PDA

View Full Version : Did MSNBC just state that all delegates are unbound?




SilenceDewgooder
06-22-2012, 06:21 AM
Ron Paul 'Revolution' strikes at GOP state parties

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/21/12343532-ron-paul-revolution-strikes-at-gop-state-parties?lite

Ron Paul’s third campaign for president may not lead to the Texas Congressman being nominated at the Republican Convention in Tampa this August -- notwithstanding a lawsuit filed by supporters in attempt to make that happen -- but, from Maine to Alaska, the “Paul Revolution” has swept state Republican parties.

Out of the national spotlight, Paul activists have mastered obscure local party rules to win key positions of power at state conventions, infiltrating the Republican establishment across the country, including in the key swing states of Iowa and Nevada.

In Massachusetts, they even beat out many prominent pro-Mitt Romney supporters to win spots as Romney delegates. They are informally bound by party rules to vote for Romney still, but the open secret in both parties, is no one is really bound – one of the issues at the heart of the Paul supporters’ lawsuit against the national party.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/120621_ron-paul-rally-4x3.photoblog600.jpg

Paul’s strategy has always been to motivate “the remnant” to gain influence by getting involved in party politics, and described how that would happen to a small group of reporters in Columbia, S.C., in mid-January.

“We don't win over the insiders by becoming like an insider,” Paul said. “We win the inside over by making the outsiders become more appropriate.”

But what Paul activists have done in many places is learn the rules of the insiders and use them against them.

After being described as “an outlier for the Republican Party,” Paul Wednesday morning on MSNBC, explained how supporters will achieve his long-term goal of bringing the GOP around to accepting his political philosophy.

“I want to work on the platform,” Paul said, “but we know platforms don't change people's attitudes. That's what we want to do -- get attention to changing the attitude, so that we, who are perceived as outliers, become the insiders. And that's what's happening. … We're winning state delegations, state chairmen and small offices, anywhere from city councils to county commissioners.”

Paul supporters are winning elections and becoming party insiders: chairmen, national committeemen, executive board members, elected officials, candidates and delegates.

- In Iowa, four of Paul’s former aides hold leadership positions at the state party, including chairman A.J. Spiker – who was Paul’s state co-chair. At least six members of the Iowa State Central Committee are Paul supporters.

- In Alaska, Republicans voted Russ Millette as the party’s new chairman and Debra Holle Brown as co-chair, both Paul supporters. Local reports call this a sea change in state politics, after “at least 12 years of the Alaska GOP being run by what those party newcomers call ‘establishment Republicans.’”

- In Nevada, Paul supporters won 13 of 14 new elected executive board spots at the Clark County GOP. Four years after having the lights turned out on them at the state convention in 2008, Paul supporters now hold positions at local and county GOP offices across the Silver State.

- In Minnesota, the state Republican Party endorsed Paul supporter and economics teacher Kurt Bills for the GOP Senate nomination. He will face incumbent Democrat Amy Klobuchar in November.

- And in Maine, 21-year-old Paul supporter Ashley Ryan was elected as the state’s new Republican national committeewoman. The Paul campaign claims she is likely the youngest national committeewoman.

“Look at the next generation,” Paul said on MSNBC. “I mean, there is so much excitement out there. The big deal is that the next generation are sick and tired of what they're getting and they're looking for something. And what we're offering seems to appeal to the young people.”

“I believe we're actually doing a favor for the Republican Party. If they would look to us for guidance and to realize that if they would accept some of these things, they might have an easier time winning.”

That said, not everyone's sold on just how lasting the impact of the "revolution" will be, considering Paul wasn't able to win a state in the GOP primary and didn't stop Romney, the most establishment of all the candidates, from becoming the nominee.

Asked which mattered more -- influence over party platform or being a state party chairman, Steve Schmidt, John McCain's 2008 campaign manager, dismissed either and said Paul supporters would be little more than a "hassle we'll have to deal with."

"I'm not sure that either have a particularly big influence on the direction of the party," Schmidt said on MSNBC. "When you have a state chairman who takes over a state party and the state party's dysfunctional, it's no longer relevant to the political goals of electing a majority, whether that's on the Democratic side or Republican side. Typically you see something that is taking place in California, for example, where you know the Republican parties become a small ideological clubhouse, totally faded to irrelevance where they-- factions gather twice every year to pass resolutions, denouncing the other faction, and it's a small clubhouse where people are relevant in the sphere of that small clubhouse, but no longer relevant in terms of being able to shape the outcome of an election -- to recruit candidates, to raise money, to register voters. And that's the direction these dysfunctional parties will go."

Jeff Johnson, a Republican National Committeeman from Minnesota, though, addressed the anxiety some in the establishment have over this increased participation by Paul’s followers.

“Ron Paul haters, get over it,” Johnson said. “If we don’t grow, we die as a party.”Nearing the end of his career, Paul, 76, calls his movement an “ideological revolution,” one he says is “alive and well.”

And this year, as Paul disciples become more involved and win elections, it’s a movement the Republican Party is being forced to deal with.

Bruno
06-22-2012, 06:39 AM
#stealthwin

torchbearer
06-22-2012, 06:55 AM
They are informally bound by party rules to vote for Romney still, but the open secret in both parties, is no one is really bound

i discussed think with some long time gop operatives, and they admitted that in the end, no one is really bound.

Bern
06-22-2012, 08:48 AM
There is no spoon, GOP.

newbitech
06-22-2012, 09:57 AM
So the question before the court is, 2 fold.

#1 Are the election laws in this country governed by the parties, or by the law of the land?

#2 If the parties broke their own laws AND the law of the land, WILL the courts hold those in the party who knowingly conspired to commit serial fraud, embezzlement, voter intimidation, and electioneering face the consequences as prescribed by the law of the land OR be handed back to their own parties to "self-regulate" ?

Either way, it cannot turn out good for those who have been running the parties since probably forever. That is because despite their cheating, they are losing their grip and will eventually face jungle justice (metaphorically speaking) or GASP! :eek: if the justice system grows a backbone criminal charges for racketeering and organized crime against the Unites States.

Either way, the fact that this new front is being opened up shows the anti-partisan nature of the peoples movement that is being catapulted to the forefront of American Politics by Ron Paul's Revolution. We are paving the way for ALL American's to join the battle against the establishment 1 party system of R's and D's.

This thing is just getting started people.

Constitutional Paulicy
06-22-2012, 10:06 AM
Well, I've heard that some states require this by law. Where as other states require it merely by party rules which can not demand that a delegate conform to expectations. Was this misinformation?

I know that the lawsuit is contesting the legal requirement. So if that overturns the law, then I imagine every state is fare game.

Is this correct?

SilenceDewgooder
06-22-2012, 12:02 PM
Well, I've heard that some states require this by law. Where as other states require it merely by party rules which can not demand that a delegate conform to expectations. Was this misinformation?

I know that the lawsuit is contesting the legal requirement. So if that overturns the law, then I imagine every state is fare game.

Is this correct?

In my eyes .... and I do not have a law degree..... Under 42 USC 1971(b): Intimidation, threats, or coercion

No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1971

Coercion: 1: to restrain or dominate by force 2: to compel to an act or choice 3: to achieve by force or threat

In similar news: H.R. 5815: Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2012; Introduced May 17, 2012
Referred to Committee May 17, 2012

This bill has a 1% chance of being enacted. The following factors were considered:

The sponsor is a member of the minority party. (-2%)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr5815

musicmax
06-22-2012, 12:37 PM
In my eyes .... and I do not have a law degree..... Under 42 USC 1971(b): Intimidation, threats, or coercion

No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1971


The question then becomes if a convention, where (a) an admission fee ("poll tax") is charged and (b) eligibility to vote is tightly controlled, qualifies as a "general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate".

SilenceDewgooder
06-22-2012, 12:49 PM
The question then becomes if a convention, where (a) an admission fee ("poll tax") is charged and (b) eligibility to vote is tightly controlled, qualifies as a "general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate".

Doesn't really matter what you classify the convention as; (general or special), since it is held in part for the purpose of (selecting or electing) such a candidate.