An assessment of the LA caucuses

[hueylong]

You wonder why Dr. Paul has an image problem.

The Louisiana organizers busted their asses, and did great. They just got outflanked by people who have been working in Republican politics in this state for 25 years or more.

We are amateurs at this process. Hard working, well intended amateurs -- but amateurs.

And when we don't win (and 99% of the people posting on these forums don't even know the most basic rules about how the caucus works) we run around screaming conspiracy, and corruption.

There was no conspiracy. There was no corruption. All the delegates were running uncommitted, and the pro-life slate turned out its people.

Last night, every idiot and his brother was running around claiming we had won every delegate in the state. Ridiculous.

Grow up.

Give the Louisiana organizers some props. They worked hard, and did their best.

After the provisional ballots are counted -- we'll know how many delegates (out of 105) we have elected to the state convention.

THEN -- we'll know what the situation is.

Til then -- get a grip.

[Give me liberty]

Btw on Nj radio station

Ron paul said HE might have come first place in Louisiana

[stevedasbach]

You wonder why Dr. Paul has an image problem.

The Louisiana organizers busted their asses, and did great. They just got outflanked by people who have been working in Republican politics in this state for 25 years or more.

We are amateurs at this process. Hard working, well intended amateurs -- but amateurs.

And when we don't win (and 99% of the people posting on these forums don't even know the most basic rules about how the caucus works) we run around screaming conspiracy, and corruption.

There was no conspiracy. There was no corruption. All the delegates were running uncommitted, and the pro-life slate turned out its people.

Last night, every idiot and his brother was running around claiming we had won every delegate in the state. Ridiculous.

Grow up.

Give the Louisiana organizers some props. They worked hard, and did their best.

After the provisional ballots are counted -- we'll know how many delegates (out of 105) we have elected to the state convention.

THEN -- we'll know what the situation is.

Til then -- get a grip.

+1776

[hueylong]

We'll know more after the provisional ballots are counted and we know which delegates have been elected.

In District 7, the provisionals probably won't matter. There is a huge drop off in the vote after the 15th spot (which is the cut off).

[wgadget]

Maybe we should have run as the PRO-FREEDOM or PRO-CONSTITUTION or PRO-AMERICAN slate.

[hueylong]

Wouldn't have made a difference.

[Computer]

You wonder why Dr. Paul has an image problem.

The Louisiana organizers busted their asses, and did great. They just got outflanked by people who have been working in Republican politics in this state for 25 years or more.

We are amateurs at this process. Hard working, well intended amateurs -- but amateurs.

And when we don't win (and 99% of the people posting on these forums don't even know the most basic rules about how the caucus works) we run around screaming conspiracy, and corruption.

There was no conspiracy. There was no corruption. All the delegates were running uncommitted, and the pro-life slate turned out its people.

Last night, every idiot and his brother was running around claiming we had won every delegate in the state. Ridiculous.

Grow up.

Give the Louisiana organizers some props. They worked hard, and did their best.

After the provisional ballots are counted -- we'll know how many delegates (out of 105) we have elected to the state convention.

THEN -- we'll know what the situation is.

Til then -- get a grip.

I disagree. This is a deceitful political tactic to disenfranchise Ron Paul supporters, who shouldn't be faulted. The pro-life vote was really a coalition of all the other candidates. The fact that all delegates are nominally undecided is just sophistry.

Consider this. Were this tactic implemented in every state, then candidate A, with 40% of the people's support, could conceivably be taken out of the race in the first stage by a coalition of canidates B-G, each with 10% support. That violates the principles of our representative democracy and is like something out of a third world sham election.

[hueylong]

Deceitful? What planet are you on? You don't even know the basics of the caucus rules.

All delegates ran uncommitted. We were just trying to elect our people, and they were trying to elect theirs.

In District 7 -- the delegates I see getting elected are all well known people who have worked in Republican politics for decades. They wanted to be delegates, they turned out their people. They won.

Grow up.

[Computer]

Deceitful? What planet are you on? You don't even know the basics of the caucus rules.

All delegates ran uncommitted. We were just trying to elect our people, and they were trying to elect theirs.

In District 7 -- the delegates I see getting elected are all well known people who have worked in Republican politics for decades. They wanted to be delegates, they turned out their people. They won.

Grow up.

As I explained, this tactic, were it the norm, could subvert the democratic favorite every time. Then, we're not living in a democracy, we're living in a back room power broker country. You're fervent SUPPORT of our disenfranchisement is SUSPICIOUS.

[VoluntaryMan]

I disagree. This is a deceitful political tactic to disenfranchise Ron Paul supporters, who shouldn't be faulted. The pro-life vote was really a coalition of all the other candidates. The fact that all delegates are nominally undecided is just sophistry.

Consider this. Were this tactic implemented in every state, then candidate A, with 40% of the people's support, could conceivably be taken out of the race in the first stage by a coalition of canidates B-G, each with 10% support. That violates the principles of our representative democracy and is like something out of a third world sham election.

+1861

[hueylong]

You're an idiot. This is how party politics have worked for 50 years.

You're just showing up to the game and claiming there's something wrong with it when you don't even know the basics.

This was an election to pick Delegates. Every single one of the delegates elected was UNCOMMITTED. The pro-life faction turned their people out. Period.

How about learning even the basics before making pronouncements about what democracy is.

[Computer]

You're an idiot. This is how party politics have worked for 50 years.

You're just showing up to the game and claiming there's something wrong with it when you don't even know the basics.

This was an election to pick Delegates. Every single one of the delegates elected was UNCOMMITTED. The pro-life faction turned their people out. Period.

How about learning even the basics before making pronouncements about what democracy is.

Uncommitted is just a word that really doesn't apply, because it doesn't describe the truth. I'm not an idiot. This is an outrage. How can the favorite candidate of the people be disenfranchised? Using this tactic, that's how. I don't support it. I support representative democracy. What planet are you from?

This isn't a game, like some kind of election run by a dictator in Africa. This violates the very principles of our Republic. Saying I'm late in the game, or other such nonsense is just ad hominem BS.

[dshields]

I really dislike the "would of, should of, could of" posts. Lets be objective and not critical here!


Congrats to Louisiana Supporters!!

Dave

[hueylong]

I'm from Louisiana. And I know something about how the caucus works.

And uncommitted DOES apply. Every delegate elected can vote for whoever they want. That's what uncommitted means.

[sidsquidrick]

Uncommitted is just a word that really doesn't apply, because it doesn't describe the truth. I'm not an idiot. This is an outrage. How can the facorite candidate of the people be disenfranchised? Using this tactic, that's how. I don't support it. I support representative democracy. What planet are you from?

OMG! He is not the favorite! I don't believe people like you! Do you really believe that an ACTUAL majority of the population of any state in this country PREFER Ron Paul? Of course not...corruption maybe a little, but sir, you are proposing an out right absurdity. This is why we must be more organized, more willing to stay the course. It will be an UPHILL battle, not because of corruption, but because not enough of our fellow citizens have woke up to the reality of the problems are nation faces. Please, please, take a deep breath and get back out there to the battle field.

Or as we say in the Army, stretch and drink water. ;)

S

[mrkurtz]

Deceitful? What planet are you on? You don't even know the basics of the caucus rules.

All delegates ran uncommitted. We were just trying to elect our people, and they were trying to elect theirs.

In District 7 -- the delegates I see getting elected are all well known people who have worked in Republican politics for decades. They wanted to be delegates, they turned out their people. They won.

Grow up.

Huey, I've had many nice conversations with you in the chat room, but I find your position completely incorrect.

If you truly had ANY experience like you claimed, why in your 800+ posts did you not ONCE suggest what can happen and actually HELP the grassroots develop a counter to it. Don't go tromping through a chat room claiming 25 years of experience yourself and not try to share that experience and strategic knowledge to the grassroots.

Other than that, you look like an ass... like you are throughout this sub forum.

[Computer]

I'm from Louisiana. And I know something about how the caucus works.

And uncommitted DOES apply. Every delegate elected can vote for whoever they want. That's what uncommitted means.

I know what's legal, but you have to look at the broader, natural principles and assumptions of our democracy, which these "legal" tactics clearly violate. Has this trickery ever been used before to subvert the democratic favorite? We change laws because not everything that's legal is right or the best way.

[j0ew00ds]

You're an idiot. This is how party politics have worked for 50 years.

You're just showing up to the game and claiming there's something wrong with it when you don't even know the basics.

This was an election to pick Delegates. Every single one of the delegates elected was UNCOMMITTED. The pro-life faction turned their people out. Period.

How about learning even the basics before making pronouncements about what democracy is.

Huey,
I used to respect you for many of your insightful posts on this forum. However, I see no reason to disrespect this person by telling him/her to "grow up" or "you're an idiot." Those statements are contradictory, doncha think?
Despite your claim that this has "been going on for 50 years" don't you think a person "new to the game" might offer better insight to the situation that in fact, it isn't a very upstanding way to win an election?
Perhaps you, sir, need to grow up and respect your peers.

[arctica2]

Huey, I've had many nice conversations with you in the chat room, but I find your position completely incorrect.

If you truly had ANY experience like you claimed, why in your 800+ posts did you not ONCE suggest what can happen and actually HELP the grassroots develop a counter to it. Don't go tromping through a chat room claiming 25 years of experience yourself and not try to share that experience and strategic knowledge to the grassroots.

Other than that, you look like an ass... like you are throughout this sub forum.

Pwned! I agree w/ Mr. Kurtz.

[MsDoodahs]

Y'all CHILL OUT for just a moment and let me ask a question, here, okay?

Huey...if they are all uncommitted now, do you think we can have an impact on swaying them before the state convention?

If so, when is that convention and how best to approach this effort?

Thanks. :)

Our LA RP people worked their butts off and I'm proud of every one of 'em.

[stevedasbach]

I disagree. This is a deceitful political tactic to disenfranchise Ron Paul supporters, who shouldn't be faulted. The pro-life vote was really a coalition of all the other candidates. The fact that all delegates are nominally undecided is just sophistry.

Consider this. Were this tactic implemented in every state, then candidate A, with 40% of the people's support, could conceivably be taken out of the race in the first stage by a coalition of canidates B-G, each with 10% support. That violates the principles of our representative democracy and is like something out of a third world sham election.

How many times have Ron Paul supporters posted that we want all the neocons to remain in the race spliting the vote so that Paul can will with a small plurality. How is that different?

Is it a "violation of our representative democracy" that Thompson stayed in the race for South Carolina, probably taking votes that would have otherwise gone to Huckabee and enabling McCain to win?

The other side used a legitimate tactic against us in Louisiana. Once the provisional ballots are counted, we'll have a better idea how successful it was.

[GoDrNo]

Has this trickery ever been used before to subvert the democratic favorite? We change laws because not everything that's legal is right or the best way.

I'm pretty sure that creating voter blocs to make sure that you have enough votes to get your agenda heard has been used since the very first time people decided that casting votes was better than beating each other up side the head to decide an issue.

Basically it's how any system with political parties work. Instead of having 62,000,000 votes cast willy nilly people band together to create a voter bloc (GOP, Dem. Party, Libertarian Party), by getting all the people in their bloc to vote for the same candidate/issue they have a better chance of winning.

[Computer]

OMG! He is not the favorite! I don't believe people like you! Do you really believe that an ACTUAL majority of the population of any state in this country PREFER Ron Paul? Of course not...corruption maybe a little, but sir, you are proposing an out right absurdity. This is why we must be more organized, more willing to stay the course. It will be an UPHILL battle, not because of corruption, but because not enough of our fellow citizens have woke up to the reality of the problems are nation faces. Please, please, take a deep breath and get back out there to the battle field.

Or as we say in the Army, stretch and drink water. ;)

S

Turning out voters/caucusers is a legitimate political tactic and it is a measurement of the passion of the candidate's supporters. While we may not have a majority, it sounds like we had a clear, bold plurality of caucus goers. Therfore, we were disenfranchised by shady backroom deals. It sucks. I think it should be challenged just to shine the light of day on it. It's BS. We're nominating an individual in this process. For some individuals to covertly coalesce into a coalition, vanquish the front runner, then de-coalesce later on, it's absurd, particularly when the coalition is hidden behiond words and sophistry.

[speciallyblend]

your post was good but one fatal error they were not uncommited they were rudy/huckabee supporters thats not uncommited there ticket was a complete lie the pro life/family ticket is a complete false lie

[jdmetz]

your post was good but one fatal error they were not uncommited they were rudy/huckabee supporters thats not uncommited

They were the local top GOP members who have been involved in the GOP for years. If they happen to support rudy/huckabee or anyone else it just shows that we've failed to convert the establishment. It should not be a surprise to us that the establishment GOP knows what they are doing and want to be in control.

Anyway, they could still be converted to Ron Paul, so that is what needs to be done now.

[jdmetz]

Maybe we should have run as the PRO-FREEDOM or PRO-CONSTITUTION or PRO-AMERICAN slate.

I think most mainstream GOP voters care more about pro-life. :(

[josh24601]

My first post here was almost identical to this one.

I gave up. Most people here are reactionary short-term thinkers. There are a good amount that aren't, and are level-headed and are thinking about 5-10 years from now and what the message could be and how it can be built into something, and they are why I still hang around.

But most people here are either new to Ron Paul, new to politics, new to conservativism, etc. And they have zero patience, and will probably move on to something else after they don't get their win-or-nothing. It's just a fact, unfortunately. It's that same volatility in thinking that brought them here from wherever they came, and it's what will prompt them to jump on a new train once their unreasonable hopes are dashed.

I just ignore them all now, or I'd have to never come to these forums.

[Computer]

My first post here was almost identical to this one.

I gave up. Most people here are reactionary short-term thinkers. There are a good amount that aren't, and are level-headed and are thinking about 5-10 years from now and what the message could be and how it can be built into something, and they are why I still hang around.

But most people here are either new to Ron Paul, new to politics, new to conservativism, etc. And they have zero patience, and will probably move on to something else after they don't get their win-or-nothing. It's just a fact, unfortunately. It's that same volatility in thinking that brought them here from wherever they came, and it's what will prompt them to jump on a new train once their unreasonable hopes are dashed.

I just ignore them all now, or I'd have to never come to these forums.

Let me say what you just said with less words:

If you support fairness in elections, then you're a fair weather supporter of Dr. Paul.

[FluffyUnbound]

I know what's legal, but you have to look at the broader, natural principles and assumptions of our democracy, which these "legal" tactics clearly violate. Has this trickery ever been used before to subvert the democratic favorite? We change laws because not everything that's legal is right or the best way.

You are being silly.

Those "unfair" rules were what gave us a chance to win this thing in the first place - because it created a little-attended caucus where the candidate names didn't appear on the ballot and where with some luck and some good grassroots organizing we could turn a couple of thousand votes into grabbing the delegates for a state with millions in population.

Someone else just [apparently - it ain't over] did a better job than we did at playing those rules.

Without the antidemocratic rules you're complaining about, we never would have had a chance in the first place.

[FluffyUnbound]

Turning out voters/caucusers is a legitimate political tactic and it is a measurement of the passion of the candidate's supporters. While we may not have a majority, it sounds like we had a clear, bold plurality of caucus goers. Therfore, we were disenfranchised by shady backroom deals. It sucks. I think it should be challenged just to shine the light of day on it. It's BS. We're nominating an individual in this process. For some individuals to covertly coalesce into a coalition, vanquish the front runner, then de-coalesce later on, it's absurd, particularly when the coalition is hidden behiond words and sophistry.

OK, now we'll do your post with fewer words:

We were disenfranchised because we weren't allowed to win with less than a majority of a tiny fraction of voters.

[josh24601]

Let me say what you just said with less words:

If you support fairness in elections, then you're a fair weather supporter of Dr. Paul.

Actually, what I said is most Ron Paul supporters have unrealistic expectations and become emotional and petulant when what they unreasonably anticipate doesn't come to fruition.

But thanks for reminding me, I forgot to add that when this happens, they have a tendency to blame various types of conspiracies for the failure of their imagined realities to materialize.

[Computer]

You are being silly.

Those "unfair" rules were what gave us a chance to win this thing in the first place - because it created a little-attended caucus where the candidate names didn't appear on the ballot and where with some luck and some good grassroots organizing we could turn a couple of thousand votes into grabbing the delegates for a state with millions in population.

Someone else just [apparently - it ain't over] did a better job than we did at playing those rules.

Without the antidemocratic rules you're complaining about, we never would have had a chance in the first place.

I don't think so. We were there to support an individual human being running for the presidency. Our strategy was to win by TURNOUT, which is legitimate in a representative democracy. We were beat by a legal, artificial corporate entity of the opposition's supporters, who will now dissolve into regular individual humans. The entity was nominally composed of "undecided" delagates who were "for" life and families. Their strategy was to win by a covert, temporary INCORPORATION.

[Doriath]

A thought experiment:

Suppose that instead of Paul and McCain having the only two (mostly) complete delegate slates, it had been Romney and McCain, and Paul had only a partial list.

And then suppose that before the caucuses the Paul, Thompson and Huckabee delegates combined their partial slates into one "pro life/pro family" slate. And that as a result they got some delegates, instead of running each alone and losing all to Romney and McCain.

Question: In this case, would RP supporters be bashing RP for "undemocratic" tactics? Or would they be praising a canny political move that made sure Ron didn't get shut out in LA?

[josh24601]

We were beat by a legal corporate entity of the opposition's supporters, who will know dissolve into regular individual humans.

Sometimes I think we really are the lunatic fringe. I guess I should take my own advice and ignore this stuff, but I become more and more concerned that most of this movement is thinking this way.

I don't know where to begin... Legal corporate entity? Do you just make things up? Dissolve into humans?

[Computer]

Sometimes I think we really are the lunatic fringe. I guess I should take my own advice and ignore this stuff, but I become more and more concerned that most of this movement is thinking this way.

I don't know where to begin... Legal corporate entity? Do you just make things up? Dissolve into humans?

I'm eliminating the obfuscation so that we can understand more clearly what took place. That is not lunacy. We were disenfranchised by a coalition, yet we're nominating an individual. If you go back and forth from coalitions to individuals, it can subvert the will of the people. The worse thing is, this was done with a high degree of obfuscation. Now that this coalition has eliminated the favorite, it will morph into the individual candidates again. I don't blame people for not getting what is happening. It's very sophisticated.

[Computer]

A thought experiment:

Suppose that instead of Paul and McCain having the only two (mostly) complete delegate slates, it had been Romney and McCain, and Paul had only a partial list.

And then suppose that before the caucuses the Paul, Thompson and Huckabee delegates combined their partial slates into one "pro life/pro family" slate. And that as a result they got some delegates, instead of running each alone and losing all to Romney and McCain.

Question: In this case, would RP supporters be bashing RP for "undemocratic" tactics? Or would they be praising a canny political move that made sure Ron didn't get shut out in LA?

Question: Is it relevant? It's often up to the victims to illuminate injustices.

[Computer]

A thought experiment:

Suppose that instead of Paul and McCain having the only two (mostly) complete delegate slates, it had been Romney and McCain, and Paul had only a partial list.

And then suppose that before the caucuses the Paul, Thompson and Huckabee delegates combined their partial slates into one "pro life/pro family" slate. And that as a result they got some delegates, instead of running each alone and losing all to Romney and McCain.

Question: In this case, would RP supporters be bashing RP for "undemocratic" tactics? Or would they be praising a canny political move that made sure Ron didn't get shut out in LA?

People are just so dang smitten with undemocratic flourishes. Why don't you move to Venezuela? You'll have ample opportunity to admire many "canny political moves".

[Anna Karenina]

I disagree. This is a deceitful political tactic to disenfranchise Ron Paul supporters, who shouldn't be faulted. The pro-life vote was really a coalition of all the other candidates. The fact that all delegates are nominally undecided is just sophistry.

Consider this. Were this tactic implemented in every state, then candidate A, with 40% of the people's support, could conceivably be taken out of the race in the first stage by a coalition of canidates B-G, each with 10% support. That violates the principles of our representative democracy and is like something out of a third world sham election.

You have a great point. Could RP delegates have omitted RP's name entirely and called themselves the Pro-Life, Pro-Constitution, Pro-America slate? This is something to think about for future caucuses and elections that have similar opportunities.

[sidsquidrick]

I'm eliminating the obfuscation so that we can understand more clearly what took place. That is not lunacy. We were disenfranchised by a coalition, yet we're nominating an individual. If you go back and forth from coalitions to individuals, it can subvert the will of the people. The worse thing is, this was done with a high degree of obfuscation. Now that this coalition has eliminated the favorite, it will morph into the individual candidates again. I don't blame people for not getting what is happening. It's very sophisticated.

Great clarification...in four years we need to remember this...chances are we are going to be fighting this fight in four years.
Before I get jumped as uncommitted too, I say that not because Ron can't win the nomination, but because no matter what, we need to keep fighting for the constitution EVERY election. This is a lifelong fight.

S

[josh24601]

I'm eliminating the obfuscation so that we can understand more clearly what took place. That is not lunacy. We were disenfranchised by a coalition, yet we're nominating an individual. If you go back and forth from coalitions to individuals, it can subvert the will of the people. The worse thing is, this was done with a high degree of obfuscation. Now that this coalition has eliminated the favorite, it will morph into the individual candidates again. I don't blame people for not getting what is happening. It's very sophisticated.

So why, in your mind, did people vote for the candidates that represented themselves as pro-life and pro-family? Are they not pro-life and pro-family? Are they going to go to their convention and vote for something other than pro-life or pro-family? How exactly is any voters' will who voted for them being subverted?

It was the people of Louisiana who decided to grant victory to a slate of delegates that were a coalition that did not represent a single person, but rather an idea - that being that pro-life and pro-family (whatever that must mean to them) was more important than any single person. THE PEOPLE OF LOUISIANA MADE THIS DECISION.

In the marketplace of ideas, this pro-life pro-family slate knew what it's market wanted, and provided it. Ron Paul did not. Don't make up some type of conspiracy when the voters of Louisiana clearly and of sound and sober mind decided that they would rather elect a coalition of delegates committed to single issues than any actual one person.

Your problem is with the people of Louisiana, but because you are a populist reactionary, you are trying to invent some type of conspiracy where not only are the people not to blame, but if only they weren't being "oppressed", you would have actually got what you wanted!

[MsDoodahs]

no matter what, we need to keep fighting for the constitution EVERY election. This is a lifelong fight.

S

QFT.

:)

[Computer]

So why, in your mind, did people vote for the candidates that represented themselves as pro-life and pro-family? Are they not pro-life and pro-family? Are they going to go to their convention and vote for something other than pro-life or pro-family? How exactly is any voters' will who voted for them being subverted?

It was the people of Louisiana who decided to grant victory to a slate of delegates that were a coalition that did not represent a single person, but rather an idea - that being that pro-life and pro-family (whatever that must mean to them) was more important than any single person. THE PEOPLE OF LOUISIANA MADE THIS DECISION.

In the marketplace of ideas, this pro-life pro-family slate knew what it's market wanted, and provided it. Ron Paul did not. Don't make up some type of conspiracy when the voters of Louisiana clearly and of sound and sober mind decided that they would rather elect a coalition of delegates committed to single issues than any actual one person.

Your problem is with the people of Louisiana, but because you are a populist reactionary, you are trying to invent some type of conspiracy where not only are the people not to blame, but if only they weren't being "oppressed", you would have actually got what you wanted!

I believe that what actually took place, was that Huckabee, McCain, Romney supporters, et al, knew they were being outgunned by Paul, who is pro-life and family, incidentally, and that the pro-life/pro-family slate was really a nudge nudge wink wink way to completely eliminate the huge Ron Paul faction.

So, yes, my contention is that this wasn't a sincere issues vote, but an obfuscated coalition specifically formed to disenfranchise Ron Paul supporters.

My reasoning to arrive at this conclusion is based on the fact that no where else in the country have we seen such a vague entity dominating over the popularity of the individual candidates. Plus, Ron Paul was poised to do extremely well, according to all accounts. Enter a vague new entity, the pro-life, pro-family slate.

Hmmmm.

[josh24601]

I believe that what actually took place, was that Huckabee, McCain, Romney supporters, et al, knew they were being outgunned by Paul, who is pro-life and family, incidentally, and that the pro-life/pro-family slate was really a nudge nudge wink wink way to completely eliminate the huge Ron Paul faction.

So, yes, my contention is that this wasn't a sincere issues vote, but an obfuscated coalition specifically formed to disenfranchise Ron Paul supporters.

My reasoning to arrive at this conclusion is based on the fact that no where else in the country have we seen such a vague entity dominating over the popularity of the individual candidates. Plus, Ron Paul was poised to do extremely well, according to all accounts. Enter a vague new entity, the pro-life, pro-family slate.

Hmmmm.

Again.... the people of Louisiana decided that they they preferred this vague coalition to Ron Paul. You don't want to see that, so I can't really help you.

[Computer]

Furthermore, where were all the supporters of the other candidates? And do people really show up to participate in the nominating process when they don't even have a candidate? This has not happened in any other state. Are people in the Louisiance GOP really that different? Wouldn't someone who was very pro-life investigate the candidates and then select the most pro-life candidate? These are all reasons that I feel this pro-life slate was a sham, and it was really a coalition of supporters of other candidates to disenfranchise Paul's fervant sypporters.

[Computer]

Again.... the people of Louisiana decided that they they preferred this vague coalition to Ron Paul. You don't want to see that, so I can't really help you.

I don't think there's more evidence for the conclusion than for my contention. So let people decide what they think happened.

[josh24601]

Furthermore, where were all the supporters of the other candidates? And do people really show up to participate in the nominating process when they don't even have a candidate? Wouldn't someone who was very pro-life investigate the candidates and then select the most pro-life candidate? These are all reasons that I feel this pro-life slate was a sham, and it was really a coalition of supporters of other candidates to disenfranchise Paul's fervant sypporters.

The citizens of the sovereign state of Louisiana decided they would rather choose a coalition based on a slate than a particular person. Get over it already.

[Computer]

The citizens of the sovereign state of Louisiana decided they would rather choose a coalition based on a slate than a particular person. Get over it already.

Josh is a terrible name by the way, IMO.

[josh24601]

I don't think there's more evidence for the conclusion than for my contention. So let people decide what they think happened.

Now you are being completely illogical. It is your burden to provide evidence of a conspiracy. You can't say that there are WMDs here and then tell me to prove it's not true.

[MsDoodahs]

So, yes, my contention is that this wasn't a sincere issues vote, but an obfuscated coalition specifically formed to disenfranchise Ron Paul supporters.



Politics is a bloodsport.

Hardball.

We're new at this game, but we are quick studies.

Fool us once, shame on you.

Fool us twice, shame on US.

We can't let this kind of shit happen again.

Louisiana is a LEARNING EXPERIENCE.

Take it as such.

Get wise.

Get tough.

Play hardball with the big boys.

:D

[josh24601]

Josh is a terrible name by the way, IMO.

I think that pretty much ends this thread.

Tell me how your conspiracy investigation goes, I'm gonna be up all night waiting to hear the results.

[Computer]

Politics is a bloodsport.

Hardball.

We're new at this game, but we are quick studies.

Fool us once, shame on you.

Fool us twice, shame on US.

We can't let this kind of shit happen again.

Louisiana is a LEARNING EXPERIENCE.

Take it as such.

Get wise.

Get tough.

Play hardball with the big boys.

:D

:D

[mosquitobite]

Uncommitted is just a word that really doesn't apply, because it doesn't describe the truth. I'm not an idiot. This is an outrage. How can the favorite candidate of the people be disenfranchised? Using this tactic, that's how. I don't support it. I support representative democracy. What planet are you from?

This isn't a game, like some kind of election run by a dictator in Africa. This violates the very principles of our Republic. Saying I'm late in the game, or other such nonsense is just ad hominem BS.

Stop being hateful, both of you.

Read the link in my signature. Rodo1776 explained caucuses to us. Huey is correct - this is the way it's done. Whether we like it, whether we knew it, etc is irrelevant and the bickering doesn't solve shit.

We either learn how to work within the system, or we need to run 3rd party. Period.

Otherwise, we have no right to bitch when people who have been going to caucuses for years show up the newbies.

We have to educate ourselves here. If Ron Paul gets elected does everyone understand what a libertarian society would look like? Do you understand that expecting direction from the campaign is just what other candidates would like you to do (but not Ron Paul!)

We have to know what to expect. We have to learn, ask questions, talk to older people who HAVE gone to caucuses. We need to volunteer to be LEADERS. We have to go to meet ups!

If we fail, we have ourselves to blame.

jmho
.

[mosquitobite]

Politics is a bloodsport.

Hardball.

We're new at this game, but we are quick studies.

Fool us once, shame on you.

Fool us twice, shame on US.

We can't let this kind of shit happen again.

Louisiana is a LEARNING EXPERIENCE.

Take it as such.

Get wise.

Get tough.

Play hardball with the big boys.

:D


*mosquitobite stands and applauds* :D

QFT ;)

[MsDoodahs]

If we fail, we have ourselves to blame.

jmho
.

I share that view.

It's far EASIER to blame the MSM, the powers that be, HQ, ANYONE other than face the fact: we're new at this and we're learning on the fly. That means sometimes we are going to make mistakes along the way.

When we don't win, it HURTS. That is okay. What is NOT okay is to let it whip you.

You are NOT whipped. Not a damned one of us is whipped.

You pick yourself up and you dust yourself off and you KEEP FIGHTING.

Look, people. No one said this would be easy. Least of all Ron Paul. He knows what we are up against.

Now, as time goes by, more and more of us are beginning to realize what we are up against.

Stop blaming others.

Regroup. Refocus. Learn from this experience and use what we've learned in the next battle.

The only other option is to quit.

I am not a quitter.

Are you?

[josh24601]

It wuz teh CFR....

Yeah I don't mean to sound bitter, I am just sick and tired of people blaming conspiracies when they don't get what they want, rather than actually examining reality.

[mosquitobite]

I'm not!
:D

And again, people need to remember this rEVOLution doesn't end with Dr Paul - or at least it doesn't for me. Consider all these losses as VALUABLE lessons that we can use to support OUR LIBERTY CANDIDATE in 2012!! (that is of course if we still have a country by then!) ;)

We will have the experience and people in place to start the tidal wave. Don't let losses beat you up! LEARN from them!

[RonPaulFTW08]

bump

[josh24601]

I'm not!
And again, people need to remember this rEVOLution doesn't end with Dr Paul - or at least it doesn't for me. Consider all these lessons as VALUABLE lessons that we can use to support OUR LIBERTY CANDIDATE in 2012!! (that is of course if we still have a country by then!) ;)


A-freakin-men. I am vary afraid that lots of people will jump off the bandwagon and take up some other cause when the dust settles here, but it is my sincere hope that this remains a viable political movement that has an influence in the dialogue and politics of the nation for a long while to come.

[colin1]

I share that view.

It's far EASIER to blame the MSM, the powers that be, HQ, ANYONE other than face the fact: we're new at this and we're learning on the fly. That means sometimes we are going to make mistakes along the way.

When we don't win, it HURTS. That is okay. What is NOT okay is to let it whip you.

You are NOT whipped. Not a damned one of us is whipped.

You pick yourself up and you dust yourself off and you KEEP FIGHTING.

Look, people. No one said this would be easy. Least of all Ron Paul. He knows what we are up against.

Now, as time goes by, more and more of us are beginning to realize what we are up against.

Stop blaming others.

Regroup. Refocus. Learn from this experience and use what we've learned in the next battle.

The only other option is to quit.

I am not a quitter.

Are you?

I'm sorry but we're not running this campaign. It's HQ's responsibility to give guidance and strategy to the grassroots volunteers. They should have known about this tactic and more importantly should have let us know. That would have saved thousands of man-hours in anger, frustration and confusion over this. Did anyone receive any guidance regarding this? And yes I agree with you, we're going to have to take more responsibility in making sure we don't get outplayed next time.

[mosquitobite]

I'm sorry but we're not running this campaign. It's HQ's responsibility to give guidance and strategy to the grassroots volunteers. They should have known about this tactic and more importantly should have let us know. That would have saved thousands of man-hours in anger, frustration and confusion over this. Did anyone receive any guidance regarding this? And yes I agree with you, we're going to have to take more responsibility in making sure we don't get outplayed next time.

See posts from Rodo1776 from the December timeframe. He posted, and I've bumped the hell out of his posts. Whose fault is it if people don't read and gain the knowledge?

And again, I'm tired of people blaming the campaign. ESPECIALLY in this particular case! Do I feel like they could have done something? Maybe.

But then I remember Ron Paul leans very libertarian. Does everyone here really truly understand what that means, and what a libertarian society would expect of you?

The way Dr Paul's campaign is being run is LIBERTARIAN in nature!! He expects us to do our duty, as we SHOULD. He expects us to learn what we need to learn and use it to help him promote liberty. We can't expect others to coddle and order us around. We can't expect him or his campaign to tell us what to do. We need to figure it out for ourselves, and with time left over. If you expect orders from above, you should really read up on libertarianism before supporting it.

Go to meetups people. There is NO excuse not to.

*mosquitobite hops off her soap box*

[jabrownie]

Ladies and gents;

We fought a good fight, got outflanked, and lost this battle. Is the war over, NO! So, don't get discouraged, get out there and fight.

As for how we got outflanked, was it 'fair', NO!; was it 'honest', 'moral', or done without deceit and trickery, NO!. Oh, well, live and learn from it, remember it for other states, and other elections. This is not a game of patty-cake, so don't get shocked by this crap, learn it, figure out how to beat it, adapt.

When you get smacked down, you pick yourself up as quickly as possible; that's what we need to do now. I still hear the battle cry off in the distance, I still hear the horn of liberty blowing loud; so pick yourselves up, dust yourselves off, and rally to the standard in Maine.

[JWZguy]

Ladies and gents;

We fought a good fight, got outflanked, and lost this battle. Is the war over, NO! So, don't get discouraged, get out there and fight.

As for how we got outflanked, was it 'fair', NO!; was it 'honest', 'moral', or done without deceit and trickery, NO!. Oh, well, live and learn from it, remember it for other states, and other elections. This is not a game of patty-cake, so don't get shocked by this crap, learn it, figure out how to beat it, adapt.

When you get smacked down, you pick yourself up as quickly as possible; that's what we need to do now. I still hear the battle cry off in the distance, I still hear the horn of liberty blowing loud; so pick yourselves up, dust yourselves off, and rally to the standard in Maine.

The results are NOT IN YET.

Stop saying we lost! In several districts, if ALL our votes are actually counted, we WON.

No matter what, it looks like RP had more votes than any other single candidate! They couldn't even fill their own slates! We ARE winners here, one way or another.

We just need to carry this support on to other large states.

[Sandra]

I can't believe everyone in here is screaming that we lost. THE PROVISIONAL BALLOT HAVE NOT NOT BEEN COUNTED!!!!!

[JWZguy]

I can't believe everyone in here is screaming that we lost. THE PROVISIONAL BALLOT HAVE NOT NOT BEEN COUNTED!!!!!

Thank you Sandra!

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

Ladies and gents;

We fought a good fight, got outflanked, and lost this battle. Is the war over, NO! So, don't get discouraged, get out there and fight.

As for how we got outflanked, was it 'fair', NO!; was it 'honest', 'moral', or done without deceit and trickery, NO!. Oh, well, live and learn from it, remember it for other states, and other elections. This is not a game of patty-cake, so don't get shocked by this crap, learn it, figure out how to beat it, adapt.

When you get smacked down, you pick yourself up as quickly as possible; that's what we need to do now. I still hear the battle cry off in the distance, I still hear the horn of liberty blowing loud; so pick yourselves up, dust yourselves off, and rally to the standard in Maine.

You can't beat the people who make the rules.
It would be like the NFL saying next Sunday that the quarterback for New England can't play due to a last minute rule change, like in Nevada where they changed caucus location and provisional rules a few days before.
There is no way to prepare for infinite possibilities.

[Sandra]

You can't beat the people who make the rules.
It would be like the NFL saying next Sunday that the quarterback for New England can't play due to a last minute rule change, like in Nevada where they changed caucus location and provisional rules a few days before.
There is no way to prepare for infinite possibilities.


Well said, Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice....now submit a full body shot of your avatar!

[Bradley in DC]

Ok, a couple of random thoughts:

MsD. is right in that we're the real campaign--we need to learn from each other. We're still in the first few innings. What are the lessons here? Jenn had some about how to dress and present ourselves. Our LA activists did a LOT right--hats off to them! Obviously, HQ (well, nevermind, I've made my opinion of their Republican presidential primary sophistication--or lack thereof--pretty clear).

So, most importantly, where do we go from here? All of us in our respective states (or "states" for DC and territories), need to learn the rules (don't count on HQ):

Roughly half are straight primary states. In these places learn how the delegates are allocated (both by CD and AL which might be different). Are they decided winner-take-all or proportionately? It might not be that simple. For example, in many states, it will be winner-take-all by CD and proportional by AL. Every state has their own rules. Learn them.

In the caucus (or more confusingly mixed caucus/primary/convention/meeting states), things are more complicated. You REALLY need to learn the rules here. Find the old hands who have played the game before. Ask them how it's played. LISTEN TO THEM.

Now comes the tough part: grow up and make alliances if you have to with other campaigns.

[Sandra]

Actually the Pro Life/Family group has a lot in common with RP. They are just notaware of his stance on right to life. Some in BR now are.

[colin1]

See posts from Rodo1776 from the December timeframe. He posted, and I've bumped the hell out of his posts. Whose fault is it if people don't read and gain the knowledge?

And again, I'm tired of people blaming the campaign. ESPECIALLY in this particular case! Do I feel like they could have done something? Maybe.

But then I remember Ron Paul leans very libertarian. Does everyone here really truly understand what that means, and what a libertarian society would expect of you?

The way Dr Paul's campaign is being run is LIBERTARIAN in nature!! He expects us to do our duty, as we SHOULD. He expects us to learn what we need to learn and use it to help him promote liberty. We can't expect others to coddle and order us around. We can't expect him or his campaign to tell us what to do. We need to figure it out for ourselves, and with time left over. If you expect orders from above, you should really read up on libertarianism before supporting it.

Go to meetups people. There is NO excuse not to.

*mosquitobite hops off her soap box*

So now Rodo1776 is the official campaign? :rolleyes:

Many people here are brand new to politics, and yes, it's the responsibility of HQ to provide guidance in an organized way to the grassroots. Some guy on here posting stuff back in December is a sorry substitute for effective communication from HQ to the meetup groups regarding tactics and strategy here. You're tired of people blaming HQ, I'm tired of people blaming the grassroots. I didn't realize libertarianism meant that we couldn't have effective leadership and discipline from the campaign HQ, but knowing how Libertarians usually do running for office, maybe you're right ;)

[mosquitobite]

Ok, a couple of random thoughts:

MsD. is right in that we're the real campaign--we need to learn from each other. We're still in the first few innings. What are the lessons here? Jenn had some about how to dress and present ourselves. Our LA activists did a LOT right--hats off to them! Obviously, HQ (well, nevermind, I've made my opinion of their Republican presidential primary sophistication--or lack thereof--pretty clear).

So, most importantly, where do we go from here? All of us in our respective states (or "states" for DC and territories), need to learn the rules (don't count on HQ):

Roughly half are straight primary states. In these places learn how the delegates are allocated (both by CD and AL which might be different). Are they decided winner-take-all or proportionately? It might not be that simple. For example, in many states, it will be winner-take-all by CD and proportional by AL. Every state has their own rules. Learn them.

In the caucus (or more confusingly mixed caucus/primary/convention/meeting states), things are more complicated. You REALLY need to learn the rules here. Find the old hands who have played the game before. Ask them how it's played. LISTEN TO THEM.

Now comes the tough part: grow up and make alliances if you have to with other campaigns.

Our biggest strength would be knowing who the other supporters are and standing strong together (even in hiding if that's what's necessary).

If people went to meetups and knew who the RP delegate noms were without them shouting it to the world, yesterday might have had a very different conclusion.

It was Ron Paul vs the others. When really it should have been US throwing the others off balance wondering "so which ones ARE the Ron Paul supporters?" ;)

[werdd]

You can't beat the people who make the rules.
It would be like the NFL saying next Sunday that the quarterback for New England can't play due to a last minute rule change, like in Nevada where they changed caucus location and provisional rules a few days before.
There is no way to prepare for infinite possibilities.

tom brady?

[dspectre]

I'm from Louisiana. And I know something about how the caucus works.

And uncommitted DOES apply. Every delegate elected can vote for whoever they want. That's what uncommitted means.


I agree with your assessment of the situation. What happened is just how the game is played.

However, this idea of uncommitted delegates is like saying the media is unbiased, and we know how ridiculous that is.

If these delegates were really uncommitted, why didn't we just forget the caucus and focus on the primary. Since these supposed uncommitted delegates would vote in line of the people, right?

[stevedasbach]

I don't think so. We were there to support an individual human being running for the presidency. Our strategy was to win by TURNOUT, which is legitimate in a representative democracy. We were beat by a legal, artificial corporate entity of the opposition's supporters, who will now dissolve into regular individual humans. The entity was nominally composed of "undecided" delagates who were "for" life and families. Their strategy was to win by a covert, temporary INCORPORATION.

The election was for delegates to the state convention, who are responsible for doing other things besides electing delegates to the national convention.

The other side, consisting of mostly long-time activists and elected officials, banded together to support each other's campaigns to be elected as delegates. They formed a slate to accomplish this objective. They support a variety of presidential candidates.

Our side, consisting of mostly people new to political action, banded together to support a specific presidential candidate. Being elected delegate was a means to an end, not the end itself. We formed a slate to accomplish this objective.

For us, the presidential choice is most important. For them, being a delegate and making party decisions is most important. I suspect that if one candidate was running away with the nomination, they would have all been for that candidate. For them, it was all about getting themselves elected. And technically, they are correct. The election was to elect delegates, not endorse a presidential candidate.

[aymn27]

You wonder why Dr. Paul has an image problem.

The Louisiana organizers busted their asses, and did great. They just got outflanked by people who have been working in Republican politics in this state for 25 years or more.

We are amateurs at this process. Hard working, well intended amateurs -- but amateurs.

And when we don't win (and 99% of the people posting on these forums don't even know the most basic rules about how the caucus works) we run around screaming conspiracy, and corruption.

There was no conspiracy. There was no corruption. All the delegates were running uncommitted, and the pro-life slate turned out its people.

Last night, every idiot and his brother was running around claiming we had won every delegate in the state. Ridiculous.

Grow up.

Give the Louisiana organizers some props. They worked hard, and did their best.

After the provisional ballots are counted -- we'll know how many delegates (out of 105) we have elected to the state convention.

THEN -- we'll know what the situation is.

Til then -- get a grip.yes Huey...I think you are correct...all the delegates were "uncommitted" officially...so it seems to me that PF/PL had every right to hand out a ballot that they wanted certain delegates elected. We could have gotten with Thompson/Huck folks and created a "pro-South" block and got the votes to swing our way....nothing illegal, though maybe unethical.

In District 7, had Lake Charles been stand alone, we would have done extremely well...BUT the PLPF vote in Lafayette was 4x the RP vote...4x...they slaugthered us.

Am I pissed? Yes. Is there anything we can do? convert the elected delegates and canvass our neighborhoods for RP. AND bring folks IN to the LAGOP so that next time around WE can control party politics!

[Mordan]

As I explained, this tactic, were it the norm, could subvert the democratic favorite every time. Then, we're not living in a democracy, we're living in a back room power broker country. You're fervent SUPPORT of our disenfranchisement is SUSPICIOUS.

Man, it is Caucus democracy that's why. Caucus are like that. plain and simple

[Menthol Patch]

Was the name of the coalition on the ballot?

If so, then the name of Ron Paul should have been on the ballot.

If not, this whole thing is criminal.

[libertythor]

The RP delegates can propose and vote on changes to the state platform. Pro-liberty GOP directors can be elected. Lets start focusing on that, and make lemonade out of lemons. :)

[Kilrain]

Was the name of the coalition on the ballot?

If so, then the name of Ron Paul should have been on the ballot.

If not, this whole thing is criminal.

The "ballot" was just a list of names of delegates. People could check off up to 15 names and hand it in. They were all uncommitted and it was up to the voters to find out who or what each delegate supported. Campaign people (all grassroots I think) were there and made sure that people knew which delegates to pick.

[wildflower]

I'm getting online late today, and I'm confused.... Did we win Louisiana or not? :confused:

(yes, I know people keep asking that but I haven't seen a definitive answer yet)

[chrismatthews]

Politics is a contact sport and we were out-politicked.

Thank you to all the LA supporters, I know you busted tail and did the best you could.

I'd like to personally apologize for all of the sour grapes people that are peeing on your leg about it.

[aymn27]

I'm getting online late today, and I'm confused.... Did we win Louisiana or not? :confused:

(yes, I know people keep asking that but I haven't seen a definitive answer yet)
We definitely did not get any delegates in District 3 and 7. All other Districts (five of them) are waiting on provisional ballots to be verified for the final results.

This Pro-Life/Pro-Family group basically bumped us from the top 15 spots in the 7th district by combining other candidates delegates onto one "ticket". So the top fifteen in my district are a hodge podge of delegates for the other candidates. The problem is that ALL delegates are technically "uncommitted" so we cant really determine who is for whom!

PS - it is interesting to note that in vote total order, Ron Paul delegates placed from 16-28 consecutivly and then number 30 and 32.

[parocks]

You have a great point. Could RP delegates have omitted RP's name entirely and called themselves the Pro-Life, Pro-Constitution, Pro-America slate? This is something to think about for future caucuses and elections that have similar opportunities.


There are probably a skillion different tricks that could've been used.

Maybe those people on the Pro Life Pro Family slate were all Ron Paul supporters.

They all secretly signed on as delegates for the other campaigns. When the Pro Life Pro Family slate was cobbling together it's 15, it chose from a wide variety of Ron Paul supporters who were pretending to be supporters of Romney, Huck, etc.

And we were out in force handing out Romney slates with our names on em,
Huck slates with our names on em. When you hand a Romney flyer with a Romney list to a Romney supporter, they vote for the people on that list - or not.

I've never been to a caucus, and what I know about this stuff is mostly from these boards, but those are 2 tricks that could've been used and weren't.

We had a lot of Ron Paul bodies on the ground. But a generic prolife profamily ballot did have a certain appeal to average citizens there - those who go to caucuses a lot, the politically active, but not necessarily those who are committed to any political candidate.

[CelestialRender]

"There was no corruption."

I'll bet ya anything that "Pro-Life, Pro-Family" ticket includes Giuliani supporters. Regardless of whether it did, their defining issue is "Pro-War", but they lied to voters to get them to support their ticket. Not that's illegal; it just makes them exceptionally terrible human beings.

[CGMike]

Wow, I'm pulling some valuable lessons out of all of this for the next caucus state which is Maine. Our meetup groups here are working hand in hand with the RP Folks in our three offices in Portland, Bangor and L/A, culling our delegate lists for each city/town/plantation and informing those voters coming out to caucus which delegates to vote for on the caucus slate. Remember that each process IS a learning experience for many of us who haven't been involved in local/state party politics before or are unfamiliar with how the caucus functions in general. I've learned lessons from New Hampshire and now Louisiana that I can take back here to my home state and use successfully. I hope other out of state readers are taking note as well.

[parocks]

Our biggest strength would be knowing who the other supporters are and standing strong together (even in hiding if that's what's necessary).

If people went to meetups and knew who the RP delegate noms were without them shouting it to the world, yesterday might have had a very different conclusion.

It was Ron Paul vs the others. When really it should have been US throwing the others off balance wondering "so which ones ARE the Ron Paul supporters?" ;)

Yes. But it's much more fun to wear Ron Paul clothing, wave Ron Paul signs, chant Ron Paul, and try to convince others about how great Ron Paul is.

I wasn't there, and I really don't have an idea from experience about how it would work.

Apparently there were 2 major slates? Ron Paul and PLPF?
Everyone got one of 2 sheets of paper with the listing of the slates?
They were advertising either Ron Paul or PLPF basically?

Well, when did we know that there was a PLPF coalition going on, and our opponents weren't going to be campaigning individually?

Whenever we found that out, that's when we should've sprung into action.

A Ron Paul supporter should've put on a Huckabee hat, button, and handed out a Huck slate - with names different from the PLPF slate. Same with Romney, Giuliani, etc.

There could've been any number of special interest coalition slates. ProLifeantifamily, anything.

So, when people are looking to vote, they don't have 2 slates to choose from - Ron Paul and Pro Life Pro Family, they have a dazzling amount of choices.

We can assume that the Ron Paul supporters are going to get the correct names somehow, either beforehand or at the caucus.

However, in Louisiana, there was only one clear choice for those who weren't into Ron Paul yet, and that was Pro Life, Pro Family.

If, however, those undecided not Ron Paul people were faced with a wide variety of choices, it's likely that we'd be able to get people to not support the full plpf slate thereby getting more delegates for RP.

Heck, even printing up a real Huckabee slate, with the real Huckabee delegates and telling people to vote only for the Huckabee delegates would've helped us.

How does this apply to Maine?

1) We don't know what the other campaigns are planning.

2) We know some of the tricks they use.

3) We know some possible counter measures.

4) We can prepare counter measures beforehand.

5) We can decide which counter measure(s) to implement when their strategies become clear.

Since the "real delegates" slates would've helped us in Louisiana, we could print up the real delegates slates. If they pull the coalition stunt, you go with the real delegate slates.

Since the coalition slate helped our opponents, we should be prepared with a solid looking coalition. Take a couple famous seeming people, local political types, put them on the "Pro Maine Coaltion" add other names. Make it look as real as PLPF did in Louisiana.

Obviously, you ID your caucus goers and train them, making sure they have the good Ron Paul slate.

[wildflower]

We definitely did not get any delegates in District 3 and 7. All other Districts (five of them) are waiting on provisional ballots to be verified for the final results.

This Pro-Life/Pro-Family group basically bumped us from the top 15 spots in the 7th district by combining other candidates delegates onto one "ticket". So the top fifteen in my district are a hodge podge of delegates for the other candidates. The problem is that ALL delegates are technically "uncommitted" so we cant really determine who is for whom!

PS - it is interesting to note that in vote total order, Ron Paul delegates placed from 16-28 consecutivly and then number 30 and 32.

Thanks for your reply. That seems strange... but then, I'm no expert on this stuff, so I don't know if that is common?

[davrobi]

The one sure Guiliani delegate Patrick Lebanc in District 7 got hammered too.

[jab2ur]

There was no conspiracy. There was no corruption. All the delegates were running uncommitted, and the pro-life slate turned out its people.

Last night, every idiot and his brother was running around claiming we had won every delegate in the state. Ridiculous.

Grow up.


Thank you for saying that. I agree 100%. There were people talking about an S.C. recount with >1% of precincts reporting. It gets annoying. Let's all please remain calm and poised like RP himself :cool:

[parocks]

Maybe we should have run as the PRO-FREEDOM or PRO-CONSTITUTION or PRO-AMERICAN slate.

If there were undecideds going in to the caucus, if there was a slate, apart from the Ron Paul slate, called the "Pro American slate", which included a mixture of the strongest candidates from the PLPF slate and others, we might've picked up a couple extra delegates. The strongest from the PLPF slate would've won, and those who used the Pro America slate wouldn't have chosen the weakest of the PLPF slate.

Basically, the Pro America slate would exist in order to move votes from the weak PFPL to others. Strong Ron Paul people would then beat weak PLPF.

[parocks]

Deceitful? What planet are you on? You don't even know the basics of the caucus rules.

All delegates ran uncommitted. We were just trying to elect our people, and they were trying to elect theirs.

In District 7 -- the delegates I see getting elected are all well known people who have worked in Republican politics for decades. They wanted to be delegates, they turned out their people. They won.

Grow up.


You seem to know this stuff.

Would we have been able to cut down on the votes of PLPF by using a modified PLPF slate, calling it Pro America. Put the 10 famous locals on it, and put 5 others on it?

We lose to the 10 famous locals, but we beat the 5 weakest PLPF, because some people might use the Pro America slate, because it's very similar to the PLPF
slate.

[virgil47]

I'm just wondering how the PL/PF candidate is going to do in all the other states. Being as how he, she, it is so new to the race. Or are you folks saying that forming a PAC this late in the game and then disbanding it after it achieves what it set out to do in a single state is a perfectly legal and ethical way to do business?

[Redcard]

I'm just wondering how the PL/PF candidate is going to do in all the other states. Being as how he, she, it is so new to the race. Or are you folks saying that forming a PAC this late in the game and then disbanding it after it achieves what it set out to do in a single state is a perfectly legal and ethical way to do business?


Nobody was voting for candidates, per se, in the caucus. Just delegates. Delegates can change their minds, bounce back and forth, or whatever.

Technically, you could have made a slate for people who love Key Lime Pie and handed it out.

[Doriath]

Technically, you could have made a slate for people who love Key Lime Pie and handed it out.

Now there's an idea. We should form the Pro-Pie ticket. Everybody likes pie!

[Carole]

I disagree with you on this because in a primary, the choice is allegedly up to real voters who may choose for whom they wish to vote "individually". Even if a group such as evangelicals decide to vote as a block, there are others who can cancel out that vote. And they have to vote for one of candidates A-G.

In this sham caucus, they band together as a "group" (here again the collectivist mentality).
take candidates A-F to make one candidate leaving candidate G (Ron Paul) so that there are only two candidates for whom to vote. This is a huge difference!!

Sham indeed and a banana republic we are. This caucus with its spider web of rules definitely is one of the tricks designed by the ruling machine to hold their power and is hardly representative of the voting public.

Then with the help of the voting machines, on the straw primary day when voters cast votes (again now for several candidates A-G), it is just pretend democracy (yes, I know we are a republic) occurring. The one who counts the votes can easily ensure 51% for the "right" candidate who then gets the delegates.

[nathaniel]

I think people are misunderstanding what the Louisiana Republican caucus was about. The actual primary election is on Feb. 9th - last night was a caucus to determine who gets to go to the National Convention. It is really a "status thing" to be elected as a delegate, meaning you are influential and well known by the people in your precinct, church, etc... It is about the political equivalent of being elected to the "homecoming court." It is a masquerade ball and beauty pageant for locals to parade themselves about and feel important in their area.

What happens is delegates and alternates are supposed to be "uncommitted." Of course, they certainly are not. They form pre-caucus coalitions ahead of time and pass around sample ballots so everybody knows who to vote for. It basically works the way that neocons claim that we network to spam online polls. Before the caucus, everyone tries to stack it in their favor with people they know are sympathetic to one candidate ... all while maintaining the facade of being"uncommitted" until the convention.

Of course we (the local Ron Paul meetup groups) did what we could. In district 6, we got three of our people as delegates, and eight as alternates.

Is it a shady way to caucus ? Of course, it is Louisiana where the politics are as dirty as the Mississippi river. The old boy network was just a little bit more organized than we were with their Pro-life/Pro-Family pushcards.

Yes, they had more folks - but not by much - and we still have time to convince the others to come over to our side. This is crucial since after Super Tuesday, and probably Florida, the Republican field is going to thin even more. And if these people really are seriously single issue pro-life/pro-family types and not just stealth Huckabee voters couching themselves in a red herring - Dr. Paul's record makes him the obvious choice for them.

[Carole]

As I explained, this tactic, were it the norm, could subvert the democratic favorite every time. Then, we're not living in a democracy, we're living in a back room power broker country. You're fervent SUPPORT of our disenfranchisement is SUSPICIOUS.

I totally agree with you and furthermore, find the use of the words "tricks" and "tactics" contradictory to a fair and valid voting process as well as contraindicative to a free republic.

It is more that a fraud is being perpetrated upon the public, no better, only different, than fraudulent voting machine counts.

It seems clear that a caucus which on the surface appears more open, is, in fact, more manipulative even than a primary and it is that way by design in order to "openly" control the voting process right under the noses of the public. To pass it off as a fair procedure is disingenuous and no better than a neocon bit of trickery. It is power at any cost.

We should take the election process, not as a game, but as a serious duty, even in our banana republic.

[Carole]

Then we have no chance to win 51% in the straw primary when it occurs and we needed that in order to get the first ballot committed votes for Ron Paul.

So what is the best case and worst case scenario for Louisiana?

[nathaniel]

The election was for delegates to the state convention, who are responsible for doing other things besides electing delegates to the national convention.

The other side, consisting of mostly long-time activists and elected officials, banded together to support each other's campaigns to be elected as delegates. They formed a slate to accomplish this objective. They support a variety of presidential candidates.

Our side, consisting of mostly people new to political action, banded together to support a specific presidential candidate. Being elected delegate was a means to an end, not the end itself. We formed a slate to accomplish this objective.

For us, the presidential choice is most important. For them, being a delegate and making party decisions is most important. I suspect that if one candidate was running away with the nomination, they would have all been for that candidate. For them, it was all about getting themselves elected. And technically, they are correct. The election was to elect delegates, not endorse a presidential candidate.

Fantastic summary of how the Louisiana caucus works and what last night's vote was about - it was individuals trying to get themselves to the State's convention. For many of them, the presidential race is an after-thought as they are more concerned with upcoming local races, ballot initiatives, referendums, and having a say in the State's party platform.

[Carole]

We either learn how to work within the system, ...

We have to know what to expect. We have to learn, ask questions, talk to older people who HAVE gone to caucuses. We need to volunteer to be LEADERS. We have to go to meet ups!


jmho
.

That is fine. My question is why did we not know to expect these tricks? Was there not someone available to us to warn us of the possiblity of such a trick?

We know now and must get the word out to all other states so they can provide "innocent" delegates to infiltrate the other candidates' groups.

What a despicable representation of an honest election process!

[hueylong]

They weren't tricks. As long as we keep thinking somebody cheated, we're not going to learn the lesson of this caucus.

[FluffyUnbound]

In this sham caucus, they band together as a "group" (here again the collectivist mentality).
take candidates A-F to make one candidate leaving candidate G (Ron Paul) so that there are only two candidates for whom to vote. This is a huge difference!!

Sham indeed

First of all, the supporters of other candidates are American citizens with an unfettered right to freely associate. If they want to band together to specifically stop Paul, that may make them dicks, but it's ABSOLUTELY AND WITHOUT LIMITATION their right to do so.

Second of all, aren't you aware that in many areas, and for many offices, run-off voting is employed if no one receives a clear majority of the vote? In such a circumstance, candidates A-F may in fact end up having their supporters pooled, to defeat candidate G, even if candidate G got a plurality of the votes. After the Wyoming caucuses I would assume everyone here would realize that.

Third of all, this isn't going to matter because when the provisional votes are counted we will get our share of delegates.

[Carole]

I can tell you one thing. As one who totally supports the most honest man who has ever run for the office of president, I can truly say that he would and will do everything, once in power, to destroy the dishonesty and trickery and deceit in what should be the people's election process.

This sort of intrigue is exactly what we are fighting against and in order to further our own cause, it is incumbent upon us now to engage in the same chicanery that we deplore in our opponents. It fairly makes me ill and I personally condemn the process.

Having said that, I will swallow my tongue and simply agree that we must use the process against the neocons and other power seekers who wish to crush our cause. It just makes me ill.

Whoever is advising the patriotic grassroots volunteers who have been giving so much, needs to do a better job.

[chrismatthews]

Hey huey, I want to apologize to all of you guys who worked your asses off down there. It's silly to watch all of the same people that get us branded as paulbots eat their own. Thanks for all of the hard work.

We got outmaneuvered, it happens. Politics is a contact sport.


Last night was an organizational battle, and we lost it. It was not through lack of effort or enthusiasm.

[hueylong]

I don't deserve any credit, Chris. Brett, Jenn -- all the folks across the state -- they worked really hard.

And frankly -- they did an AMAZING job. I was in a meeting today with some Republican elected officials today, and all they could talk about was how many Ron Paul people were at the caucuses. It was all the talk.

[Carole]

I'm eliminating the obfuscation so that we can understand more clearly what took place. That is not lunacy. We were disenfranchised by a coalition, yet we're nominating an individual. If you go back and forth from coalitions to individuals, it can subvert the will of the people. The worse thing is, this was done with a high degree of obfuscation. Now that this coalition has eliminated the favorite, it will morph into the individual candidates again. I don't blame people for not getting what is happening. It's very sophisticated.

Sophisticated is hardly the word, but I get exactly what you are saying since these "tactics" are commonplace for the powermongers who fear loss of power. It speaks volumes to me about the kind of human beings they really are, and that is being kind.

We must get rid of their ilk and never, ever againin this country allow their kind to see office again. They should live in caves, ponds, and forests along with all the other reptilian creatures.

[nodope0695]

www.lagop.com

[hueylong]

No one was disenfranchised. People ran to be elected delegates. They got more votes than our people who ran to be elected delegates. Period.

It is nothing more, or less, than that.

If you think it was "conspiracy" or "corruption" or "unethical" -- you don't clearly understand how the process worked.

[chrismatthews]

Sophisticated is hardly the word, but I get exactly what you are saying since these "tactics" are commonplace for the powermongers who fear loss of power. It speaks volumes to me about the kind of human beings they really are, and that is being kind.

We must get rid of their ilk and never, ever againin this country allow their kind to see office again. They should live in caves, ponds, and forests along with all the other reptilian creatures.



These "tactics" otherwise known as "rules" are what we were competing in. If we had the forsight to team up with huck people, for example, we could have split the delegates in our favor.

Hindsights 20/20

[VoluntaryMan]

Why fight over whether this was an underhanded tactic? Of course, it was underhanded; anyone who can't see that should probably take a personal ethics inventory. However, was it a legitimate political maneuver? Certainly...and isn't that really part of the problem?

What many seem to be missing here is that the opposition has just made our argument for us:

1) Is Dr. Paul just some "kooky, paranoid, conspiracy nut" or are "they" really out to get him? I think that LA has made a pretty sound case for the latter point.

2) Is the opposition composed of amoral, flip-flopping, say-anything-to-get-elected, corrupt politicians? Teaming up to characterize Mitt and Rudy as "pro-life," while trying to paint Dr. Paul's record as "anti-life" and "anti-family" is not only dishonest but absurd. Case closed.

3) Is the opposition essentially a neocon hydra, a creature called "Rudy McRompsonbee" with many faces and names, but with one unified goal? How could any reasonable person take an honest look at what just happened and conclude otherwise?

Instead of fighting amongst ourselves over whether this was legitimate despite being dishonest or dishonest despite being legitimate, we should be publicizing the opposition's recent maneuver as the best example of what we've been saying all along.

[Carole]

They are typical power seekers then, not really interested in what is best for the country, but merely what is best for themselves.

I spit upon them. :)

[hueylong]

This (next to) last post is still all crack. The delegates who were elected were almost ALL long time elected officials and party activists. They were trying to get THEMSELVES elected to the state convention. It's what they do. It's what they've done for years.

It had NOTHING to do with hating Dr. Paul, or any kind of neoconservative conspiracy.

Jeez.

[parocks]

They weren't tricks. As long as we keep thinking somebody cheated, we're not going to learn the lesson of this caucus.

Screaming, arguing with people, complaining is what we do best.

On the other hand, there sure are a lot of us.

[Carole]

Let me say what you just said with less words:

If you support fairness in elections, then you're a fair weather supporter of Dr. Paul.

That is a complete fallacy in reasoning. Apples and potatoes.

I strongly support fair elections and I would be willing to bet all I own that Dr. Paul suports fair elections as well.

I am definitely not a fair weather supporter of Dr. Paul and I think you are wrong if you believe what you just said. I would also bet that 99.44/100% of his supporters are all-weather supporters. :)

[parocks]

These "tactics" otherwise known as "rules" are what we were competing in. If we had the forsight to team up with huck people, for example, we could have split the delegates in our favor.

Hindsights 20/20


Based on what we now know, I think we needed flyers with Pro Family Pro Life written on em. And we keep the local pols on the list, and we take McCain's people off the list and put on some of ours.

We need to be smart. We need a bag of our own tricks that include more than waving Ron Paul signs, chanting Ron Paul, arguing with people about Ron Paul, compaining when things don't go our way, etc etc etc.

I think that in Maine, we'll have people on the ground who are willing to work.

Some will want to hand out the Ron Paul slate. Others might want to hand out a "Pro Maine" slate. We definitely should have different people handing out different types of lit. Different slates.

[Carole]

Frankly, I cannot see that ever happening simply because his supporters so loyal that they always show in great numbers and are getting smarter daily. They know we have to try three times as hard as the others, so it is difficult to see that happening. In fact, until and unless it ever does, I will say it would not happen.

I would still deplore it however, because it is dishonest. :)

[Carole]

The word conspiracy has not been used until you used it.:eek::)

This is a discussion and we all have the right to disagree.

[Carole]

:D

And again, people need to remember this rEVOLution doesn't end with Dr Paul - or at least it doesn't for me. Consider all these losses as VALUABLE lessons that we can use to support OUR LIBERTY CANDIDATE in 2012!! (that is of course if we still have a country by then!) ;)



Precisely! My biggest concern is that we do not have time, nor will we likely ever have a more qualified candidate with so much integrity. All has come together at this point in time for a reason.

Remember RFID by May 2008. And the neocons have been speeding up the entire dismantling of our country. Our sovereignty is nearly gone and daily they draft new treaties and lend billions in borrowed money, and remove daily more liberties, as they war their way around the globe. Having watched it all for so long, I see the writing on the wall and it is an ugly sight.

Sometimes, I admit I feel a bit desparate because I want a peaceful revolution. I do not want it to be necessary to have a violent one in this country.

Having waited so many decades for this, I am confident this is the right person for the right time in our history. I will not be alive for another attempt in my opinion.

Yes, I want the movement to continue if we fail to elect our man, but trust me, the attacks on our liberty and sovereignty will begin to come so fast you will not know what hit you. We really do not have the one thing we need to grow stronger and that is TIME. :)

[Carole]

I am so hopeful all of your delegates can do a great job of convincing them to see the reasons to vote for our candidate. :)

[Carole]

:) You just made my day. LOL

[Carole]

Fighting is the wrong word. This is a strong discussion. We have differing opinions, but it is healthy debate.

All those who read this thread can learn a great deal and will not be so innocent in the next round. Discussion is healthy and useful.

The frustration arises from the assurance that we were well prepared and that we should not worry. Suddenly we were blind-sided and the campaign people should have had our supporters prepared for anything. That does make us appear amateur when our people worked very, very hard to get the job done. I commend them and feel bad for them, because we were doing it honestly, with transparency, while the others were indeed unethical.

[hueylong]

Carole, I wasn't referring to your post, but rather the "next to last" post.

[mosquitobite]

Carole it might be best to hit the quote button to show which poster you're talking to. :) Right now it's confusing and looks a bit like you're talking to yourself. :D

[MsDoodahs]

This (next to) last post is still all crack. The delegates who were elected were almost ALL long time elected officials and party activists. They were trying to get THEMSELVES elected to the state convention. It's what they do. It's what they've done for years.

It had NOTHING to do with hating Dr. Paul, or any kind of neoconservative conspiracy.

Jeez.

I was told that such is tradition here in my part of Texas as well. Getting to go to the state convention is some kind of big deal to the GOP officials, and they are the ones who get elected to go from this area.

[Thomas Paine]

I was told that such is tradition here in my part of Texas as well. Getting to go to the state convention is some kind of big deal to the GOP officials, and they are the ones who get elected to go from this area.

That's because at the state convention, somewhere there is going to be free food and liquor provided. State conventions can be a lot of fun and you meet a lot of party insiders.

[hueylong]

True Ms. Doodahs. What we need to be more sensitive to, is that we are crashing THEIR party. They've been doing this for decades -- and suddenly WE show up and upset the apple cart.

We'd get a better reception if we were a little nicer about it, and not so darn strident.

[MsDoodahs]

So .... free food and liquor appeals to the GOP faithful, eh?

So ... if we have a nice "free food and booze" party and they have to prove they voted for Ron...we could win every state from here on out...

Hmmm...






I AM KIDDING, Y'ALL!

:D

[Thomas Paine]

True Ms. Doodahs. What we need to be more sensitive to, is that we are crashing THEIR party. They've been doing this for decades -- and suddenly WE show up and upset the apple cart.

We'd get a better reception if we were a little nicer about it, and not so darn strident.

If the Ron Paul grassroots really wants to earn some goodwill at the state convention, think about hosting a social where free beer/liquor is provided for a couple of hours or ice cream (not sure how warm it gets in LA at the time of the state convention) or whatever. Have Ron Paul signs all around the table(s) and have servers wearing Ron Paul shirts. Not sure of the cost. This will depend on how many typically attend a state convention.

[MsDoodahs]

True Ms. Doodahs. What we need to be more sensitive to, is that we are crashing THEIR party. They've been doing this for decades -- and suddenly WE show up and upset the apple cart.

We'd get a better reception if we were a little nicer about it, and not so darn strident.

I realize that. I did not wear my RP stuff when I attended my first (and so far only) GOP gathering. I was nice and volunteered to help on a project for a few hours, which I did.

It was very difficult for me.

I have not been able to make another gathering.

I plan to offer to answer phones at their County office some next month...

[hueylong]

A hospitality suite is a very good idea.

[Thomas Paine]

So .... free food and liquor appeals to the GOP faithful, eh?

So ... if we have a nice "free food and booze" party and they have to prove they voted for Ron...we could win every state from here on out...

Hmmm...






I AM KIDDING, Y'ALL!

:D

No. However, it may earn some goodwill. Incidentally, George Washington and the other Founding Fathers used to provide hard cider and liquor at the polls where all the eligible voters would get drunk before going inside to cast their vote.

[Thomas Paine]

A hospitality suite is a very good idea.

A hospitality suite would also be a very good way to further introduce Ron Paul Republican candidates to the conventioneers. Such candidates could work the suite and have their supporters standing by to hand out any brochures.

[hueylong]

Yes TP -- it would be good for the congressional candidates, etc...

[Thomas Paine]

Yes TP -- it would be good for the congressional candidates, etc...

Serve Samuel Adams beers at the hospitality suite. For non-drinkers, provide tea with Ron Paul teabags.

[MsDoodahs]

Do one of you know where the convention will be held off hand? I think I saw the info at the LAGOP site....

We NEED to make the "hospitality suite" idea happen...don't we?

:)

[Thomas Paine]

Best info I can find is that it will be on February 16 at the Old State Capitol in Baton Rouge. However, I am not sure if the "Old State Capitol" is an actual building or what.

For a hospitality suite to be effective, it will have to be held at the primary hotel where the conventioneers will be staying the night before the state convention. However, I am not familiar with Louisiana state conventions so I defer to anyone else who has better information. Maybe LA state conventions are not conducive to hospitality suites although I would find that hard to believe.

In any rate, word about the hospitality suite would have to be communicated to the conventioneers before the state convention or perhaps when they check into their hotel(s). Sometimes there is a welcome packet provided to conventioneers that will have all sorts of flyers about various hospitality suites or socials. I am not sure about the cost of a hospitality suite, or open bar, or whatever social so someone on the ground in LA will have to do some investigating to see if this is a viable idea. I do think it would be a great way to generate some goodwill with the LA GOP insiders although it is no guarantee that they will start joining hands with Ron Paul supporters and begin singing kumbayah at the state convention.

[hueylong]

The Old State Capitol is an actual building. It is -- the "old" State Capitol.

There are multiple rooms, and a hospitality suite could probably be rented.

[stevedasbach]

They weren't tricks. As long as we keep thinking somebody cheated, we're not going to learn the lesson of this caucus.

+1776

[louisiana4liberty]

Our grip is slipping Huey P. They have had all day long to determine whether 650 provisional votes were valid under their rules. I personally could have verified each one of those records in one day.

It appears the unofficial results will make the headlines tomorrow to your satisfaction.

[VoluntaryMan]

Here's the campaign's official position on the LA caucuses:

January 24, 2008


Thursday was both a good day and a bad day for Ron Paul.

First, the good news: Ron Paul has unveiled his Comprehensive Economic Revitalization Plan. Other candidates may peddle so-called "stimulus" packages, but only the bold economic vision laid out by Dr. Paul provides a real plan for reforming our economic system.

And Friday, newly appointed economic advisor Donald Luskin will discuss Ron Paul's economic plan on Mancow at 9:30 AM ET and on Ed Schultz at 1:30 PM ET. Listen in and enjoy!

Today we also unveiled a new graphic on our front page which we call "There were 11, now there are 5", which highlights the fact that over half of the original contenders for the GOP presidential nomination have now dropped out of the race. Who will be next? Can Rudy Giuliani survive more primary losses to Dr. Paul than the five he's already sustained?

But now the bad news: Not surprisingly, the political and media establishment are trying to stop Ron Paul's message from getting out. Just look at what's happening in Louisiana. The Louisiana Republican Party has only posted "unofficial" results from the state's Jan. 22 caucuses on their website. And they are claiming that John McCain won with Ron Paul in second.

But we suspect that when all of the provisional ballots are counted, Ron Paul's showing will be even better. For more information on the "boondoggle in the bayou", read ABC News' coverage here.

There's a ton going on, and as always, more news will be coming. But as you know, we are competing against an entrenched media and political elite. For that reason, it is even more important that we have the war chest necessary to get Dr. Paul's message - our message - out to the rest of our country. Donate as generously as you can now: https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate.

The fight has just begun.

Jonathan Bydlak
Fundraising Director
Ron Paul 2008

[billyjoeallen]

Here's the campaign's official position on the LA caucuses:

Not surprisingly, the political and media establishment are trying to stop Ron Paul's message from getting out. Just look at what's happening in Louisiana. The Louisiana Republican Party has only posted "unofficial" results from the state's Jan. 22 caucuses on their website. And they are claiming that John McCain won with Ron Paul in second.

But we suspect that when all of the provisional ballots are counted, Ron Paul's showing will be even better. For more information on the "boondoggle in the bayou", read ABC News' coverage here.

There's a ton going on, and as always, more news will be coming. But as you know, we are competing against an entrenched media and political elite.[/B] For that reason, it is even more important that we have the war chest necessary to get Dr. Paul's message - our message - out to the rest of our country. Donate as generously as you can now: https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate.

The fight has just begun.

Jonathan Bydlak
Fundraising Director
Ron Paul 2008

We weren't out foxed. We were disenfranchised. They didn'y have their act together, so they got two extra days to come up with a way to screw us. Delagates on multiple slates???? That's a way to prevent people from communicationing their true wishes.

You want to vote pro-life, but have to vote for a guy whos also a McCain delegate? because he's on both slates?
What a pile of crap.

We were the only team with a full slate of delegates by the original deadline. The rules that help us are flexible, but the rules that help them are set in stone.

Don't tell me to calm down. Don't tell me we were out-foxed. We were robbed.

[zaphod2016]

Let us remember the words of the founders. In this case, Ben Franklin:

We must hang together, or surely, we will hang separately.

So long as we block "the other guys" from getting 1,191 delegates, we get to play king maker. At this pace, we will make an impact at the convention. The question is: how much impact?

Redouble efforts yet again!

There is no choice but to fight on. Florida is ready. We are going to end Rudy's campaign in a few short hours. Get ready to see it. :D

[Sandra]

I think preemtive efforts should be in place as well.

[Jae0]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/paul-alleges-bo.html

ABC is sort of kind of paying attention.

[Computer]

You wonder why Dr. Paul has an image problem.

The Louisiana organizers busted their asses, and did great. They just got outflanked by people who have been working in Republican politics in this state for 25 years or more.

We are amateurs at this process. Hard working, well intended amateurs -- but amateurs.

And when we don't win (and 99% of the people posting on these forums don't even know the most basic rules about how the caucus works) we run around screaming conspiracy, and corruption.

There was no conspiracy. There was no corruption. All the delegates were running uncommitted, and the pro-life slate turned out its people.

Last night, every idiot and his brother was running around claiming we had won every delegate in the state. Ridiculous.

Grow up.

Give the Louisiana organizers some props. They worked hard, and did their best.

After the provisional ballots are counted -- we'll know how many delegates (out of 105) we have elected to the state convention.

THEN -- we'll know what the situation is.

Til then -- get a grip.


You're such a disgusting troll. GROW UP. I order you to grow up! GROW UP GROW UP GROW UP. Dubass redneck Thompson supporter.

[Jae0]

You're such a disgusting troll. GROW UP. I order you to grow up! GROW UP GROW UP GROW UP. Dubass redneck Thompson supporter.

Pot meet Kettle.

[CountryboyRonPaul]

You're such a disgusting troll. GROW UP. I order you to grow up! GROW UP GROW UP GROW UP. Dubass redneck Thompson supporter.

Huey has done his share in our state.

Calling him names won't help you out any. It may satisfy you momentarily, but it does not get you any further to a resolution with him, and honestly it just makes you look immature and un-experienced.

Now, if you want to call someone a dumb redneck, please direct your hatred at me. ;)