GOP insiders: "Ron Paul rule" was just for 2012 and no longer exists

**CPUd** · 04-03-2016, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Badger Paul

"Republicans who wanted to help 2012 nominee Mitt Romney adopted the rule as a way to shut out Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and his vocal supporters in Tampa Bay. Under a previous rule that allowed a candidate on the ballot with a majority of delegates in five states, Paul would have been on the convention ballot."

The irony is the Paul campaign team a.k.a "The Claque" was doing everything it could to give away its majorities in the five states and the VI (remember the infamous Louisiana deal where we had a majority and the state party violated its own rules only to give it away?) in order to make nice with Romney. There was no need for this rule in the first place. And even if Paul's was put in nomination, so what? He would have lost and the convention would have moved forward anyway. What was the point of trying to make it look unanimous when it wasn't? By being so obstuse and demanding of total obediance, all the Romney camp did was piss off people who could have helped them had they'd been a little more magnanamous. Instead all they got was convention where the highlight was Clint Eastwood talking to an empty chair.

By then, all they really wanted was to put Ron's name in; the way it was handled definitely hurt them for the general election, they even had to pay people to do phone banking.

**Badger Paul** · 04-03-2016, 07:50 PM

"By then, all they really wanted was to put Ron's name in;"

Eaxctly! What harm would that have caused? This isn't f'ing North Korea!

**erowe1** · 04-03-2016, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by Badger Paul

There was no need for this rule in the first place.

The reason there was a need was that Paul's own delegates didn't respect his wishes not to be nominated. By upping the threshold, they spared Ron Paul of having to disappoint his own delegates by declining the nomination, and instead took it out of his hands.

**SpiritOf1776_J4** · 04-03-2016, 08:04 PM

Regardless, I think we should look for an official apology to Ron Paul and his supporters (us).

I think what with the political winds being what they are, we might get that as a likely outcome - if we push for it at the right time.

**Badger Paul** · 04-03-2016, 09:24 PM

"The reason there was a need was that Paul's own delegates didn't respect his wishes not to be nominated."

And he said he didn't want to be nominated when and where? Hmmm? You mean he couldn't make a simple announcement not wishing to have his name put in nomination and he staff colluded with the RNC and the Romney campaign on a convoluted way to make the party look like the bad guys?

Yeah, not only do they look like the bad guys, but they institute a rule which will give them Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. Nice work guys!

**erowe1** · 04-03-2016, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by Badger Paul

And he said he didn't want to be nominated when and where?

His campaign communicated it clearly to the delegates multiple times in the days leading up to the convention. The delegates who colluded with one another to submit his name for nomination knowingly went against his express wishes.

See this post at DailyPaul from around that time:
http://archive.dailypaul.com/250848

Notice this statement made twice by Debbie Hopper in her emails to the delegates:

If you’re a delegate in an un-bound state, you are free to vote your conscience on the Republican nomination.

But please note, we do not have the five states necessary to nominate Dr. Paul, and he has expressed a desire not to be nominated since it is clear we don’t have the numbers to win a floor fight.

**Badger Paul** · 04-03-2016, 09:55 PM

"His campaign communicated it clearly to the delegates multiple times in the days leading up to the convention."

"His campaign" you say but not him. "His campaign" could mean Rand or Benton or Tate or any number of flunkies who, as I said before, were more interested in sucking up to Romney than taking care of their delegates. If he had said so and said so publicly it would not have taken place.

As I seem to remember there was some poor flunkie who was part of a national conference call a couple of weeks before the convention who let the cat out of the bag inadvertantly about their strategy was only to cause a huge outcry and cause Tate to come in on the call to say everything was still proceeding as planned.

**Scott_in_PA** · 04-03-2016, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by erowe1

His campaign

communicated it clearly to the delegates multiple times in the days leading up to the convention. The delegates who colluded with one another to submit his name for nomination knowingly went against his express wishes.

http://www.snappytv.com/tc/1640700 @00:38

**erowe1** · 04-03-2016, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by Badger Paul

"His campaign communicated it clearly to the delegates multiple times in the days leading up to the convention."

"His campaign" you say but not him. "His campaign" could mean Rand or Benton or Tate or any number of flunkies who, as I said before, were more interested in sucking up to Romney than taking care of their delegates. If he had said so and said so publicly it would not have taken place.

According to them, he did say so. They spoke for him, with his authority, and quoted him saying so. The delegates should have respected that, and they didn't.

**erowe1** · 04-03-2016, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by Scott_in_PA

http://www.snappytv.com/tc/1640700 @00:38

All he does is accurately recount what the RNC did. He doesn't at any point indicate that he had any desire to give a nomination speech, or be nominated at all, after Romney had secured the nomination. Nor has he ever. And I would defy anyone to find him saying or implying that he did.

**Badger Paul** · 04-03-2016, 10:03 PM

"The delegates should have respected that, and they didn't. "

Because the delegates didn't trust them and with that crew, I don't blame em'. In fact I'm glad they told them to go screw themselves.

**erowe1** · 04-03-2016, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by Badger Paul

"The delegates should have respected that, and they didn't. "

Because the delegates didn't trust them and with that crew, I don't blame em'. In fact I'm glad they told them to go screw themselves.

That's fine. But that doesn't change anything I've said in this thread. As I said in the post you first took umbrage with, it was the rule change that saved Ron from having to deal with getting nominated. The RNC was more on his side than his own delegates were.

**erowe1** · 04-03-2016, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by Badger Paul

As I seem to remember there was some poor flunkie who was part of a national conference call a couple of weeks before the convention who let the cat out of the bag inadvertantly about their strategy was only to cause a huge outcry and cause Tate to come in on the call to say everything was still proceeding as planned.

You're right. And that conference call was just one of several instances. Yes, everything was still proceeding as planned. But, as far as Ron Paul was concerned, those plans did not include him being nominated at the convention. That plan was something both made and executed by other people who had no interest in whether or not it was what Ron Paul himself actually wanted. You say you're glad they didn't, and that's fine. I don't think we disagree about the facts.

**Badger Paul** · 04-03-2016, 10:14 PM

All I'm saying is that Ron could have put a stop to it himself, not let his surrogates or the RNC do so. And when I hear it from the man himself, then I'll believe it.

**erowe1** · 04-03-2016, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by Badger Paul

All I'm saying is that Ron could have put a stop to it himself, not let his surrogates or the RNC do so. And when I hear it from the man himself, then I'll believe it.

But there was nothing for him to put a stop to. The RNC prevented him from being in that embarrassing position by their rule change.

**jct74** · 04-08-2016, 11:39 AM

Shep Smith weighs in on Rule 40(b) with a flashback to the 2012 convention

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sItMMKYD_AI

**jct74** · 04-08-2016, 12:03 PM

Newt Gingrich: ‘Zero possibility’ Trump, Cruz are ‘dumb enough’ to allow convention rule overhaul

By David Sherfinski
Wednesday, April 6, 2016

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Wednesday there’s “zero possibility” Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz are “dumb enough” to allow rules changes for the summer GOP convention that some argue could open up the potential field of candidates.

“I think we have two people who are likely to be nominated: Donald Trump and Ted Cruz,” Mr. Gingrich said on Fox Business Network. “Under the rules that Romney imposed last time, you can’t get nominated unless you can earn the votes of at least a majority of eight states. You literally can’t even get nominated. If you’re not nominated, you can’t be counted.”

“So all this speculation about somebody magically showing up — it ain’t gonna happen,” Mr. Gingrich said.

...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...cruz-are-dumb/

Doug Wead agrees with Newt

Strange bedfellows: Why Trump and Cruz need each other now

by Doug Wead
April 2, 2016

Today the airwaves are full of false reports from experts telling us how the Republican National Convention might become open and might nominate a new name. Karl Rove claims that this might happen. Respected pundits speculate about it. But it simply will never happen and let me explain why.

To put another name into play will not only require the betrayal of Donald Trump, it will require the betrayal of Ted Cruz. And while the Republican Party will not likely survive the former it certainly cannot survive both.

Here’s how it works. Rule 40b requires that a candidate must have a plurality of delegates in eight states to be nominated. This is the so called “Ron Paul Rule” put in place by Mitt Romney, John Sununu, Ben Ginsberg and others seeking to block Ron Paul from being nominated in 2012. When Ron Paul actually closed in on a majority in eight states they contested some of his duly elected delegates and threw them off the floor of the RNC. This so saddened the Governor of one of the states involved, seeing these GOP young people disenfranchised, that he protested the action and walked out with these young people.

At present, only two candidates have reached the eight state threshold for the 2016 RNC. Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Under the current rules they are the only candidates who can be nominated. Thus reports today that some will vote for Rubio on the first ballot or that Kasich is surging among delegates is irrelevant. If delegates vote for a candidate that is not nominated, and because of State GOP rules some will do so, they won’t be counted. Thus Sharon Johnson of Arizona voted for Pat Buchanan in 1992 but it did nothing.

Ahhh, you say. But what if the Rules Committee votes to change Rule 40b? What if they changed it to a one state requirement to nominate? Or to no states and allow nominations on the floor?

To do that the Rules Committee would have to be controlled by delegates who want that to happen.

...

It ain’t gonna happen.

...

https://dougwead.wordpress.com/2016/...ach-other-now/