-check-why-all-rnc-delegates-are-free-agents-and-unbound

[PatriotOne]

Good. I hope it helps clarify the debate here. I don't know what to think about it!

[dancjm]

I look forward to the remarkable!

What time will this go up, anyone know?

[zachrbroussard]

I think they air at 10pm eastern and are online about 30 minutes after they air. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[UtahApocalypse]

Rule 38 does not matter. The rules do not go into effect until voted on. The establishment will motion to change the rules before convention business begins

[dancjm]

Ben Swann WXIX ‎
Kelly Heffernan make sure you check it out tonight... could be a whole different ball game

[azxd]

From Ben's facebook:

"Reality Check tonight, I respond to the blog "Ben Swann got it wrong on Rule 38 and unbound delegates"
Some good points were brought up in that blog... which allows me to sharpen the argument. Share this page today because tonight (will post link after the show) I have something remarkable to share"In this thread, right ?

[kathy88]

Rule 38 does not matter. The rules do not go into effect until voted on. The establishment will motion to change the rules before convention business begins

Don't you mean the majority will be voting on the rules before convention business begins? That could potentially be us...

[zachrbroussard]

In this thread, right ?

That is him saying that about his facebook, but I will paste it when he posts it!

[TrishW]

I wish he would also do a reality check on rule 11.

[zachrbroussard]

I wish he would also do a reality check on rule 11.

Yes, that would be nice.

[anaconda]

Someone on the forum raised the issue of Romney simply failing to carry the motion to have his name placed on the RNC ballot. Why isn't there more attention to this? The contention was that the votes to place names on the nominating ballot may have nothing to do with which candidate on that ballot a delegate may or may not be pledged to vote for on the first round. Also: Corallary question: can Ron Paul supporters win the majority of Romney pledged delegate positions?

[dancjm]

Someone on the forum raised the issue of Romney simply failing to carry the motion to have his name placed on the RNC ballot. Why isn't there more attention to this? The contention was that the votes to place names on the nominating ballot may have nothing to do with which candidate on that ballot a delegate may or may not be pledged to vote for on the first round. Also: Corallary question: can Ron Paul supporters win the majority of Romney pledged delegate positions?

Interesting.

[Suzu]

The establishment will motion to change the rules before convention business beginsThe word "motion" is a noun. To say that someone "will motion" is like saying they "will highway" or "will window" or "will lizard". The correct term instead of "motion" here is "move" - "They will move".

I wish more people on this forum were more interested in the English language instead of tearing it to shreds all the time.

[Suzu]

Yes, that would be nice.So ask him to do it already!

[wgadget]

The word "motion" is a noun. To say that someone "will motion" is like saying they "will highway" or "will window" or "will lizard". The correct term instead of "motion" here is "move" - "They will move".

I wish more people on this forum were more interested in the English language instead of tearing it to shreds all the time.

I think a better way to word your last sentence would be: I wish more people on this forum were more interested in the English language THAN tearing it to shreds all the time.

:D

[anaconda]

I think a better way to word your last sentence would be: I wish more people on this forum were more interested in the English language THAN tearing it to shreds all the time.


I'll take a crack at it: "I wish a greater number of forum participants were committed to proper use of the English language." Or is it "usage?"

[ClydeCoulter]

Watch out, I started a thread about "then/than", "your, you're", etc. and got labeld a Nazi for a while.........:)

edit: hey, were you the guys....:mad: ... :p

[dancjm]

Corrected :)


I'll take a crack at it: "I wish a greater number of forum participants were committed to the proper use of the English language." Or is it "usage?"

[anaconda]

Watch out, I started a thread about "then/than", "your, you're", etc. and got labeld a Nazi



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4vf8N6GpdM

[anaconda]

Corrected :)


The proper use

the (no capital)

[dancjm]

I wish he would also do a reality check on rule 11.

Ben has done a rule 11 reality check (first half):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mDPK4GCprYA#!

[DanK22]

The word "motion" is a noun. To say that someone "will motion" is like saying they "will highway" or "will window" or "will lizard". The correct term instead of "motion" here is "move" - "They will move". I wish more people on this forum were more interested in the English language instead of tearing it to shreds all the time.

Motion
v.tr.
To direct by making a gesture: motioned us to our seats.
v.intr.
To signal by making a gesture: motioned to her to enter.

-American Heritage http://www.thefreedictionary.com/motion

[dancjm]

Ben Swann WXIX shared a link.
4 minutes ago
Watch and Share!
Reality Check: Why all RNC delegates are 'Free Agents' and unbound
www.fox19.com
One week ago, Reality Check told you about one reason why the Republican Presidential nomination is far from locked up. But one blogger says Ben got it wrong claiming "Urgent, Ben Swann and Matt Larso

[dancjm]

http://www.fox19.com/story/18305604/reality-check-why-all-rnc-delegates-are-free-agents-and-unbound

Delegates are not bound according to RNC Legal Council in 2008.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5KhFoCgqb10

[Highstreet]

RNC Legal Counsel stated it in 2008!!!

This is going viral!

[dancjm]

"The RNC does not recognize a states binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose"

RNC legal council - 2008 :D

[pawlpawl]

Shit just got real.

[ClydeCoulter]

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D ad infinitum

[No1butPaul]

The video keeps stopping at about 5 seconds in ... I guess nobody else having this problem? Maybe the Blaze article did this!!!

Youtube link working.

YEAH BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jay_dub]

But..but...but...Ron Paul has NO chance of being nominated in Tampa....right??

I'm in love...with a girl named Rule 38!!!

Ron Paul in 2012 Dammit !!!!

[dancjm]

Romney actually was awarded a vote from a delegate who was bound to another candidate in 2008, for this very reason.

This is massive.

[Joe Jordan]

Oh snap! Tampa is going to be AWESOME. :D

[Thor]

Ben Swann WXIX shared a link.
4 minutes ago
Watch and Share!
Reality Check: Why all RNC delegates are 'Free Agents' and unbound
www.fox19.com
One week ago, Reality Check told you about one reason why the Republican Presidential nomination is far from locked up. But one blogger says Ben got it wrong claiming "Urgent, Ben Swann and Matt Larso

http://www.fox19.com/story/18305604/reality-check-why-all-rnc-delegates-are-free-agents-and-unbound

Wow.... If the RNC says they are unbound, I guess they are unbound... watch and see.

[Tiso0770]

Reality Check- RNC Delegates Are 'FREE AGENTS' & UNBOUND- Ron Paul Supporters Rejoice


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KhFoCgqb10

[sailingaway]

Romney actually was awarded a vote from a delegate who was bound to another candidate in 2008, for this very reason.

This is massive.

of course they refused to count OUR guy's votes...

[speciallyblend]

http://www.fox19.com/story/18305604/reality-check-why-all-rnc-delegates-are-free-agents-and-unbound

Wow.... If the RNC says they are unbound, I guess they are unbound... watch and see.

sounds like good news to me:)

[Feelgood]

No one but Our Plan 2012! :D

[RickyJ]

This is good news, but it doesn't mean that Romney won't win on the first ballot. Santorum's and Gingrich's delegates could vote for Romney on the first ballot and Romney would have it. This gives us a fighting chance IF we can convince enough Santorum and Gingrich delegates to vote for Paul.

[Thor]

Reality Check- RNC Delegates Are 'FREE AGENTS' & UNBOUND- Ron Paul Supporters Rejoice


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KhFoCgqb10

I would promote the office BenSwann YouTube when it is posted, instead of someone else's copy of the broadcast.

That is the least we can do for him after all the good he has done for us.

[Suzu]

We're going to win. We are going to WIN the White House!

[speciallyblend]

I would promote the office BenSwann YouTube when it is posted, instead of someone else's copy of the broadcast.

That is the least we can do for him after all the good he has done for us.

i have the link on my facebook page,sending to your fb im now,sent.

[flynn]

President Ron Paul, here we come. By the way, whoever came up with rule 38 is an effing genius.

[speciallyblend]

http://www.fox19.com/story/18305604/reality-check-why-all-rnc-delegates-are-free-agents-and-unbound<a href="http://www.fox19.com/story/18305604/reality-check-why-all-rnc-delegates-are-free-agents-and-unbound">
http://www.fox19.com/story/18305604/reality-check-why-all-rnc-delegates-are-free-agents-and-unbound (http://www.fox19.com/story/18305604/reality-check-why-all-rnc-delegates-are-free-agents-and-unbound)

[jay_dub]

I would promote the office BenSwann YouTube when it is posted, instead of someone else's copy of the broadcast.

That is the least we can do for him after all the good he has done for us.

Yep...I've already cross-posted this and used Ben's link. It's the least we can do for this guy. Honestly, where would we be without Ben Swann?

[moraha]

Why do the rules contradict each other so much? First it says "they are bound on the first ballot" and then it says "no delegate is bound"....and now that blogger says they're bound but Swann shows us that quote saying they're not bound....confused

Not only that...but if they delegates CAN vote for Paul, do they know?

[Thor]

Yep...I've already cross-posted this and used Ben's link. It's the least we can do for this guy. Honestly, where would we be without Ben Swann?

Great. He has not uploaded it to his official YouTube channel yet (http://www.youtube.com/user/BenSwannRealityCheck), but I think he will within a few hours. But it is on the Fox19 page for now (and the other users copy on YouTube)

[Big Raddy Kewl]

Not only that...but if they delegates CAN vote for Paul, do they know?

It is our job to make sure they do know. We have to get this out there. Make sure they know.

[dancjm]

Why do the rules contradict each other so much? First it says "they are bound on the first ballot" and then it says "no delegate is bound"....and now that blogger says they're bound but Swann shows us that quote saying they're not bound....confused

Not only that...but if they delegates CAN vote for Paul, do they know?

Romney likes checking stuff with attorneys. :D

[jay_dub]

What is so sweet about this is that the RNC Legal Council said this in reference to a guy that insisted on VOTING FOR MITT ROMNEY!!!!!

You might say that Romney has been hoisted with his own petard. LMAO!!!

[alucard13mmfmj]

good thing we have stealth delegates under romney, gingrich, and santorum... not only that, delegates of santorum or gingrich might vote for ron because they hate romney.

although... i think we are kinda screwed if delegates are bound. =s

[Jenz1385]

Do we really want this going viral on a national scale?

I'd think no... not yet.

Do we want this going viral within the grassroots?

Yes, very much so.

There are still quite a few states left to vote, and more conventions to be had. We need to snatch up every delegate possible. Whomever they are "bound" to.

[Tiso0770]

I would promote the office BenSwann YouTube when it is posted, instead of someone else's copy of the broadcast.

That is the least we can do for him after all the good he has done for us.

It never occurred to me to check who posted it on tube, but I'll try to be more careful next time out of respect to Ben....but it is GREAT news though, isn't it.

[Thor]

It never occurred to me to check who posted it, but I'll try to be more careful next time out of respect to Ben....but it is GREAT news though, isn't it.

FANTASTIC news!

[satchelmcqueen]

ron is going to win!

[Crystallas]

Do we really want this going viral on a national scale?

I'd think no... not yet.

Do we want this going viral within the grassroots?

Yes, very much so.

There are still quite a few states left to vote, and more conventions to be had. We need to snatch up every delegate possible. Whomever they are "bound" to.

QFT
Agree 100%

[alucard13mmfmj]

btw, are we gonna hire our own thugs to counter romney thugs who will be at tampa (black hat/white star)? we need some vets or bulky fellows to protect everyone from romney thugs.

if they cant push around ron paul people, they might push around santorum/gingrich people to vote for romney. we need santorum/gingrich delegates!

[No1butPaul]

Do we really want this going viral on a national scale?

The genie is out of the bottle!

Editing my own post to say, I cannot even get my head around this! This is unbelievable, really unbelievable. That Ben Swann, and that Ron Paul! I bet Ron Paul knew this all along ;)

[Titus]

Hmm, I just finished watching this reality check. I must admit I was not familiar with what happened in 2008 (or that legal memo). I did not follow the details of that. I feel rather silly now. However, the RNC apparently is not officially recognizing binding, therefore binding is irrelevant. Hmm... that throws chaos into what I was thinking could happen at the convention.

I now do believe that the delegates are unbound. One small detail though, occasionally, these primaries are bound by election law. Most of the time Ben Swann is right on that regard, but not always. There is nothing directly on point (as far as I have seen) regarding the alleged irregularities though.

[gerryb]

The word "motion" is a noun. To say that someone "will motion" is like saying they "will highway" or "will window" or "will lizard". The correct term instead of "motion" here is "move" - "They will move".

I wish more people on this forum were more interested in the English language instead of tearing it to shreds all the time.

I don't care if they know English that well.

I just wish they would go to a committee meeting. This shows they don't. And they are backseat quarterbacking a national convention..

[lib3rtarian]

The marching orders are clear - GET EVERY DELEGATE WE CAN! Don't even give up on states where we think we have no chance - CT, NJ, NC etc..

[PatriotOne]

***huge grin****

Of course both Paul and Romney already know this. Explains Romney's panic. I had a feeling this was the case. Everytime I see someone from the campaign talk about delegates they always look like there's just something else they are not saying and they are amused by it. Like a cat playing with a mouse before going in for the kill :cool:.

[JacobSzumniak]

We WIN!. Omg with that statement about the 2008 Utah thing its over. We have that on legal files. Too excited right now lol. We might win on the first ballot if we can get every delegate to know they are unbound.

[PatriotOne]

We might win on the first ballot if we can get every delegate to know they are unbound.

I'm confident they have known this long before we did :cool:.

[slamhead]

Leave it to Ben. Great find Ben.

[stuka]

btw, are we gonna hire our own thugs to counter romney thugs who will be at tampa (black hat/white star)? we need some vets or bulky fellows to protect everyone from romney thugs.

if they cant push around ron paul people, they might push around santorum/gingrich people to vote for romney. we need santorum/gingrich delegates!
There will hopefully be 1000+ veterans there in support of Dr. Paul. Adam Kokesh is organizing a movement to get as many there as possible.

[dillo]

SO all delegates are unbound?

[dillo]

The word "motion" is a noun. To say that someone "will motion" is like saying they "will highway" or "will window" or "will lizard". The correct term instead of "motion" here is "move" - "They will move".

I wish more people on this forum were more interested in the English language instead of tearing it to shreds all the time.

you need to reality check that post bro. Motion can be used as a noun or verb.

[Bohner]

http://i.imgur.com/eSX5q.gif

[Titus]

Motion can be used as a noun or a verb. However, in parliamentary procedure, "move" is the verb usually applied. Ex: "I move to amend the rules."

Motioned is generally applied as a physical gesture. Ex: "He motioned to the crowd to stay silent by placing a finger upon his lips."

[Jordan Liberty]

HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE news! Thank you Ben for this wonderful report. I think this evidence trumps all. The RNC says all delegates are unbound, therefore they cannot cry foul when Ron Paul takes the nomination on August. So a brokered convention probably won't happen since Ron will get the nomination on the first ballot since every delegate can vote their conscience. I think the most important thing is letting delegates know they can vote for whomever on the first ballot. I remember reading that leaders in Massachusetts and Nevada saying they'll obey the bound rules. well hopefully they'll see this report.

[weilian]

The word "motion" is a noun. To say that someone "will motion" is like saying they "will highway" or "will window" or "will lizard". The correct term instead of "motion" here is "move" - "They will move".

I wish more people on this forum were more interested in the English language instead of tearing it to shreds all the time.

errr... i give you a fail


Motion can be used as a noun or a verb. However, in parliamentary procedure, "move" is the verb usually applied. Ex: "I move to amend the rules."

Motioned is generally applied as a physical gesture. Ex: "He motioned to the crowd to stay silent by placing a finger upon his lips."

I give you 50%. In legal proceedings a motion is an application, oral or written, made to a court for a ruling and in parliamentary procedures a motion is a formal proposal.

[sailingaway]

errr... i give you a fail



I give you 50%. In legal proceedings a motion is an application, oral or written, made to a court for a ruling and in parliamentary procedures a motion is a formal proposal.

But you still don't 'motion', you 'file a motion' or you 'move a motion' or 'propose a motion'.

[Kregisen]

If this were to be true, do how good of a chance do we have at getting 50% of the delegates? Obviously in the caucus states where (to me) it seems like becoming a delegate is an easier process, we are getting the majority of them. But 3/4 of the states are primaries and I feel it would still be hard to get half of them.

[eleganz]

I hope this news inspires people to get on phone from home

[Bohner]

Btw... Here are his sources for anyone interested.

http://www.fairvote.org/response-to-a-rogue-convention-how-gop-party-rules-may-surprise-in-201#.T6ywfFLh2Sq

http://www.utahcountygop.com/blog/mr-jenkins-goes-to-st-paul/

[Sentinelrv]

What about alternates? I heard that a delegate could be replaced by an alternate if they make any trouble. Is that only if they were to abstain from voting? This would be voting directly for Ron Paul.

[dancjm]

What about alternates? I heard that a delegate could be replaced by an alternate if they make any trouble. Is that only if they were to abstain from voting? This would be voting directly for Ron Paul.

Delegates won't be making trouble. They will be following the rules and voting Ron Paul. :)

[weilian]

But you still don't 'motion', you 'file a motion' or you 'move a motion' or 'propose a motion'.

Its more common to say i move to blah blah but i make a motion to blah blah is also entirely correct.

[Thor]

Official Ben Swann YouTube:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anWsU93fFsk&feature=uploademail

If you are sharing to grassroots....
Share THIS one! :D

[azxd]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gSaVxQ24cMA/TMGhFnq04uI/AAAAAAAAA8s/fYKADlXUmMk/s1600/FREE+AGENT+NATION.jpg

[J_White]

omg, this is MAJOR !!
if this holds, those Paul supporter delegates in say Mass. or NV, could just vote for Paul on the FIRST round itself !!!
now it makes sense - i was wondering why bother about some Paul people getting the delegate positions in NV, since they would have to vote Romney on the first ballot.
why did the RNC legal counsel sent a threat letter that if too many Paul supporters are in the NV delegation, it might not be seated !!
THIS seems to be the reason, because it has happened in 2008 !!

omg, omg, i see light at the end of the tunnel !
Its the Liberty Train.

[J_White]

lol, so true !
remember at that time McCain was the establishment GOP choice and Romney was the "protest" vote.
this time Romney is the establishment choice and Santorum turned out to be the protest vote, mostly.


What is so sweet about this is that the RNC Legal Council said this in reference to a guy that insisted on VOTING FOR MITT ROMNEY!!!!!

You might say that Romney has been hoisted with his own petard. LMAO!!!

[J_White]

thats a good point, but i think only GOP appointed thugs will be allowed there, and we know who they will protect.
i dont think the Paul people could hire and take their own security people inside.


btw, are we gonna hire our own thugs to counter romney thugs who will be at tampa (black hat/white star)? we need some vets or bulky fellows to protect everyone from romney thugs.

if they cant push around ron paul people, they might push around santorum/gingrich people to vote for romney. we need santorum/gingrich delegates!

[anaconda]

But we would still have to capture a majority of delegates (regardless of who they are supposed to represent) to the RNC. Right? Is this doable?

[anaconda]

Why can't a state mandate that their delegates be bound? Even if the RNC technically hasn't?

[Kirdneh]

The question is ok. But I wanna make one point clear: Its perfect now to follow the RULES, but in the END, no revolution ever asked for PERMISSION.

[randomname]

There will hopefully be 1000+ veterans there in support of Dr. Paul. Adam Kokesh is organizing a movement to get as many there as possible.

That might get cancelled after his Romney assassination threat

[Mordan]

This is good news, but it doesn't mean that Romney won't win on the first ballot. Santorum's and Gingrich's delegates could vote for Romney on the first ballot and Romney would have it. This gives us a fighting chance IF we can convince enough Santorum and Gingrich delegates to vote for Paul.

yea indeed. Some people have their hopes so high. It is not going to be easy. Romney and the RNC will probably pull dirty tricks. I'm 100% sure.

[soulcyon]

yea indeed. Some people have their hopes so high. It is not going to be easy. Romney and the RNC will probably pull dirty tricks. I'm 100% sure.This.

Can't wait to see what kind of legal backflips they're going to pull next... T_T

[gjdavis60]

"Tampa, we have a problem." :D

[affa]

my dream: a solid, convention wide chant of "President Paul, President Paul, President Paul".

yes.

[Drex]

Good Morning Bump! Great video

[tbone717]

Interesting stuff. A question for everyone - If 90% (or thereabouts) of GOP primary voters did not vote for Paul in the primaries, and Paul somehow manages to win the nomination through the parliamentary process at the RNC, how do you feel the average voter will react? Will they suddenly rally around Paul as the nominee, or will they reject him? Will the RNC support the candidate financially? Will large scale donors who give to the Presidential campaign and the PACS fork over the cash? What about the media types (Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Beck, etc) will they help Paul or work to discredit him?

[Paul Fan]

Hardly anyone votes in the primaries. Play it as a Jimmy Stewart goes to Washington thing and it could catch the popular imagination.

[EBounding]

Wow... make sense. If they couldn't vote unbound, why would the supposedly "bound" states be trying so hard to keep the Paul supporters away?

[whippoorwill]

Boss!

[EBounding]

Interesting stuff. A question for everyone - If 90% (or thereabouts) of GOP primary voters did not vote for Paul in the primaries, and Paul somehow manages to win the nomination through the parliamentary process at the RNC, how do you feel the average voter will react?

It's an interesting question. I think most would be confused, but wouldn't care. But there would still be a significant portion that wants Romney (like 20-30%). So it'd be ugly. But that's why the republican system of delegates works. It helps ensure we don't nominate a one-term Massachusetts governor who was the first to establish a socialized medicine system in this country.

[LostNFoundNTx]

Rule 38 does not matter. The rules do not go into effect until voted on. The establishment will motion to change the rules before convention business begins

This is complete garbage; you have absolutely no idea what's going on so please don't make definitive statements pretending you do.

[XTreat]

\\

[presence]

Full Text:


Jennifer Sheehan, Legal Counsel for the RNC
plainly stated in a letter to Nancy Lord, Utah National Committeewoman,
several weeks before the convention:

"The RNC does not recognize a state's binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose."

And,

"The national convention allows delegates to vote for the individual of their choice regardless of whether the person's name is officially placed into nomination or not."

Ben Swann:
The delegate process was designed to entrust a group of voters with the power to override the popular vote in each state in order to ensure that the best candidate is chosen. Republican and Democratic parties are not governement agencies. They are private organizations, so voting within a party is not bound by election law.


Time to swap signatures again... out with:


"Maybe Romney could Hire an Audience to Stimulate the Job Market"


on with:


Jennifer Sheehan, Legal Counsel for the RNC
plainly stated in a letter to Nancy Lord, Utah National Committeewoman,
several weeks before the convention in 2008:
"The RNC does NOT recognize a state's binding of national delegates,
but considers each delegate a FREE AGENT who can vote for whoever they choose."


http://ronpaulflix.com/2012/05/ben-swann-all-republican-delegates-are-free-agents-and-unbound-may-10-2012/


on with:

[carterm]

focus on nothing but delegates.

[EBounding]

This just seems too good to be true...so what's the purpose of a "binding" primary then? Is it just to give "direction" to the delegation? It seems like a typical primary is no different than a caucus straw poll. Can anyone explain?

[airborne373]

Ron Paul and family have been running and winning elections for a long time did anyone really think they did not have a strategy to compete for the prize?

Support your local delegate :)

[Suzu]

Motion
v.tr.
To direct by making a gesture: motioned us to our seats.
v.intr.
To signal by making a gesture: motioned to her to enter.

-American Heritage http://www.thefreedictionary.com/motion

Context is the determining factor, and in the case in question here, it was not the right word. Read the statement both ways and see which one fits. "Will" is normally used to signify an action that has not occurred, and isn't used alone in such cases.

[No Free Beer]

Can someone explain to me something:

If Romney hits 1144 before the convention, is he officially the nominee? Or does it go to a convention vote regardless?

[sailingaway]

Interesting stuff. A question for everyone - If 90% (or thereabouts) of GOP primary voters did not vote for Paul in the primaries, and Paul somehow manages to win the nomination through the parliamentary process at the RNC, how do you feel the average voter will react? Will they suddenly rally around Paul as the nominee, or will they reject him? Will the RNC support the candidate financially? Will large scale donors who give to the Presidential campaign and the PACS fork over the cash? What about the media types (Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Beck, etc) will they help Paul or work to discredit him?\

About the same way Nevada felt in 2008 when its vote was suddenly for 'McCain' when it had definitively voted against McCain, Romney had dropped out, and his delegates were voting to send Ron Paul delegates to the RNC before the lights were turned out.

The RNC regularly swaps out the popular vote for the establishment favorite, or they would never have 'votes by acclaim' and we would actually be able to change the direction of the GOP at our BUSINESS MEETING, the RNC.

Why on earth do you think these rules we are using exist?

They weren't created to help US, I assure you.

In fact, in the South where the 'consensus fall back candidate' would have been ANYONE BUT Romney, they pushed proportional delegate rules. In the Northern states (ND ID) where Romney had voter blocks he could count on but wasn't the most popular (Ron was) they instituted 'fall back' voting so the lowest vote getter was knocked out until you got to the 'fall back' candidates. They rigged the vote, and in ND they overturned it themselves by giving the delegates to Romney with major dirty tricks (because Santa actually got the fall back vote). So only where they want the result of the vote to stand, it is suddenly sacrosanct, and they break every rule in sight and push fake slates and obstruct process to get their way.

I am for a better system, but if there were one we over time would not be in the bind we are in. They made the rules, I think we are entitled to use them.

As they say, they are a private club and able to make their rules. As the courts say, so long as they follow them.

[matt0611]

Can someone explain to me something:

If Romney hits 1144 before the convention, is he officially the nominee? Or does it go to a convention vote regardless?

I'm no expert, but yeah they still vote since they did votes in 2008 when McCain won.

[tbone717]

Can someone explain to me something:

If Romney hits 1144 before the convention, is he officially the nominee? Or does it go to a convention vote regardless?

The vote is essentially a formality at that point. There is a roll call of the states, which is done alphabetically. Typically, what will occur is that the total will build until it is just shy of the number of votes that will put the nominee over the top, at that point all other states will "pass" so that the nominee's home state can be the state that puts him over the top.

If you recall the roll call from 2008, AZ passed (they were 4th alphabetically), the remaining states announced their votes until it came to NE (which would have put McCain over the top), all remaining states passed allowing AZ to announce their votes.

[JK/SEA]

Candidates have to reach 1144 DURING the convention. Each State announces the tally of delegates who have given their vote to a particular candidate...for example:...Mr. Chairman...Mr. Chairman..Washington State allocates ALL 43 delegates to the next President of the United States...RON PAUL!....

I liked typing that.

[sailingaway]

Can someone explain to me something:

If Romney hits 1144 before the convention, is he officially the nominee? Or does it go to a convention vote regardless?

It goes to vote. But he will claim having it when he doesn't have those delegates BOUND because the AP estimate is still as optimistic for him (and Santa and Grinch) as they can possibly make it

[wgadget]

omg, this is MAJOR !!
if this holds, those Paul supporter delegates in say Mass. or NV, could just vote for Paul on the FIRST round itself !!!
now it makes sense - i was wondering why bother about some Paul people getting the delegate positions in NV, since they would have to vote Romney on the first ballot.
why did the RNC legal counsel sent a threat letter that if too many Paul supporters are in the NV delegation, it might not be seated !!
THIS seems to be the reason, because it has happened in 2008 !!

omg, omg, i see light at the end of the tunnel !
Its the Liberty Train.

And why are some states making their delegates sign OATHS TO ROMNEY?

That is SO against Rule 11.

[robertwerden]

Here is why It is important to spread this to the general public:
In any situation where something happens that is not expected there is outrage by the opposition. Outrage leads to accusation of fraud, which makes the unexpected event seem illegal and unifies the opposition with more support.

We have an opportunity to make something happen that the general public is not expecting.
To prevent outrage, they need to expect it.

By thoroughly spreading the idea the Ron Paul supporters intend to gain enough delegates to deny Romney the nomination, the narrative in the media and the opposition will shift from us being sneaky, to our legitimate political strategy.
The whole idea that these things happen regularly, and it was to be expected makes it less of a shock to the nation when it happens, and is viewed more like it was a football game with a winner and loser determined by strategy, than the current narrative that we are somehow breaking the rules and cheaters.

The sooner the general public accepts the possibility that the Ron Paul delegates may win, the more powerful the win will be. The goal the GOP has of unifying around a candidate as the nominee has to be the narrative we set as our goal. When we show that we convinced delegates of Romney, Santorum and Gingrich to unify around Ron Paul to beat Obama, the GOP will have the unification victory they want to portray at the national convention. Even if the GOP knows they were beat, they will smile and say they knew it all along and allowed the delegate battle royal to play out as it did. And that is exactly what we want to happen in Tampa.

[tbone717]

Ok I watched this video again and did some research. What the RNC statement was referring to was a delegate by the name of Brian Jenkins from Utah. In 2008, as we know, Romney won the Utah primary and all 36 of the delegates. But Romney did drop out of the race on Feb 7. Since McCain was the presumptive nominee, and Romney was no longer in the race 35 of the 36 delegates were casting their votes for McCain. Mr. Jenkins objected to this, and wanted to cast his ballot for Romney, the winner of the UT primary. He was allowed to do so, because if the other 35 delegates forced (for lack of a better term) Jenkins to vote for McCain they would be imposing a "unit rule", which is prohibited under RNC rules. A "unit rule" means that the majority of delegates cannot impose their will on a minority of delegates within a state. Utah's delegates were all unbound at that point, since Romney withdrew from the race and released his delegates, but Jenkins was permitted under the rules to vote for Romney.

So the comments from the legal counsel of the RNC were in reference to this one situation regarding Jenkins. I do not think this applies to all delegates from all states under any circumstance and that delegates who are bound to Romney (who is still in the race) can decide they can vote for whomever they choose. Context is very important and I think what is occurring is that we are taking the RNC legal counsel statements out of context, and applying them to a situation that is not the same as the one that was being addressed in 2008.

[ClydeCoulter]

Ok I watched this video again and did some research. What the RNC statement was referring to was a delegate by the name of Brian Jenkins from Utah. In 2008, as we know, Romney won the Utah primary and all 36 of the delegates. But Romney did drop out of the race on Feb 7. Since McCain was the presumptive nominee, and Romney was no longer in the race 35 of the 36 delegates were casting their votes for McCain. Mr. Jenkins objected to this, and wanted to cast his ballot for Romney, the winner of the UT primary. He was allowed to do so, because if the other 35 delegates forced (for lack of a better term) Jenkins to vote for McCain they would be imposing a "unit rule", which is prohibited under RNC rules. A "unit rule" means that the majority of delegates cannot impose their will on a minority of delegates within a state. Utah's delegates were all unbound at that point, since Romney withdrew from the race and released his delegates, but Jenkins was permitted under the rules to vote for Romney.

So the comments from the legal counsel of the RNC were in reference to this one situation regarding Jenkins. I do not think this applies to all delegates from all states under any circumstance and that delegates who are bound to Romney (who is still in the race) can decide they can vote for whomever they choose. Context is very important and I think what is occurring is that we are taking the RNC legal counsel statements out of context, and applying them to a situation that is not the same as the one that was being addressed in 2008.

Does the context matter when the statement is:


Jennifer Sheehan, Legal Counsel for the RNC
plainly stated in a letter to Nancy Lord, Utah National Committeewoman,
several weeks before the convention:

"The RNC does not recognize a state's binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose."

And,

"The national convention allows delegates to vote for the individual of their choice regardless of whether the person's name is officially placed into nomination or not."

[sailingaway]

Does the context matter when the statement is:

tbone seems to have something against Ron winning. Any time you raise the possibility Ron will win, he will raise the odds against it.

None of us think it is likely, but we like the fact that the possibility exists as a goal to fight for.

[tbone717]

tbone seems to have something against Ron winning. Any time you raise the possibility Ron will win, he will raise the odds against it.

None of us think it is likely, but we like the fact that the possibility exists as a goal to fight for.

I want him to win. That's why I have worked my ass off for the campaign over the last 5 years. But, I'm not grabbing at straws either thinking that somehow the entire primary process is going to be overturned because of a statement that was made concerning one delegate in Utah from 2008.

Paul can still block Romney from winning the nomination by winning the bulk of the remaining primaries, and thus securing the lion's share of bound delegates that remain. If he is able to do so, and Romney does not win on the first ballot, then it's a whole new ball game.

We do spend far too much time trying to find loopholes, and not enough time focusing on how we are going to get 50+ percent of the voters in the upcoming contests to cast their ballots for Paul.

[Titus]

Ok I watched this video again and did some research. What the RNC statement was referring to was a delegate by the name of Brian Jenkins from Utah. In 2008, as we know, Romney won the Utah primary and all 36 of the delegates. But Romney did drop out of the race on Feb 7. Since McCain was the presumptive nominee, and Romney was no longer in the race 35 of the 36 delegates were casting their votes for McCain. Mr. Jenkins objected to this, and wanted to cast his ballot for Romney, the winner of the UT primary. He was allowed to do so, because if the other 35 delegates forced (for lack of a better term) Jenkins to vote for McCain they would be imposing a "unit rule", which is prohibited under RNC rules. A "unit rule" means that the majority of delegates cannot impose their will on a minority of delegates within a state. Utah's delegates were all unbound at that point, since Romney withdrew from the race and released his delegates, but Jenkins was permitted under the rules to vote for Romney.

So the comments from the legal counsel of the RNC were in reference to this one situation regarding Jenkins. I do not think this applies to all delegates from all states under any circumstance and that delegates who are bound to Romney (who is still in the race) can decide they can vote for whomever they choose. Context is very important and I think what is occurring is that we are taking the RNC legal counsel statements out of context, and applying them to a situation that is not the same as the one that was being addressed in 2008.

T-bone, you are right that context does matter. However the RNC did not make any such comment limiting their interpretation to only 2008. Lawyers know when they are dealing with such a case and usually include something along the lines of this cannot be cited for any future case. Instead, the RNC added a poorly drafted (in my opinion) rule intent on using that rule. Unless the RNC drafts up another legal memo, the interpretation is the same. The key part is the portion of the reality check stating that the RNC does not recognize state binding. It did not have an exception regarding who is or is not still in the race.

If the RNC later passed a rule or wrote another memo, it could be interpreted differently. Of course, the closer it gets to the convention the more it looks like panicking from the RNC/Romney.

[tbone717]

Does the context matter when the statement is:

Quite possibly, because the delegate in question was unbound. Romney was not eligible for nomination (plurality of 5 states stuff, and he dropped out), but the delegate was allowed to cast his ballot for him because as Sheehan stated, ""The national convention allows delegates to vote for the individual of their choice regardless of whether the person's name is officially placed into nomination or not."

It is the same reason that delegates were permitted to vote for Paul in 08 even though he was not placed into nomination.

Just trying to look at the context here, and see if it is applicable universally or not.

[sailingaway]

I want him to win. That's why I have worked my ass off for the campaign over the last 5 years. But, I'm not grabbing at straws either thinking that somehow the entire primary process is going to be overturned because of a statement that was made concerning one delegate in Utah from 2008.

Paul can still block Romney from winning the nomination by winning the bulk of the remaining primaries, and thus securing the lion's share of bound delegates that remain. If he is able to do so, and Romney does not win on the first ballot, then it's a whole new ball game.

We do spend far too much time trying to find loopholes, and not enough time focusing on how we are going to get 50+ percent of the voters in the upcoming contests to cast their ballots for Paul.

YOU seem to spend a lot of time researching AGAINST backdoors the party purposely planted in their rules for their own purposes.

If Romney has control, he will have control of the RNC interpretation. That is the reality of it imho.

But our goal has to be to get as many delegates there as we can.

[tbone717]

YOU seem to spend a lot of time researching AGAINST backdoors the party purposely planted in their rules for their own purposes.

Hey that's fine. If you want to think that all of these bound delegates are going to overturn the state's primary and vote for Paul, then more power to you. I just don't see it playing out like that and would prefer to focus on what it will take to convince the majority of voters that have yet to cast a primary ballot that they should do so for Paul.

BTW it didn't take much time at all, I just googled the quote and found the original article from 08 where it was quoted. Any one else should be able to do the same

[maxoutco]

Here is why It is important to spread this to the general public:
In any situation where something happens that is not expected there is outrage by the opposition. Outrage leads to accusation of fraud, which makes the unexpected event seem illegal and unifies the opposition with more support.

We have an opportunity to make something happen that the general public is not expecting.
To prevent outrage, they need to expect it.

By thoroughly spreading the idea the Ron Paul supporters intend to gain enough delegates to deny Romney the nomination, the narrative in the media and the opposition will shift from us being sneaky, to our legitimate political strategy.
The whole idea that these things happen regularly, and it was to be expected makes it less of a shock to the nation when it happens, and is viewed more like it was a football game with a winner and loser determined by strategy, than the current narrative that we are somehow breaking the rules and cheaters.

The sooner the general public accepts the possibility that the Ron Paul delegates may win, the more powerful the win will be. The goal the GOP has of unifying around a candidate as the nominee has to be the narrative we set as our goal. When we show that we convinced delegates of Romney, Santorum and Gingrich to unify around Ron Paul to beat Obama, the GOP will have the unification victory they want to portray at the national convention. Even if the GOP knows they were beat, they will smile and say they knew it all along and allowed the delegate battle royal to play out as it did. And that is exactly what we want to happen in Tampa.

This is why Doug Wead stated that we need to inform the public.

[sailingaway]

Hey that's fine. If you want to think that all of these bound delegates are going to overturn the state's primary and vote for Paul, then more power to you. I just don't see it playing out like that and would prefer to focus on what it will take to convince the majority of voters that have yet to cast a primary ballot that they should do so for Paul.

BTW it didn't take much time at all, I just googled the quote and found the original article from 08 where it was quoted. Any one else should be able to do the same

I never projected that as likely and you know it. The point is your entire reason for being here seems to be to get people to NOT get excited. People need motivation and you drain it, chronically.

[tbone717]

I never projected that as likely and you know it. The point is your entire reason for being here seems to be to get people to NOT get excited. People need motivation and you drain it, chronically.

But get excited over the things that are realistic. Get excited that we finally have a two man race, and can go out there and convince voters that Paul is the one man to stop Romney from being crowned the nominee. If you look at the front page of this site, most of it is consumed with trying to find the loopholes rather than frank discussions on how best the grassroots can campaign in these upcoming states.

Are we at a point in this movement, where everyone is comfortable sitting behind their computers with their fingers crossed and hoping for a miracle or are there still people willing and able to get out on the street, knock on doors and persuade people to vote for Paul? If there is there is scant discussion on it.

[LKMN]

Here is why It is important to spread this to the general public:
In any situation where something happens that is not expected there is outrage by the opposition. Outrage leads to accusation of fraud, which makes the unexpected event seem illegal and unifies the opposition with more support.

We have an opportunity to make something happen that the general public is not expecting.
To prevent outrage, they need to expect it.

By thoroughly spreading the idea the Ron Paul supporters intend to gain enough delegates to deny Romney the nomination, the narrative in the media and the opposition will shift from us being sneaky, to our legitimate political strategy.
The whole idea that these things happen regularly, and it was to be expected makes it less of a shock to the nation when it happens, and is viewed more like it was a football game with a winner and loser determined by strategy, than the current narrative that we are somehow breaking the rules and cheaters.

The sooner the general public accepts the possibility that the Ron Paul delegates may win, the more powerful the win will be. The goal the GOP has of unifying around a candidate as the nominee has to be the narrative we set as our goal. When we show that we convinced delegates of Romney, Santorum and Gingrich to unify around Ron Paul to beat Obama, the GOP will have the unification victory they want to portray at the national convention. Even if the GOP knows they were beat, they will smile and say they knew it all along and allowed the delegate battle royal to play out as it did. And that is exactly what we want to happen in Tampa.

+rep

[RonPaulRevolution!]

This argument against the delegates being free to vote however they want doesn't make any sense... It's pretty clear. They aren't bound... and since they aren't bound, this pretty much guarantees a brokered convention at minimum.

We are going to win this shit!

[sailingaway]

But get excited over the things that are realistic. Get excited that we finally have a two man race, and can go out there and convince voters that Paul is the one man to stop Romney from being crowned the nominee. If you look at the front page of this site, most of it is consumed with trying to find the loopholes rather than frank discussions on how best the grassroots can campaign in these upcoming states.

Are we at a point in this movement, where everyone is comfortable sitting behind their computers with their fingers crossed and hoping for a miracle or are there still people willing and able to get out on the street, knock on doors and persuade people to vote for Paul? If there is there is scant discussion on it.

Including by you. You spend all your time knocking down theories.

[jay_dub]

IMO, the word 'bound' in now useless. The statement was very clear. We KNOW Ron has 'X' number of actual RP delegates and we KNOW Ron has 'X' number of stealth delegates. Per the RNC's Legal Council's statement, we can now move the 'stealth' delegates' to the 'actual' delegates column.

The trick here is to still accumulate enough delegates to win. Romney could still win on the first ballot. It's not over yet, but things are looking up. Every state from here on out is huge and Ron's California strategy may pay off big in the end.


RON PAUL !!!

RON PAUL !!!

RON PAUL !!!

RON PAUL !!!



RON PAUL !!!

RON PAUL !!!


:cool: :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :cool:

[Smitty]

I never projected that as likely and you know it. The point is your entire reason for being here seems to be to get people to NOT get excited. People need motivation and you drain it, chronically.

The organization he represents has existed since 1991 and has failed miserably at the agenda that it *allegedly* supports.

That leaves one of two possibilities.

A: It's ridiculously incompetent.

B: It's a clandestin operative of the RNC.

I tend to believe option "B".

[areamike]

The real delegate count.

http://areamike.com/mystuff/ronpaul/delegate_count.jpg

[freedomordeath]

Tbone, weather you correct or not doesn't matter.. this is a revolution and has MEAT this Benn Swann story, so we throw this at the ROmney camp by informing everyone and put pressure on them to say why this works or doesn't work.

[freedomordeath]

THIS IS REVOLUTION TIME.... and to the guys worried about goons, a 5foot skelton with the patriotic fire burning within him will crush any goon.

[soulcyon]

Tbone, just my 2 cents: We don't live in a democracy. "Bound delegates" are completely against what America stands for in the first place, I'm surprised the public has turned a blind eye to this corrupt process over the last century.

But then again, only 10% of the populace is needed to make a revolution happen ;)

[harikaried]

The even more critical part is that because Romney's support is so weak, it might not be too difficult to convince non-Paul delegates at the Tampa convention to vote for Ron Paul on the first ballot. Just need to remind them that Ron Paul pulls the Independent and youth vote away from Obama and will be able to beat Obama.

[georgiaboy]

Tbone, we've been fighting an uphill war against the media to try and reach the general population of primary voters.

Our numbers have increased substantially since 2007, but what will drive the remaining primary voters to switch to Paul, if the media continues with the 'presumptive nominee' narrative, and the continued RP blackout?

Rallies into the thousands, millions spent on ad buys, news interviews, an internet army, PFH, canvassing, are making progress, but the media shaping of majority opinion continues.

I'm with you, I want Ron to win California, Texas, etc., in the primary. We all do. We spend lots of time focusing on that around here.

This is multi-front initiative, though. Primary and straw poll votes are one of the fronts. So are delegates and conventions.

Shouldn't we drive with similar zeal on all fronts, making use of every valid tool at our disposal?

Rhetorical P.S.: Imagine that Ron Paul wins California and Texas. Do you think the establishment is gonna relinquish all the delegates by default to Paul supporters in the district and state conventions of those states and bind all them to Paul for the National Convention, or conveniently find it in their rules to support Romney by acclamation in Tampa?

[jay_dub]

The even more critical part is that because Romney's support is so weak, it might not be too difficult to convince non-Paul delegates at the Tampa convention to vote for Ron Paul on the first ballot. Just need to remind them that Ron Paul pulls the Independent and youth vote away from Obama and will be able to beat Obama.

Yup. Now that all will see that Ron could get the nomination, we can focus on the practical reasons to support him, electability in November being the prime one.

[georgiaboy]

The even more critical part is that because Romney's support is so weak, it might not be too difficult to convince non-Paul delegates at the Tampa convention to vote for Ron Paul on the first ballot. Just need to remind them that Ron Paul pulls the Independent and youth vote away from Obama and will be able to beat Obama.

I think this is part of what's happening at these district and state conventions, too. Non-Romney folks are supporting the Paul slates because in their eyes he's the 'only conservative left in the room'. Romneycare, flip-flopping, Massachussetts, are toxic.

[ProBlue33]

The even more critical part is that because Romney's support is so weak, it might not be too difficult to convince non-Paul delegates at the Tampa convention to vote for Ron Paul on the first ballot. Just need to remind them that Ron Paul pulls the Independent and youth vote away from Obama and will be able to beat Obama.

Yes, this is the point, these delegates want to win, if they see Romney has no enthusiasm for him compared to Ron Paul, it could convince some to switch, some voted for Romney because they though early on Paul couldn't win and had little support. Reminds me of an older Santorum supporter who attended a Ron Paul rally and was instantly converted, by what he saw and heard.

[No1butPaul]

I obviously know how you meant this and I'm not offended or anything like that, but after the Adam Kokesh thing, I think we should be careful about using this kind of rhetoric. Our campaign is no longer flying under the radar!

[lib3rtarian]

Ok I watched this video again and did some research. What the RNC statement was referring to was a delegate by the name of Brian Jenkins from Utah. In 2008, as we know, Romney won the Utah primary and all 36 of the delegates. But Romney did drop out of the race on Feb 7. Since McCain was the presumptive nominee, and Romney was no longer in the race 35 of the 36 delegates were casting their votes for McCain. Mr. Jenkins objected to this, and wanted to cast his ballot for Romney, the winner of the UT primary. He was allowed to do so, because if the other 35 delegates forced (for lack of a better term) Jenkins to vote for McCain they would be imposing a "unit rule", which is prohibited under RNC rules. A "unit rule" means that the majority of delegates cannot impose their will on a minority of delegates within a state. Utah's delegates were all unbound at that point, since Romney withdrew from the race and released his delegates, but Jenkins was permitted under the rules to vote for Romney.

So the comments from the legal counsel of the RNC were in reference to this one situation regarding Jenkins. I do not think this applies to all delegates from all states under any circumstance and that delegates who are bound to Romney (who is still in the race) can decide they can vote for whomever they choose. Context is very important and I think what is occurring is that we are taking the RNC legal counsel statements out of context, and applying them to a situation that is not the same as the one that was being addressed in 2008.

This is actually an important point. Before we get all hyped up over the video and become complacent, we also want to consider the curve balls RNC can throw at us. I certainly appreciate all info about the process, as motivating or depressing as they may be.

[moraha]

I have a few questions. I'm slower than 90% of you when it comes to this stuff so forgive me for my ignorance.

1. If the delegates are not bound to any candidate, why do we always hear "this many delegates are bound to this candidate" over and over again since the beginning of the primaries.

2. On top of hearing that all the time, when Romney wins states like Florida where it's winner take all, those 50 delegates that are "bound to Romney" are actually not bound and can vote for Paul? The whole Nevada thing and similar states too....we keep hearing that "20 delegates are bound to Romney on the first ballot".

3. In the RNC rules, why do they continue to talk about bound delegates but then they say "the delegates are free agents and can vote for whoever they want."

Doesn't make sense to me....so many contradicting statements.

[sailingaway]

It's a mess, and my personal opinion is that whomever controls the credentials committee and the vote at the convention will control the interpretation, and the other side will only have an 'argument'.

But that in turn goes to getting as many delegates there as possible, bound, unbound, regardless, since they can vote on other things, like rules etc. We'd need a ton.

But since when have long odds slowed us down?

We wouldn't have done as well as we have ALREADY done if we had listened to media about who had won what states, now would we have?

[tbone717]

Has anyone been able to find the entire text of the letter from Jennifer Sheehan to Nancy Lord that this quote is pulled from? I have not been able to find it doing some searching, but wasn't sure if it has been posted elsewhere.

[Smitty]

I want him to win.

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h225/FalMike/bullshit.gif

[harikaried]

Has anyone been able to find the entire text of the letter from Jennifer Sheehan to Nancy Lord that this quote is pulled from? I have not been able to find it doing some searching, but wasn't sure if it has been posted elsewhere.This seems to be the source of reporting:

http://utahcountygop.com/blog/mr-jenkins-goes-to-st-paul/

Quoted in full:




Mr. Jenkins Goes to St. Paul
January 30, 2009 – 10:20 pm

Brian Jenkins, who challenged Orrin Hatch for the Republican nomination as candidate for U.S. Senate in 2006 and ran for the Republican nomination as candidate for Congress in the 2nd Congressional District in 2008, gives the following account of his experience last year as a Utah delegate to the Republican National Convention at which Senator John McCain received the Republican nomination for President:

Brian Jenkins of Saratoga Springs was elected at the May 10, 2008, GOP State Convention to serve as a delegate to the GOP National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, held September 1 – 4, 2008. Brian attended the convention with hopes of participating in a thoughtful, deliberative assembly, but instead was assaulted with a school yard bullying lesson in hardball politics bordering on the unethical.

A party rule, in place at the time of his election, said that Brian’s first-round vote was to be cast for the winner of the Presidential Primary Election held on February 5, 2008. Mitt Romney won that election with a landslide 265,000 first-place votes (90%). John McCain received 16,000 first-place votes, and Ron Paul 9,000 first-place votes. The ballot did not allow voters to express a second preference.

Mitt Romney quit the presidential race in late February, however, and the party rule did not address how national delegates should cast their first-round votes in such a case. At the Utah State Convention party leaders asked delegates if they would like to unbind Utah’s National Delegates. The delegates said, “No.” Unwilling to abide the will of the delegates they did an end run, called a meeting of the State Central Committee and and passed a rule such that Utah’s national delegates were now bound to vote for John McCain in the first round.

Never mind the fact that the presidential preference primary did not allow voters to express a second preference.

And never mind the fact that Jennifer Sheehan, Legal Counsel for the RNC, plainly stated in a letter to Nancy Lord, Utah National Committeewoman, several weeks before the convention, “[The] RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose.” And, “The national convention allows delegates to vote for the individual of their choice, regardless of whether the person’s name is officially placed into nomination or not.”

Wednesday came. Brian had told the president of the the Utah delegation (Jon Huntsman) he wanted his vote recorded correctly–not simply cast for McCain against his will. The president did not help. The Republican Party Chairman did not help. The time for the roll call vote drew near. Brian Jenkins brought the convention sergeant-at-arms and a security officer under the sergeant’s direction, and Stan Lockhart, Utah’s Republican Party Chairman, together for a conversation.

“This man would like to make sure his vote is recorded correctly,” said the sergeant at arms to Chairman Lockhart.

“I am instructed to remove anyone from the floor who votes contrary to the Utah State Central Committee’s instructions,” replied Stan.

Brian looked at the Sergeant-at-arms and said “The meeting where the State Central Committee ruled Utah delegates must vote for McCain was illegal. And the RNC specifies that delegates may vote for whomever they wish.” Then he instructed the Sergeant-at-arms, “Please check and see if Stan can remove me from the floor under these circumstances.”

The sergeant-at-arms told Brian to remain where he was, and that he would look into the matter. Neither he nor his assistant returned.

However, shortly thereafter, Ivan Dubois, an employee of the Utah Republican Party, polled Brian and several other national delegates as to whom they wished to vote for. Brian, a Ron Paul supporter, directed Ivan to cast his vote for Mitt Romney because the party rule in place at the time of the primary required delegates to vote for Utah’s first-place selection in the presidential primary. Thus, his vote was cast for Mitt Romney instead of Ron Paul (whom he intended to support, but did not for fear of being removed from the floor of the convention).

Requiring national delegates to vote according to the results of a primary makes Utah more democratic and less of a republic. Democracies are surprisingly ineffective types of government with short, violent lives and unable to safeguard its citizens’ rights. But worse than a democracy is an oligarchy, which is the government under the control of a party with its few leaders. That is what we see manifest when Utahns vote one way and party leaders force something different. In Utah, controlling the Republican party is almost like choosing Utah’s senators and congressmen and governor.

The founders intended that American citizens would select delegates who would spend more time than they might normally spend selecting the ideal candidate. In Utah, a candidate that won 5% of Utah’s popular vote received a nearly unanimous vote from Utah’s national delegates. Because Utah and many states no longer allow their delegates to operate as intended and use their best judgment based on current information, (who should I vote for now that Romney has withdrawn) Brian was not able to spend convention time exploring candidate commitment to principles of proper government (so who is Sarah Palin anyway) but was instead forced to seek the assistance of security to make sure his vote was recorded as he wanted. It is why many Ron Paul delegates from various states voted contrary to their best judgment at the national convention and most of the Utah delegation voted contrary to Utah’s delegates’ wishes. We simply let our party leadership cast our vote for us. It is why not all of Utah’s National Delegates were ever asked whom they were voting for.

Brian believes free elections are a foundational element of a free society and they are jeopardized in Utah and throughout the U.S. Brian believes it is a tragic irony that while America is fighting to insure free elections abroad they are slipping through our fingers at home.

[wgadget]

I never projected that as likely and you know it. The point is your entire reason for being here seems to be to get people to NOT get excited. People need motivation and you drain it, chronically.

In other news, I've seen someone by the name of Tbone posting some very neocon statements on other websites, none that I can scrounge up right now. Just something that caught my eye.

[wgadget]

To answer moraha's questions: STATIST MEDIA PROPAGANDA NARRATIVE

The stupid American people will believe anything they're told. And ya know what else? Those RNC rules are ARCANE. :D

[tbone717]

This seems to be the source of reporting:

http://utahcountygop.com/blog/mr-jenkins-goes-to-st-paul/

Quoted in full:

Thanks. That is where I found the two quoted sentences at their earliest publishing.

What I am curious about is the rest of the letter since the pulled quote is only two sentences of the letter. The full text of the letter should give us a better understanding what the quoted text refers to. As someone said earlier it would be conflicting if the RNC does not recognize binding (as some are concluding these two sentences to refer to) but yet the RNC rules have sections on binding and mentions it numerous times in the rules.

So if the letter read "With regard to your present situation in Utah...." then the quotes by Sheehan would have a far different meaning than if they were proceeded by "Regardless of the RNC rules, the legal counsel holds that..."

[tbone717]

In other news, I've seen someone by the name of Tbone posting some very neocon statements on other websites, none that I can scrounge up right now. Just something that caught my eye.

Sorry but I do not have exclusive rights over the screename "Tbone".

[wgadget]

Sorry but I do not have exclusive rights over the screename "Tbone".

I was "just sayin."

[EBounding]

So did Brian sign a sworn affidavit saying he would vote for McCain, even though he wanted to vote Romney/Ron Paul? It doesn't sound like he did.

To me, it sounds like delegates can vote whoever they want and are unbound regardless of the state party's rules. However, party rules are one thing and the law is another. If you sign an affidavit saying you're going to vote based on the majority primary vote or something, then you are bound by that affidavit and must vote the way you stated in the affidavit (regardless of who you actually want to vote for).

[jointhefightforfreedom]

We all Vote Ron Paul From The start !

Don't be Scared ! Make a Stand !
iv'e said this from the beginning!

GO RON PAUL !!!

[EBounding]

How many states don't require people to sign affidavits of support to be a national delegate? It seems it's only in those states where Swann's argument holds up.

[dancjm]

How many states don't require people to sign affidavits of support to be a national delegate? It seems it's only in those states where Swann's argument holds up.

Is it the case that ANY delegates HAVE to sign an affidavit?

[jbauer]

Badly. The voters will feel disenfarnchised. It also sinks the ship for 2016. So if we're going to go for it we need to go all in.


Interesting stuff. A question for everyone - If 90% (or thereabouts) of GOP primary voters did not vote for Paul in the primaries, and Paul somehow manages to win the nomination through the parliamentary process at the RNC, how do you feel the average voter will react? Will they suddenly rally around Paul as the nominee, or will they reject him? Will the RNC support the candidate financially? Will large scale donors who give to the Presidential campaign and the PACS fork over the cash? What about the media types (Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Beck, etc) will they help Paul or work to discredit him?

[TheGrinch]

Sorry but I do not have exclusive rights over the screename "Tbone".
I actually do hold exclusive rights to this screen name, but that's only because Gingrich is really desperate for cash right now.

[moraha]

To answer moraha's questions: STATIST MEDIA PROPAGANDA NARRATIVE

The stupid American people will believe anything they're told. And ya know what else? Those RNC rules are ARCANE. :D

If the RNC has 2 rules that contradict each other, how can we get them to follow the rule that benefits us (not requiring delegates to be bound)? That's where I'm stuck. Everyone is saying "we will win....no delegates are bound"...but how can we get the RNC to actually go that way, when they have another rule saying "bound delegates must vote for the cadidate they're bound to on the first ballot."

[Thor]

Interesting stuff. A question for everyone - If 90% (or thereabouts) of GOP primary voters did not vote for Paul in the primaries, and Paul somehow manages to win the nomination through the parliamentary process at the RNC, how do you feel the average voter will react? Will they suddenly rally around Paul as the nominee, or will they reject him? Will the RNC support the candidate financially? Will large scale donors who give to the Presidential campaign and the PACS fork over the cash? What about the media types (Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Beck, etc) will they help Paul or work to discredit him?

Badly. The voters will feel disenfranchised. It also sinks the ship for 2016. So if we're going to go for it we need to go all in.

I think if we can show the voters that they were duped by the MSM and show that the issue was that Ron Paul is not the MEDIA's choice, and therefore the voters were duped, then maybe we will get and even stronger basis of support. But this goes back to the Doug Wead SEO request to get the message out and to get us all saying the same message.

Look Ron Paul did very well in the beginning in the debates, in Iowa, and in Maine; but the MEDIA downplayed his results and shaped the voters opinion - with the ignoring, dismissal at his chances, and unrelenting mocking - to lead everyone away from what their corporate owners felt was a threat. If voters really knew Ron Paul, they would know he very much IS the popular choice.

The dedicated people who have taken the time to learn and know Ron Paul and his policies and positions are playing the GOP delegate game for all the other voters, so they will be able to see that the media has been deceiving them, and Ron Paul really IS the popular choice.

I think once the media type see that their only choice is Paul, they despise Obama enough they will support Paul, begrudgingly.

[jbauer]

Isn't that a good thing? Don't we want to be challenged? Don't we want somone to play devils advocate? If we didn't have him bringing up these points they would never get talked about. It'd be like the age old adage: Preaching to the Choir.


YOU seem to spend a lot of time researching AGAINST backdoors the party purposely planted in their rules for their own purposes.

If Romney has control, he will have control of the RNC interpretation. That is the reality of it imho.

But our goal has to be to get as many delegates there as we can.

[EBounding]

Is it the case that ANY delegates HAVE to sign an affidavit?

That's another good question. But I heard that a number of national delegates already have signed (Mississippi is one example).

[Number19]

If this were to be true, do how good of a chance do we have at getting 50% of the delegates? Obviously in the caucus states where (to me) it seems like becoming a delegate is an easier process, we are getting the majority of them. But 3/4 of the states are primaries and I feel it would still be hard to get half of them.I don't think anyone has answered your question. Taking Texas as an example, even though we are a primary state, following the primary vote (normally, this year was an oddity for Texas) you have a precinct convention, followed by a county/district convention and then the state convention. These conventions are quite similar to caucuses and liberty delegates can be chosen at each stage. Because of the redistricting mess this year, here in Texas we have already held our county/district conventions and selected our delegates to go the the state convention which will be held starting June 8, following our May 29 primary. We will be fighting to have a majority of the delegates going on to Tampa.

Now, can anyone shed some light on my question. I've been told, I don't know if accurately or whether it may apply to other states, that the Texas delegation does not actually "vote" the first ballot. Based on the primary vote, the head of the Texas delegation will stand and cast our vote proportionately to the primary vote totals. Like I said, I don't know if this is accurate, or common. Any comments?

[sailingaway]

If the RNC has 2 rules that contradict each other, how can we get them to follow the rule that benefits us (not requiring delegates to be bound)? That's where I'm stuck. Everyone is saying "we will win....no delegates are bound"...but how can we get the RNC to actually go that way, when they have another rule saying "bound delegates must vote for the cadidate they're bound to on the first ballot."

How the RNC interprets it is different than what are the rules. Depending on how many delegates we have there, we have a better or worse chance. IMHO this discussion is premature to getting the delegates there.

[sailingaway]

I don't think anyone has answered your question. Taking Texas as an example, even though we are a primary state, following the primary vote (normally, this year was an oddity for Texas) you have a precinct convention, followed by a county/district convention and then the state convention. These conventions are quite similar to caucuses and liberty delegates can be chosen at each stage. Because of the redistricting mess this year, here in Texas we have already held our county/district conventions and selected our delegates to go the the state convention which will be held starting June 8, following our May 29 primary. We will be fighting to have a majority of the delegates going on to Tampa.

Now, can anyone shed some light on my question. I've been told, I don't know if accurately or whether it may apply to other states, that the Texas delegation does not actually "vote" the first ballot. Based on the primary vote, the head of the Texas delegation will stand and cast our vote proportionately to the primary vote totals. Like I said, I don't know if this is accurate, or common. Any comments?

Unless your state specifically has a rule (and I think TX might have recently put one in place just for us) the delegation chair reports the vote so it is a matter of appointing the delegation chair, if you end up with that strength, to begin with. I also wonder if the binding rules were in place last Oct? When the RNC says they have to have been? I remember TX was fussing with their rules up until well into this year, but don't know if it impacted that part.

[jbauer]

I'm not sure it will go down that way though. To "get the message out" we need mass media. I would guess that the vast majority of people voting in the Nov elections will have spent exactly 30 seconds thinking about who they're voting for and it going to be some sort of D vs R debate. Without that 30 second time slot given by the mass media how do you propose we even begin to talk about this?


I think if we can show the voters that they were duped by the MSM and show that the issue was that Ron Paul is not the MEDIA's choice, and therefore the voters were duped, then maybe we will get and even stronger basis of support. But this goes back to the Doug Wead SEO request to get the message out and to get us all saying the same message.

Look Ron Paul did very well in the beginning in the debates, in Iowa, and in Maine; but the MEDIA downplayed his results and shaped the voters opinion - with the ignoring, dismissal at his chances, and unrelenting mocking - to lead everyone away from what their corporate owners felt was a threat. If voters really knew Ron Paul, they would know he very much IS the popular choice.

The dedicated people who have taken the time to learn and know Ron Paul and his policies and positions are playing the GOP delegate game for all the other voters, so they will be able to see that the media has been deceiving them, and Ron Paul really IS the popular choice.

I think once the media type see that their only choice is Paul, they despise Obama enough they will support Paul, begrudgingly.

[stuka]

I know in NC our delegates had to sign a form stating they would vote according to the primary results, otherwise they would have to pay $10,000 to the state party. I wonder if the campaign would be able to reimburse them if they voted for Paul?

[Thor]

I think if we can show the voters that they were duped by the MSM and show that the issue was that Ron Paul is not the MEDIA's choice, and therefore the voters were duped, then maybe we will get and even stronger basis of support. But this goes back to the Doug Wead SEO request to get the message out and to get us all saying the same message.

Look Ron Paul did very well in the beginning in the debates, in Iowa, and in Maine; but the MEDIA downplayed his results and shaped the voters opinion - with the ignoring, dismissal at his chances, and unrelenting mocking - to lead everyone away from what their corporate owners felt was a threat. If voters really knew Ron Paul, they would know he very much IS the popular choice.

The dedicated people who have taken the time to learn and know Ron Paul and his policies and positions are playing the GOP delegate game for all the other voters, so they will be able to see that the media has been deceiving them, and Ron Paul really IS the popular choice.

I think once the media type see that their only choice is Paul, they despise Obama enough they will support Paul, begrudgingly.

I'm not sure it will go down that way though. To "get the message out" we need mass media. I would guess that the vast majority of people voting in the Nov elections will have spent exactly 30 seconds thinking about who they're voting for and it going to be some sort of D vs R debate. Without that 30 second time slot given by the mass media how do you propose we even begin to talk about this?

Well, the same way I suggested in 2008 to the campaign, and again recently to Doug Wead, might help. It might not be the end all be all, but it might help.

I say we do 1 time per week video chat sessions with Dr Paul (in 2008 it was a video on demand library idea where people could submit questions to be addressed in next weeks episode, now it can be live if we want) where Dr Paul answers questions to allow people to get to know him better, and answer about issues.

YouTube Live, Usteam and others could handle it. Screens take calls, tweets, emails, etc and screen and then push legit ones through for Dr Paul to address.

With the Internet and social media, getting the word out now could be a lot easier than it has ever been. "Bypass the Blackout! Here is your invite."


Making people aware of the fact that the MSM has deceived them.

[Bohner]

How many states don't require people to sign affidavits of support to be a national delegate? It seems it's only in those states where Swann's argument holds up.

Not really... Requiring people to sign affidavits of support is essentially the equivalent of enforcing the Unit Rule which the states are not allowed to do.

[Revolution9]

I'll take a crack at it: "I wish a greater number of forum participants were committed to proper use of the English language." Or is it "usage?"

Ya' all needs to be gettin' yer jabberin' and a yakkin' insta proper order.

HTH
Rev0

[anaconda]

Interesting stuff. A question for everyone - If 90% (or thereabouts) of GOP primary voters did not vote for Paul in the primaries, and Paul somehow manages to win the nomination through the parliamentary process at the RNC, how do you feel the average voter will react? Will they suddenly rally around Paul as the nominee, or will they reject him? Will the RNC support the candidate financially? Will large scale donors who give to the Presidential campaign and the PACS fork over the cash? What about the media types (Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Beck, etc) will they help Paul or work to discredit him?

The main stream media will go into the most supreme attack mode we've ever seen. They will make Paul seem like some vile criminal who is using Stalinist tactics and must be severely rebuked at the voting booth.

[anaconda]

I know in NC our delegates had to sign a form stating they would vote according to the primary results, otherwise they would have to pay $10,000 to the state party. I wonder if the campaign would be able to reimburse them if they voted for Paul?

The Delegate Penalty Money Bomb?

[tbone717]

Not really... Requiring people to sign affidavits of support is essentially the equivalent of enforcing the Unit Rule which the states are not allowed to do.

Actually the unit rule comes from back in the 19th century, when the delegation voted as one unit, i.e. majority rule. The situation in UT from 2008 is a good example. The majority cannot override the votes of the minority and vote as one unit.

So this year for example in VA, 43 delegates are bound to Romney and 3 to Paul based on the results of the primary (there are 3 also unbound "super" delegates, which I believe are pledged to Romney). The 46 delegates that support Romney cannot "force" the 3 Paul delegates to vote for Romney and vote as one unit, because that would violate 38. Similarly, 21 of Maine's delegates are pledged to Paul (Maine's delegates are all unbound). The 21 Paul delegates cannot "force" the 2 Romney and 1 uncommitted delegate to vote for Paul, because that would also violate Rule 38. But in the case of AZ, all 29 delegates are bound to Romney (based on the primary results). Even though, all 29 votes will be cast for Romney, they are not violating the unit rule, because the are not overriding a minority vote, they just happen to be an unopposed majority in that situation.

So essentially, Rule 38 prevents the majority from silencing the voice of the minority. From what I have read this is something that occurred often in the era before there was a primary system, and the RNC has placed Rule 38 in the rules so that the minority voice is not disenfranchised when they have delegates either bound or unbound that are there to cast a ballot for a candidate.

Hope that clarifies it somewhat.

[anaconda]

I don't think anyone has answered your question. Taking Texas as an example, even though we are a primary state, following the primary vote (normally, this year was an oddity for Texas) you have a precinct convention, followed by a county/district convention and then the state convention. These conventions are quite similar to caucuses and liberty delegates can be chosen at each stage. Because of the redistricting mess this year, here in Texas we have already held our county/district conventions and selected our delegates to go the the state convention which will be held starting June 8, following our May 29 primary. We will be fighting to have a majority of the delegates going on to Tampa.

Now, can anyone shed some light on my question. I've been told, I don't know if accurately or whether it may apply to other states, that the Texas delegation does not actually "vote" the first ballot. Based on the primary vote, the head of the Texas delegation will stand and cast our vote proportionately to the primary vote totals. Like I said, I don't know if this is accurate, or common. Any comments?

That would be a bummer where some state party shill speaks for all of the delegates on the first ballot.

But I would still like someone who has a good understanding of this to speculate on whether Ron Paul supporters can continue to win the majority of delegates "bound" to Romney at upcoming state conventions where Romney won a "winner-take-all?" Then if they turn out to not be bound then we're sitting pretty if we have the majority of delegates that are "bound" (not bound) to Romney.

[moraha]

How the RNC interprets it is different than what are the rules. Depending on how many delegates we have there, we have a better or worse chance. IMHO this discussion is premature to getting the delegates there.

It's premature but a good idea to be prepared....this definitely needs to SOMEHOW get out there though.

[MikeStanart]

BEN for Press Secretary of President Ron Paul!

[InTradePro]

From Ben's facebook:
...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anWsU93fFsk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anWsU93fFsk

http://www.fox19.com/story/18305604/reality-check-why-all-rnc-delegates-are-free-agents-and-unbound

Pretty clear. In the end all delegates can vote how they wish.

[azxd]

Ya' all needs to be gettin' yer jabberin' and a yakkin' insta proper order.

HTH
Rev0WORD Rev ... Word !!!

[azxd]

The main stream media will go into the most supreme attack mode we've ever seen. They will make Paul seem like some vile criminal who is using Stalinist tactics and must be severely rebuked at the voting booth.And they will rue the day.

[wgadget]

I know in NC our delegates had to sign a form stating they would vote according to the primary results, otherwise they would have to pay $10,000 to the state party. I wonder if the campaign would be able to reimburse them if they voted for Paul?

Isn't that extortion?

[DamianTV]

From Ben's facebook:



I'll paste the link when he posts it!


[update] video is now up:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anWsU93fFsk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anWsU93fFsk

http://www.fox19.com/story/18305604/reality-check-why-all-rnc-delegates-are-free-agents-and-unbound

This video needs to be on the Front Page! Mods? Admins? Do you agree?

[sailingaway]

This video needs to be on the Front Page! Mods? Admins? Do you agree?

All right. I went back and forth on it.

[DamianTV]

All right. I went back and forth on it.

Thank you! Its on the Front Page now!

I think it is important that if a Bound (edit) McCain Delegate was allowed to vote for Romney in 2008, ALL of our Bound Delegates should also be allowed to vote for Ron Paul in 2012! And since obviously we can by the RNC's own Legal Council's statements and the RNC's rules, we arent asking for Permission, we are telling them that we WILL give Ron Paul the Republican Nomination! The Power to make Ron Paul President is in the Hands of our Delegates! They have to vote by their Conscious! They will be able to vote for Ron Paul!

[EBounding]

We really need to temper our expectations with this and learn more. Even the official campaign (in my state) isn't sure. I just can't imagine it's good to sign an affidavit and then do the opposite of what you said you would do under oath.

[stuka]

Isn't that extortion?
It seems like it to me, but I'm not a delegate to the national convention. I'll ask our meetup if any of them are or know a lawyer who can look into it further.

[tbone717]

I think it is important that if a Bound Gingrich Delegate was allowed to vote for Romney in 2008, ALL of our Bound Delegates should also be allowed to vote for Ron Paul in 2012! And since obviously we can by the RNC's own Legal Council's statements and the RNC's rules, we arent asking for Permission, we are telling them that we WILL give Ron Paul the Republican Nomination! The Power to make Ron Paul President is in the Hands of our Delegates! They have to vote by their Conscious! They will be able to vote for Ron Paul!

I am assuming you meant to say McCain instead of Gingrich.

Nonetheless, the Utah delegate was originally bound to Romney and then was unbound due to Romney dropping out. Even though the rest of the delegation voted for McCain, the delegate (and one other I believe) still cast their ballot for Romney even though Romney was not nominated from the floor.

The situation that UT delegates faced is identical that GA in 2012. Even though they are bound to Gingrich by virtue of the primary vote, they will be able to vote for which every candidate they wish since Gingrich will not be nominated from the floor. So those GA delegates can still vote for Gingrich or whichever candidate they choose. The GA delegation cannot impose the will of the majority of delegates onto all delegates because that would be a violation of Rule 38, since imposition of the majority over the minority constitutes a "unit rule" which is forbidden under RNC rules.

[DamianTV]

Thx. Fixed.

[anaconda]

the RNC does not recognize state binding.

But could the state party officials at the convention force binding of their own respective states?

[DamianTV]

Then we replace the officials.

[tbone717]

But could the state party officials at the convention force binding of their own respective states?

Correct. Most states have binding of delegates in their state rules and the RNC has paragraphs in their national rules regarding binding. The two sentences that are being quoted in the Swann video are from a letter written to the Utah delegation in 2008.

While we do not have the full text of the letter, we do have the context (which is clarified by the original article where the quotes come from). Utah's delegates were bound to Romney by virtue of the primary vote, Romney had dropped out and was not going to be placed into nomination from the floor. Based upon that circumstance, the RNC did not recognize the binding of the delegates and the delegates were free to vote for whomever they wish, even if that persons name was not placed up for nomination. The very same circumstance exists today for states like GA where the delegation is bound to Gingrich. Gingrich will not be nominated from the floor, therefore the RNC does not recognize their binding, so the delegates can vote for whomever they choose. For those of us that have studied the RNC and state rules we already knew this.

Does these two sentences from this letter mean that every delegate, from every state is unbound regardless of the circumstance? I do not think so. In fact I am 99.99999% sure of it, because if it did then why would both the RNC and the state parties all have numerous paragraphs in their rules concerning binding?

What does this mean for RP supporters? It means we are in the same position that we were before this video was released and created all this confusion. RP needs to win primaries, so that Romney does not accumulate enough bound delegates to put him over the top. RP supporters need to win delegate slots at state conventions so that if Romney does not reach 1144 on the first ballot that we have a strong representation for a second ballot. And finally, RP supporters need to win as many delegate slots as possible so that if Romney does win the nomination outright, we can have the greatest amount of influence at the RNC that is possible.

[tuggy24g]

I think since we all know this rules we should make sure that all Ron Paul supports make a stink about it and make sure they only vote for Ron Paul. We have a lot of Ron Paul delegates that are bound to another candidate according to state voting. Well we have to make the GOP fallow the rules they made and keep voting for Ron Paul. That way we can hopefully have Romney not have the 1144 delegates to win on the first ballot.

Another suggestion is to make up a nice rules list of the rules to everyone going into the convention or try to get all the Ron Paul delegates to meet a day before the convention to discuss a plain on what to do before we can in there. That way we are prepared and not just going in with are own agenda.

[sailingaway]

But could the state party officials at the convention force binding of their own respective states?

Brian Doherty wrote up a contrary view of this based on 2008 rules implemented shortly after this letter was sent out. I don't know where the current, 2010 rules stand on this.

It definitely is an argument, because this rule is still on the books, but as a practical matter unless we control the majority of delegates, either alone or in coalition, I cynically doubt our interpretation will be the one the RNC adopts.

It all comes back to that what we need to do now is focus on collecting delegates and getting Ron that money he needs to fund his multistate delegate operations. The more delegates we have, the more we can do. This point only counters ONE of the of stated 'reasons Ron can't win', there is still the matter of stopping Romney from having 1144 delegates who will actually vote for him on the first ballot. And for that, I really think we need outreach to other conservatives to make the case that a brokered convention is what they should be voting for, and that means it DOES make a difference that they vote, and that they vote for Paul, because as the only one still in the campaign, he is the only one that can use the vote to actually keep delegates from Romney.

All the delegates for the other candidates, even though they just suspended, will be given to Romney because they endorsed him. Look what happened to NH and Huntsman's delegate. The other candidates will not only fail to resist this, they will agree to it.

[tbone717]

All the delegates for the other candidates, even though they just suspended, will be given to Romney because they endorsed him. Look what happened to NH and Huntsman's delegate. The other candidates will not only fail to resist this, they will agree to it.

Correct. If you total the bound delegates for Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Huntsman it exceeds 1144. The good news is that 366 of those will be unbound delegates (Santorum, plus Gingrich, plus Huntsman). So if Paul is able to stop Romney in his tracks, and Romney does not win any more (or very few) bound delegates in the upcoming primaries, then we could have two candidates (Romney and Paul) walk into Tampa with around 800 bound delegates a piece. At that point it is anyone's game and the Santorum, Newt & Huntsman delegates will need to make a decision whether to vote for Paul or Romney.

[sailingaway]

Correct. If you total the bound delegates for Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Huntsman it exceeds 1144. The good news is that 366 of those will be unbound delegates (Santorum, plus Gingrich, plus Huntsman). So if Paul is able to stop Romney in his tracks, and Romney does not win any more (or very few) bound delegates in the upcoming primaries, then we could have two candidates (Romney and Paul) walk into Tampa with around 800 bound delegates a piece. At that point it is anyone's game and the Santorum, Newt & Huntsman delegates will need to make a decision whether to vote for Paul or Romney.

Or to put it from the perspective of OTHER conservatives who we want to woo to this mindset -- whomever wins at that point will need them. They will have leverage.

If Romney goes to convention with first ballot strength, he doesn't need them at all, realistically.

[tbone717]

Or to put it from the perspective of OTHER conservatives who we want to woo to this mindset -- whomever wins at that point will need them. They will have leverage.

If Romney goes to convention with first ballot strength, he doesn't need them at all, realistically.

Exactly. If Romney sweeps the remaining bound delegates he won't need any of the unbounds. Which is why he has to be stopped in his tracks. Those released delegates could very well hold all the power at the RNC depending on how the numbers shake out. It is not mathematically possible for Paul to go into Tampa with 1144 bound at this point, so it would have to be won on the floor by persuading the unbounds to support him. Winning the remaining 11 states (or the large majority of them) will go a long way at making the case for him.

[jay_dub]

Correct. Most states have binding of delegates in their state rules and the RNC has paragraphs in their national rules regarding binding. The two sentences that are being quoted in the Swann video are from a letter written to the Utah delegation in 2008.

While we do not have the full text of the letter, we do have the context (which is clarified by the original article where the quotes come from). Utah's delegates were bound to Romney by virtue of the primary vote, Romney had dropped out and was not going to be placed into nomination from the floor. Based upon that circumstance, the RNC did not recognize the binding of the delegates and the delegates were free to vote for whomever they wish, even if that persons name was not placed up for nomination. The very same circumstance exists today for states like GA where the delegation is bound to Gingrich. Gingrich will not be nominated from the floor, therefore the RNC does not recognize their binding, so the delegates can vote for whomever they choose. For those of us that have studied the RNC and state rules we already knew this.

Does these two sentences from this letter mean that every delegate, from every state is unbound regardless of the circumstance? I do not think so. In fact I am 99.99999% sure of it, because if it did then why would both the RNC and the state parties all have numerous paragraphs in their rules concerning binding?

What does this mean for RP supporters? It means we are in the same position that we were before this video was released and created all this confusion. RP needs to win primaries, so that Romney does not accumulate enough bound delegates to put him over the top. RP supporters need to win delegate slots at state conventions so that if Romney does not reach 1144 on the first ballot that we have a strong representation for a second ballot. And finally, RP supporters need to win as many delegate slots as possible so that if Romney does win the nomination outright, we can have the greatest amount of influence at the RNC that is possible.

What you're saying both does and does not make sense. The pertinent rule on delegate selection is rule 15, which would support your claim. However, the letter from the Legal Council (at least the excerpt we've seen) is very clear in what it says.

Also, in just looking at what''s happened on the ground, it seems the Romney camp is far more worried than they should be if you are correct. Assuming you are correct, it would make sense for Romney to let Ron Paul accumulate delegates as he has been doing, since it would be of little consequence and would go a long way in staving off bad feelings from RP supporters. I mean, we really can't complain if we lose in a fair and transparent process. It Romney is concerned about unity, he would let the process go on without hindering or disrupting it. But that's not what we're seeing, which gives weight to the Legal Council's letter IMO. You can bet that Romney's legal team has already looked at this and the campaign's actions probably reflect their opinion.

Bottom line to me is that, even if no delegate is bound, we don't have it locked up and still have much work to do. We should assume nothing, but we still have a lot to be happy about with Ron's successes. He is still in it and we now have practical political reasons to use in winning people over.

PDF of RNC rules.

http://www.gop.com/images/legal/2008_RULES_Adopted.pdf

[tbone717]

What you're saying both does and does not make sense. The pertinent rule on delegate selection is rule 15, which would support your claim. However, the letter from the Legal Council (at least the excerpt we've seen) is very clear in what it says.

It is not clear because we do not have the whole letter. We have two sentences from it, and we have the context of the situation. This letter was not sent out to every state delegation but was sent to one state. That state had delegates who were bound to Romney, but Romney dropped out and the delegates were therefore unbound. When you read the quotes in that context it makes perfect sense. The UT delegates were bound to Romney, but since Romney dropped out the RNC did not recognize their binding, and delegates could vote for whomever they chose (including Romney) because they were considered free agents since they were now unbound.

It makes no logical sense for the RNC to say they do not recognize binding, but then have sections of their rules that specifically refer to binding. What does make logical sense is that the RNC would state that they do not recognize the binding of the UT delegates in 2008 to Romney because he withdrew from the race. If you read the original article where these statements were quoted, it makes sense in that context, because in the original article it was referring to the situation that UT faced in 2008, which is similar to the situation that GA will face in 2012.

Essentially, you cannot pull two quotes from a letter and call it gospel. The sentences that proceeded and follow those pulled quotes would clarify the meaning of the statements. As would the original letter from UT to the RNC (if there was one). They very well might have been asking for clarification of the rules, since their delegates were bound to Romney, but Romney dropped out.

I'll stand by my statement that I am 99.9999% sure that the delegates bound to Romney and Paul in 2012 will be voting for Romney and Paul on the first ballot. Unbound delegates and delegates that have been released (ie Santorum and Newt's) will be free to vote for whomever they choose. But we knew that all along, so there really is no change in things.

So basically, we are at the same position we were before this video was released and consumed so much of our time and energy. We need to win primaries, we need to win delegate slots at state conventions. There is no difference today as there was two days ago. If Paul can win states, then we can have a chance at this at the convention.

[BenMuldowney]

i think it is important to look at this from a state perspective versus a national one. it is the state gop that has the binding rules and the $1,000 fine. why would they have a fine? if a delegate couldn't vote their conscience at the national... there is no need for this?

[dancjm]

It is not clear because we do not have the whole letter. We have two sentences from it, and we have the context of the situation.

The language in those sentences is pretty unequivocal.

"The RNC does not recognize a states binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose."

That's a pretty closed statement.

[Terry1]

Yeeeeeeeeeeooooooooow!!!! Ron Paul...our new nominee!! Ahhhhhhh...I'm so excited...sorry folks...had to do this after I saw the video... :D You're all awsome!! I know the fight ain't over yet, but this is reason to celebrate for me. :D

[BenMuldowney]

right... because the rnc is not an enforcer of state party rules.

[jay_dub]

i think it is important to look at this from a state perspective versus a national one. it is the state gop that has the binding rules and the $10,000 fine. why would they have a fine? if a delegate couldn't vote their conscience at the national... there is no need for this?

that would also make sense regarding the rnc's lawyer's statement about free agents. the national is not the enforcer of the state rules... because the states differ on binding. so if a delegate breaks the binding rule of a state then it is up to the state to punish the rule breaker? thus we have the $10,000 fine. there is only one problem with this... the state gop has no authority to collect. remember the state atty general in maine (i think it was), had no say in the local gop's cheating... it was a private matter.

so bottom line, a delegate is free to vote their conscience in tampa and the rnc has no standing on the matter. the state gop does have rules and can fine the offenders $10,000 but has no authority to collect.

What I bolded is another good example. I think the actions of the party are just as (or maybe more) revealing than simply reading the rules. The Romney camp is too worried about RP for him not to have a better chance than is being let on.

[BenMuldowney]

one of the reasons the local gop commits fraud at the drop of a hat is that there are usually no consequences. i know of mass precincts that were openly and brazenly stolen and even the filthy local hacks that supported ron paul behind the scenes, looked the other way.

[BenMuldowney]

a political party is similar to an SRO in the security markets. an SRO can fine its members all they want.. and some members pay the fines if they want to remain 'licensed'. but the SRO's have no authority to collect if those that are penalized just flat out refuse to pay. BECAUSE THEY DONT HAVE AUTHORITY!!!!!

[tbone717]

The language in those sentences is pretty unequivocal.

"The RNC does not recognize a states binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose."

That's a pretty closed statement.

If the statement was proceeded by ” based on your your situation in Utah” the meaning is completely changed. The fact is we do not have the entire letter, but believe whatever you wish. The truth will be shown by the actions of bound delegates in August

[BenMuldowney]

If the statement was proceeded by ” based on your your situation in Utah” the meaning is completely changed. The fact is we do not have the entire letter, but believe whatever you wish. The truth will be shown by the actions of bound delegates in August

not really, the rnc is not the policeman for all of the different state rules. the state gop can write rules for state conventions and can even fine delegates who break state party rules at the national convention but how can they collect fines? they can't.

think of the nfl; they can fine players for breaking rules and the players always pay.... but they dont have to legally. but the nfl holds all of the leverage and its in the players' best interest to pay the fine. not so much the case for the rino party.

update: it appears some states do have laws concerning bound delegates and violations of these laws are misdemeanors.

[Voluntary Man]

We really need to temper our expectations with this and learn more. Even the official campaign (in my state) isn't sure. I just can't imagine it's good to sign an affidavit and then do the opposite of what you said you would do under oath.

nor is it probably a good idea to use your vote to help elect a guy who will violate his oath the minute he lowers his hand.

[tbone717]

nor is it probably a good idea to use your vote to help elect a guy who will violate his oath the minute he lowers his hand.

At that point then one would have to make a decision as to whether or not they wish to be a delegate at the RNC.

[Suzu]

what could they do? kick me out of the state gop? i would guess yes... but guess what? big whoop.And there would by then be 100 more like you, to take your place. So, go ahead, be a sacrificial animal!

[Voluntary Man]

At that point then one would have to make a decision as to whether or not they wish to be a delegate at the RNC.

not a problem for me. i don't do oaths.

[BenMuldowney]

At that point then one would have to make a decision as to whether or not they wish to be a delegate at the RNC.

no offense but you would have sided with the british and scolded the minutemen for not playing by crown's rules on warfare. do you have any idea what the other side has planned for us eventually? you seem very effeminate in your approach.

[BenMuldowney]

And there would by then be 100 more like you, to take your place. So, go ahead, be a sacrificial animal!

it appears that some states do have laws concerning this... it is in the codes. (misdemeanors)

i do not advocate breaking state laws.

[dancjm]

If the statement was proceeded by ” based on your your situation in Utah” the meaning is completely changed. The fact is we do not have the entire letter, but believe whatever you wish. The truth will be shown by the actions of bound delegates in August

No I am sorry you are wrong.

It is clear that those two sentences are without qualification. As I said, closed statements.

I'm not being optimistic either, its just a grammatical observation.

Reading your posts, I am starting to wonder which side you are really on...

[S.Shorland]

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-19-13/republican-delegates-can-ignore-any-%E2%80%9Ccommittment%E2%80%9D-vote-mitt-romney-and-can-in?

[BenMuldowney]

No I am sorry you are wrong.

It is clear that those two sentences are without qualification. As I said, closed statements.

I'm not being optimistic either, its just a grammatical observation.

Reading your posts, I am starting to wonder which side you are really on...


i think the big question is whether a delegate would be breaking a state party rule or would they be violating state code. if it is breaking a gop state rule then the fine would not be collectable.

[tbone717]

No I am sorry you are wrong.

It is clear that those two sentences are without qualification. As I said, closed statements.

I'm not being optimistic either, its just a grammatical observation.

Reading your posts, I am starting to wonder which side you are really on...

As I said you are free to believe whatever you wish. We will see at the RNC whether or not delegate binding is legitimate or not.

The notion that all delegates are unbound regardless of state rules, could very well lead people to conclude that the primary contests that are upcoming are meaningless and that focus solely needs to be placed on winning seats at the state conventions. This could then cause people not to focus on GOTV efforts in those states - why would we concern ourselves with GOTV if the delegates are not bound anyway? As I stated numerous times the two sentences were pulled from a letter sent by the RNC legal counsel to the Utah delegattion in 2008. We do not know the true meaning of the statements without the context of the letter as a whole. That is simple reading comprehension.

But again, you are free to believe whatever you wish and act according to your beliefs. It is my position that delegates are bound, and that the quotes were referring to the situation faced by Utah in 2008. Therefore, I believe it is very important to prevent Romney from winning any more bound delegates by defeating him in the upcoming primaries.

[Suzu]

As I stated numerous times the two sentences were pulled from a letter sent by the RNC legal counsel to the Utah delegattion in 2008. We do not know the true meaning of the statements without the context of the letter as a whole. That is simple reading comprehension.I see you repeating that we have not seen the "letter as a whole". but it was posted on this forum last week - in response to one of your complaints, IIRC. Check your subscriptions, read, and comprehend!

[Cyberbrain]

The language in those sentences is pretty unequivocal.

"The RNC does not recognize a states binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose."

That's a pretty closed statement.


If the statement was proceeded by ” based on your your situation in Utah” the meaning is completely changed. The fact is we do not have the entire letter, but believe whatever you wish. The truth will be shown by the actions of bound delegates in August

This really is a big issue, that we don't have the entire letter.

My problem with this idea is it is already known that there is a separation of NATIONAL GOP and STATE GOP and that statement could only be reaffirming that fact. As in, the RNC does not recognize any binding of delegates and that it does view all delegates as free agents...from it's role as a NATIONAL committee. It defers those matters to the individual states and their delegations, allowing them to make their own rules.

OR it could be saying that the RNC WILL NOT recognize binding of delegates and it WILL allow all delegates to defy their state gop rules and act by their own accord, and it could be just for that individual case in Utah or it could be applicable to all states.

Either way the only useful thing that can come out of this is protection for our delegates, from the RNC, against each state, if the delegates choose to vote for someone they're not bound to but we all know the RNC isn't going to help us anyway so this discussion seems sort of pointless.

The statement is more vague than it seems at first and more importantly there is no historical precedent that I know of for ignoring binding of delegates like this. This makes for a very difficult legal case unlike abstaining where there is an actual precedent for bound delegates abstaining.

[tbone717]

I see you repeating that we have not seen the "letter as a whole". but it was posted on this forum last week - in response to one of your complaints, IIRC. Check your subscriptions, read, and comprehend!

What was posted was the original article that the quotes were pulled from. (http://utahcountygop.com/blog/mr-jenkins-goes-to-st-paul/) Which actually set the context for the quotes. But if you all think I am wrong and delegate binding does not matter then that's fine - at this point I really don't care.

I have made my statements on the issue and you folks can believe whatever you choose to believe and act accordingly.

[Suzu]

This really is a big issue, that we don't have the entire letter.But we do! I saw it posted on this forum last week, in fact. I can't give you a link because I assumed - obviously I was wrong - that it had been seen by at least some of those who keep complaining that it hasn't shown up.

[BenMuldowney]

What was posted was the original article that the quotes were pulled from. (http://utahcountygop.com/blog/mr-jenkins-goes-to-st-paul/) Which actually set the context for the quotes. But if you all think I am wrong and delegate binding does not matter then that's fine - at this point I really don't care.

I have made my statements on the issue and you folks can believe whatever you choose to believe and act accordingly.

you are missing the big picture or you are intentionally avoiding it. show me the rule that states a delegate is bound. is it state code or is it a gop state rule? if it is the latter they have no authority to collect a fine. therefore a delegate is allowed to do the right thing.

[Suzu]

What was posted was the original article that the quotes were pulled from.Please provide a link to the article so I can verify whether it is what I meant.

[tbone717]

you are missing the big picture or you are intentionally avoiding it. show me the rule that states a delegate is bound. is it state code or is it a gop state rule? if it is the latter they have no authority to collect a fine. therefore a delegate is allowed to do the right thing.

Delegate binding is addressed in both state party rules and in the RNC rules (Rule 15)

I haven't commented on whether or not a delegate can sign an affidavit and then go against the terms of that affidavit. If someone wishes to do that then they are free to do so and suffer any penalty there might be. As far as I understand, if a delegate attempts to go against his sworn word, then he/she is replaced by an alternate.

[tbone717]

Please provide a link to the article so I can verify whether it is what I meant.

http://utahcountygop.com/blog/mr-jenkins-goes-to-st-paul/

[Suzu]

http://utahcountygop.com/blog/mr-jenkins-goes-to-st-paul/No, that's not what I saw (although I had read this before). The whole letter in question is posted on this forum somewhere.

[tbone717]

No, that's not what I saw (although I had read this before). The whole letter in question is posted on this forum somewhere.

I have not seen it. When I have tried to search google for the text all I come up with is posts from here and some other forums, and that link I just posted. If you can find it then great.

[BenMuldowney]

Delegate binding is addressed in both state party rules and in the RNC rules (Rule 15)

I haven't commented on whether or not a delegate can sign an affidavit and then go against the terms of that affidavit. If someone wishes to do that then they are free to do so and suffer any penalty there might be. As far as I understand, if a delegate attempts to go against his sworn word, then he/she is replaced by an alternate.

rnc rule 15 nor 16 has anything to do with bound delegates voting their conscience. i have seen state gop rules but again, those arent enforceable. they can replace them with alts... so it is important to have as many alts as possible.

looks like the only way romney and goldman sachs can steal this is if the states have codes on this with criminal penalties. i guess thats what we need to focus on... the RNC argument is laid to rest.

[tbone717]

rnc rule 15 nor 16 has anything to do with bound delegates voting their conscience. i have seen state gop rules but again, those arent enforceable. they can replace them with alts... so it is important to have as many alts as possible.

looks like the only way romney and goldman sachs can steal this is if the states have codes on this with criminal penalties. i guess thats what we need to focus on... the RNC argument is laid to rest.

By definition a bound delegate does not vote their conscience. They are there are a representative of their state or CD. Their function is to cast a ballot that is representative of the primary vote from their CD or state.

So if we want to see Paul win, we could just win the remaining states, accumulate a number of bound delegates that is close to or equal to Romney's current total and let the unbound delegates decide the nomination. Winning over the voters in 11 states will go very far in establishing Paul as a legitimate challenge to the nomination, and could very well sway many of the unbound delegates to Paul's side.

[BenMuldowney]

By definition a bound delegate does not vote their conscience. They are there are a representative of their state or CD. Their function is to cast a ballot that is representative of the primary vote from their CD or state.

So if we want to see Paul win, we could just win the remaining states, accumulate a number of bound delegates that is close to or equal to Romney's current total and let the unbound delegates decide the nomination. Winning over the voters in 11 states will go very far in establishing Paul as a legitimate challenge to the nomination, and could very well sway many of the unbound delegates to Paul's side.


the gop along with the goldman sachs (media) has made sure there is no way ron paul will win any of the remaining primaries and you know that. i have researched one state regarding this matter and it is a state law not just a party rule. it is a misdemeanor but has a fine of up to $1,000 or a minimum imprisonment of 1 yr. and they would not count the vote either. (which is odd for the state to claim since they aren't the rnc)

[tbone717]

the gop along with the goldman sachs (media) has made sure there is no way ron paul will win any of the remaining primaries and you know that.

If I believed that then I would not have donated money, made phone calls and knocked on doors this year. I have worked successfully at getting libertarian-conservatives elected to office before, and I have every reason to believe that the right combination of candidate, campaign and grassroots effort can prevail again. If I thought the system was rigged against us, then there are plenty of other things I would do with my time and money.

[Suzu]

I have not seen it. When I have tried to search google for the text all I come up with is posts from here and some other forums, and that link I just posted. If you can find it then great.I searched also, and came up blank. Maybe whoever posted the letter will see this thread and give us the link.

[BenMuldowney]

If I believed that then I would not have donated money, made phone calls and knocked on doors this year. I have worked successfully at getting libertarian-conservatives elected to office before, and I have every reason to believe that the right combination of candidate, campaign and grassroots effort can prevail again. If I thought the system was rigged against us, then there are plenty of other things I would do with my time and money.


LOL.. which primaries do you think dr paul has a chance to win? seriously.. are you just messing with me?

[tbone717]

LOL.. which primaries do you think dr paul has a chance to win? seriously.. are you just messing with me?

He has a chance to win every one of them. Is is a good chance? Not really, but in each of those states no one has cast their ballot yet, so he still has a chance.

Are you suggesting that Paul has no chance of winning any of the remaining states? Because if so that would be contrary to the purpose of this forum and would really be counteracting all the work that people are doing. If he cannot win, then it serves no purpose at all for people to spend their time and money trying to convince voters to vote for him.

[zachrbroussard]

If the establishment keeps shooting themselves in their feet, he has a good chance. Especially if it is finally picked up my MSM.

[beezle]

As at least one other has pointed out, RNC rules do permit delegates to be bound in a number of ways. I've copied the rule below. I really do not want to see RP and the movement and all that has been gained at the state level be tarnished by people acting like assholes at the convention. If MR does not have the required number and delegates become unbound on subsequent votes, great by all means RP. But dont drag RP through the mud because you hate the GOP (which we are fast becoming) or MR.


RULE NO. 15
Election, Selection, Allocation, or Binding of
Delegates and Alternate Delegates
(a) Order of Precedence.
Delegates at large and their
alternate delegates and delegates from Congressional
districts and their alternate delegates to the national
convention shall be elected, selected, allocated, or
bound in the following manner:
(1) In accordance with any
applicable Republican Party rules of a state, insofar as
the same are not inconsistent with these rules; or
(2) To the extent not provided for in
the applicable Republican Party rules of a state, in
accordance with any applicable laws of a state, insofar
as the same are not inconsistent with these rules; or
(3) By a combination of the
methods set forth in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this
rule; or
(4) To the extent not provided by
state law or party rules, as set forth in paragraph (d) of
this rule.
(b) Timing.* (Revised language was adopted
by the Republican National Committee on August 6,
2010)
(1) No primary, caucus, or
convention to elect, select, allocate, or bind delegates to
the national convention shall occur prior to the first
Tuesday in March in the year in which a national
convention is held. Except Iowa, New Hampshire,
South Carolina, and Nevada may begin their processes
at any time on or after February 1 in the year in which a
national convention is held and shall not be subject to
the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of this rule.
(2) Any presidential primary,
caucus, convention, or other meeting held for the
purpose of selecting delegates to the national
convention which occurs prior to the first day of April19 of 41
in the year in which the national convention is held,
shall provide for the allocation of delegates on a
proportional basis.
(3) If the Democratic National
Committee fails to adhere to a presidential primary
schedule with the dates set forth in Rule 15(b)(1) of
these Rules (February 1 and first Tuesday in March),
then Rule 15(b) shall revert to the Rules as adopted by
the 2008 Republican National Convention.
(c) General.
In all elections or selections 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,
selected, allocated, or bound 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 elected, selected, allocated, or
bound to the most recent Republican National
Convention from that state;
(v) by Rule No. 13 (a)(2)
of these rules.
(2) Only persons eligible to vote
who are deemed as a matter of public record to be
Republicans pursuant to state law or, if voters are not
enrolled by party, by Republican Party rules of a state,
shall participate in any primary election held for the
purpose of electing delegates or alternate delegates to
the national convention or in any Republican caucus,
mass meeting, or mass convention held for the purpose
of selecting delegates to the county, district, or state
conventions, and only such legal and qualified voters20 of 41
shall be elected as delegates to county, district, and
state conventions; provided, however, that in addition
to the qualifications provided herein, the applicable
Republican Party rules of a state may prescribe
additional qualifications not inconsistent with law,
which additional qualifications shall be adopted before
October 1 in the year before the year in which the
national convention is to be held and published in at
least one (1) newspaper having a general circulation
throughout the state, such publication to be at least
ninety (90) days before such qualifications become
effective.
(3) No state law shall be observed
that permits any person to participate in a primary
delegate and alternate delegate selection process that
also permits that person at the same primary to
participate in the choosing of nominees of any other
party for other elective office. Delegates and alternate
delegates to the national convention shall in that event
be selected pursuant to state Republican Party rules that
are not inconsistent with The Rules of the Republican
Party; provided, however, that the selection process
established by the state Republican Party rules shall
provide that only persons eligible to vote who are
deemed to be Republicans pursuant to state law or state
Republican Party rules shall participate in such delegate
election or selection process.
(4) In any jurisdiction in which
Republican representation upon the board of judges or
inspectors of elections for primary elections is denied
by law, delegates and alternate delegates shall be
elected as provided in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(4) of this
rule.
(5) In electing or selecting
delegates and alternate delegates to the national
convention, no state law shall be observed which
hinders, abridges, or denies to any citizen of the United
States, eligible under the Constitution of the United
States to hold the office of President of the United
States or Vice President of the United States, the right
or privilege of being a candidate under such state law
for the nomination for President of the United States or
Vice President of the United States or which authorizes
the election or selection of a number of delegates or
alternate delegates from any state to the national
convention different from that fixed in these rules.21 of 41
(6) Alternate delegates shall be
elected to the national convention for each unit of
representation equal in number to the number of
delegates elected therein and shall be chosen in the
same manner and at the same time as the delegates and
under the same rules; provided, however, that if the law
of any state shall prescribe another method of choosing
alternate delegates, they may be chosen in accordance
with the provisions of the law of the state in which the
election occurs, except that no alternates shall be
selected for Republican National Committee members.
(7) Any process authorized or
implemented by a state Republican Party for selecting
delegates and alternate delegates or for binding the
presidential preference of such delegates may use every
means practicable, in the sole discretion of the state
Republican Party, to encourage active military
personnel the opportunity to exercise their right to vote.
(8) Delegates and alternate
delegates at large to the national convention when
serving as delegates and alternate delegates shall be
residents of and duly qualified voters in their respective
states. All delegates and alternate delegates allocated as
delegates and alternate delegates at large shall be
elected at large in the several states; provided, however,
that such allocation and method of election may be
varied in any state to the extent, and only to the extent,
necessary to avoid conflict with state law applicable to
the selection of national convention delegates if such
varying allocation and method of election were those
pursuant to which delegates at large and alternate
delegates at large were elected to the 1988 Republican
National Convention from that state.
(9) Delegates and alternate
delegates to the national convention representing
Congressional districts shall be residents of and
qualified voters in said districts respectively when
elected and when serving as delegates and alternate
delegates. There shall be three (3) delegates and three
(3) alternate delegates allocated to represent each
Congressional district of the several states, who shall be
elected by each such Congressional district; provided,
however, that such number of delegates and alternate
delegates allocated to represent, and elected by, any
Congressional district of a state may be reduced or
increased to the extent, and only to the extent,
necessary to avoid conflict with state law applicable to
the selection of national convention delegates if such22 of 41
varying allocation was that pursuant to which district
delegates and alternate district delegates were elected to
the 1988 Republican National Convention from the
state.
(10) No delegate or alternate
delegate, or candidate for delegate or alternate delegate,
to the national convention shall be required to pay an
assessment or fee in excess of that provided by the law
of the state in which his or her election or selection
occurs as a condition of standing for election or serving
as a delegate or alternate delegate to the national
convention.
(11) There shall be no automatic
delegates to the national convention who serve by
virtue of party position or elective office, except as
provided for in Rule No. 13 (a)(2).
(12) No delegates or alternate
delegates shall be elected, selected, allocated, or bound
pursuant to any Republican Party rule of a state or state
law which materially changes the manner of electing,
selecting, allocating, or binding delegates or alternate
delegates or the date upon which such state Republican
Party holds a presidential primary, caucus, convention,
or meeting for the purpose of voting for a presidential
candidate and/or electing, selecting, allocating, or
binding delegates to the national convention if such
changes were adopted or made effective after October 1
of the year before the year in which the national
convention is to be held. Where it is not possible for a
state Republican Party to certify the manner and the
date upon which it holds a presidential primary, caucus,
convention, or meeting for the purpose of voting for a
presidential candidate and/or electing, selecting,
allocating, or binding delegates to the national
convention in effect in that state on the date and in the
manner provided in paragraph (e) of this rule, the
process for holding the presidential primary, caucus,
convention, or meeting for the purpose of voting for a
presidential candidate and/or electing, selecting,
allocating, or binding delegates to the national
convention shall be conducted in the same manner and
held upon the same date as was used for the
immediately preceding national convention. If it is not
possible to hold a presidential primary, caucus,
convention, or meeting for the purpose of voting for a
presidential candidate and/or electing, selecting,
allocating, or binding delegates to the national
convention upon the same date as was used for the23 of 41
immediately preceding national convention, then
delegates or alternate delegates shall be elected or
selected by Congressional district or state conventions
pursuant to paragraph (d) of this rule.
(d) Conventions.
Wherever state law permits or the Republican
Party rules of a state require the election of delegates
and alternate delegates by convention or there is no
applicable state law or Republican Party rule, delegates
and alternate delegates to the national convention shall
be elected by Congressional district or state
conventions pursuant to the following rules:
(1) Congressional district or state
conventions shall be called by the Republican state
committee.
(2) Delegates to Congressional
district conventions may be elected in precinct
caucuses, mass meetings, mass conventions, or county
conventions in which only eligible voters in such
precinct, county, or district, as the case may be, shall
vote.
(3) Notices of the call for any such
caucus, meeting, or convention shall be published in a
newspaper or newspapers of general circulation in the
county, district, or state, as the case may be, not less
than fifteen (l5) days prior to the date of such caucus,
meeting, or convention.
(4) No delegates shall be deemed
eligible to participate in any Congressional district or
state convention the purpose of which is to elect or
select delegates to the national convention who are
elected or selected prior to the date of the issuance of
the call of such national convention.
(5) Congressional district
conventions shall be composed of delegates who are
persons eligible to vote and who are deemed to be
Republicans pursuant to state law or party rules. State
conventions shall be composed of delegates who are
persons eligible to vote and who are deemed to be
Republicans pursuant to state law or party rules in the
respective districts which they represent in said state
conventions. Such delegates shall be apportioned by the
state Republican Party among counties, parishes, andcities of the state or district having regard to the
Republican vote or the population therein.
(6) There shall be no proxies at any
district or state convention (which shall not include
meetings of a Republican state committee) held for the
purpose of electing or selecting delegates to the national
convention. If alternate delegates to such selection
convention are elected or selected, the alternate
delegate and no other shall vote in the absence of the
delegate.
(e) Certification and filing by state
committees.
(1) On or before October 1 of the
year before the year in which the national convention is
to be held, each Republican state committee shall adopt
rules, procedures, policies, and instructive materials
(prepared pursuant to Rule No. 14(a)) governing the
election, selection, allocation, or binding of delegates
and alternate delegates to the national convention to
convene during the following year and shall certify and
file with the secretary of the Republican National
Committee true copies of the same and of all statutes
governing the election, selection, allocation, or binding
of such delegates and alternate delegates.
(2) The Republican National
Committee may grant a waiver to a state Republican
Party from certain provisions of this rule where it is not
possible for a state Republican Party to comply with the
October 1 deadline delineated in paragraph (e)(1) of
this rule and not possible for a state Republican Party to
hold its presidential primary, caucus, convention, or
meeting for the purpose of voting for a presidential
candidate and/or electing, selecting, allocating, or
binding delegates to the national convention as was
used for the immediately preceding national convention
or to elect, select, allocate, or bind delegates or alternate
delegates by Congressional district or state conventions
pursuant to paragraph (d) of this rule, and the
Republican National Committee determines that
granting such waiver is in the best interests of the
Republican Party.

[TheGrinch]

Ben Swann's reply to a blogger he posted on facebook:


"Thanks for reaching out. I think you make some very strong points including the issue of how this would affect those who have won state leadership positions. They may not want to compromise the effectiveness of reshaping the party in the long-term for a short term vote that may not translate into a nomination.

Keep in mind, those issues would have to be strategized by the campaign and their delegates as they get closer to the National Convention based upon how many delegates Congressman Paul will have and whether they can be effective in taking the nomination. My role is not to strategize for any campaign, rather to shed light on the system. What is done with that information is not for me to decide. I am going to post my response to you as well as the two main facts that you feel still need to be expressed. From your first point, it is clear that I am correct on the issue of delegates not being bound.

' # 1 : While the RNC does not recognize binding in any way of delegates at the RNC convention the States do recognize their rules and there could be consequences should a delegate go against party rules at the RNC convention.

# 2 : It is important that all delegates read their district/county AND state bylaws pertaining to the potential penalty that could be ensued if any should they break party rules. In some cases there is no penalty, in other cases the penalty could be fines of monetary consequence and worse being stripped of their delegate status for life. Now some will choose to accept the consequences while others may not be so willing or perhaps not be aware there is a consequence.'

The conversations over the binding of delegates and the role delegates will play in the Republican National Convention in Tampa are very important. I hope that we can continue to have a respectful and open discussion

B

[Celebs4RonPaul]

The Delegate Penalty Money Bomb?

I'm one of the organizers for the Paul Festival. I have a litigation attorney working with us who is asking where specifically these rules can be found - regarding assessment of penalties. The money raised from our event will be going towards promoting Dr. Paul anyway, and I'd like to have part of that go towards paying any fines incurred by delegates who get fined (if it becomes necessary). But we don't want to get hit with bribery charges and need to make absolute certain that we are okay to do this. Please help us find the truth and we will do everything within our means to help delegates vote according to their conscience. You can refer to my latest post on this below. I can be reached at jkim@paulfestival.com


http://www.paulfestival.org/liberty-blogs-2/187-the-things-that-are-impossible-with-people-are-possible-with-god-luke-18-27

[beezle]

Ben did not actually answer anything though, he just reiterated his previous erroneous report and fails to explain how to get around rule #15. I think everyone agrees rule 38 does not apply as no states have a delegate process that would invoke a unit rule.

[Celebs4RonPaul]

Does anybody know where I can find the ORIGINAL letter that this excerpt is taken from?



Jennifer Sheehan, Legal Council for the RNC, wrote a letter to Nancy Lord, Utah National Committee-Woman, asserting:

“The RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose, and the national convention allows delegates to vote for the individual of their choice, regardless of whether the person’s name is officially placed into nomination or not.”