politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Why Ron Paul's big wins in Maine and Nevada matter
Source:
Christian Science Monitor
URL Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Dec ... -Maine-and-Nevada-matter-video
Published: May 7, 2012
Author: By Peter Grier
Post Date: 2012-05-07 19:11:54 by We The People
Keywords: None
Views: 3553
Comments: 10
When Ron Paul delegates show up at the Republican National Convention in August, they may be strong enough to throw the event into disarray – just at the moment Mitt Romney needs to show the GOP united behind him. Ron Paul scored big victories at the Maine and Nevada Republican Party conventions on Sunday. In both states his forces won the majority of delegates to this summer's national GOP convention in Tampa, Fla. As we noted Sunday, this means Mr. Paul’s strategy of organizing the grass roots and working arcane delegate selection rules is paying off. And that could mean big trouble for Mitt Romney and his plans to smoothly pivot to a campaign aimed solely at incumbent President Obama. Yes, Mr. Romney is still the presumptive nominee. It’s highly unlikely Paul will be able to deny the former Massachusetts governor the prize he’s sought for so long. But Paul’s forces aren’t lining up and saluting a Romney victory. When they show up in Tampa in August they may be strong enough, and prepared enough, to throw the convention floor into embarrassing disarray. “All of this means the GOP can no longer ignore its libertarian ‘fringe.’ On the contrary, it will have to reach out to a new generation of activists who don’t regard religious piety or continual warfare as sacred tenets of conservatism,” wrote Oxford University historian Timothy Stanley in a CNN opinion column last week. Let’s back up a bit and recap, shall we? On Sunday in Augusta, Maine, Paul supporter Brent Tweed narrowly won the election to chair the state’s GOP convention. From there, he presided over a meeting that ended up with Paul winning 18 of the state’s 24 delegates to Tampa. Romney narrowly won Maine’s caucus straw poll earlier this year. But that was a nonbinding beauty contest. Sunday’s vote was what really counted. In Sparks, Nev., the result was even more one-sided. Paul supporters won 22 of 25 delegates up for selection. But Nevada’s caucuses, unlike Maine’s, were binding on delegates. Some delegates were also awarded on an at-large basis. The bottom line: In the first round of voting in Tampa, 20 Nevada delegates are bound to Romney, and eight are free to vote for Paul, no matter their personal preference. But that may not be the full story. Paul’s forces are not bound to make it easy for Romney to coast to victory, as delegate selection expert Josh Putnam, a Davidson College political scientist, writes on his Frontloading HQ blog. Paul’s highly organized campaign continues to amass what Mr. Putnam labels “stealth delegates” – delegates pledged to Romney, or one of the withdrawn GOP candidates – who are personally in favor of the libertarian congressman from Texas. It’s hard to determine how many such folks Paul has, or what they’ll do in Tampa. For instance, what if Paul supporters who are bound to vote for Romney in the first round by state rules simply abstain from casting their ballots? That might keep Romney under the 1,144 votes he needs to win the nomination – even if he actually (sort of) has those votes in hand! “This is a tricky maneuver, but not one that is prohibited by the Republican Party delegate selection rules,” writes Putnam in a lengthy post devoted to the ways Paul could make trouble for Romney. Again, this would be unlikely to prevent Romney from actually winning the nomination eventually. But it would prompt an embarrassing floor fight and expose rifts in the party at the very moment the Romney forces would most want to show a united front to the world. Another unknown here is whether Paul wants to push things this far. Does he just want a good convention speaking slot, or influence on the party platform? Or does he want to win? “Is Paul after the nomination? I don’t know. But his supporters sure are,” writes Putnam. In any case, Paul’s weekend victories have left Romney supporters in Maine and Nevada fuming. In Maine, Romney backer Craig Cragin called the turn of events at the state convention “bizarre,” according to the Bangor Daily News. Mr. Cragin also predicted that the Paul people had violated rules in Augusta and thus would not even make it to the national convention in late summer. “They have so phenomenally screwed this up that they will go to Tampa and not be seated,” Cragin said.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
That is exactly what I'd do. You can't fight a corrupt GOP machine fairly. You have to go for the throat and not let go.
You can't fight a corrupt GOP machine fairly. You have to go for the throat and not let go. So..the ends justify the means, and all that rhetoric you provided about adherence to the Constitution was just what..bullshit?
There's no comparison between the nomination process rules of the R branch of the D&R crime family, and the US Constitution. You're comparing turds and oranges. There's a reason that there are actual people elected as delegates, instead of just counting the primary vote results directly. It's so that they can make decisions based on reasoning. They supposed to analyze the situation and make a judgment. Yes, some thinking may be required, as painful as that may be for some.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
You sound like a liberal...we know whats best for the rest you. Pfft.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
You can't fight a corrupt GOP machine fairly. You have to go for the throat and not let go. So..the ends justify the means, and all that rhetoric you provided about adherence to the Constitution was just what..bullshit? What is bullshit is your question. 1. Abstaining from voting in the manner described in the article breaks NO LAW. 2. Our conversation had to do with conservatism. Where in any of our conversations is "all that rhetoric (I) provided about adherence to the Constitution"?
This one right here ...the one that ended when I asked you if you thought Thomas Jefferson was a conservative. If libertarians are going to pay lip service to the rule of law then they can pay lip service to my rear end as well. If you're ok with delegates "abstaining" from their sworn duty in order to subvert the political process than you're no better than the pack of weasels you're trying to replace.
Sorry, I didn't see that post. Now that I do, I'll address it. First of all, my statements about the Constitution were about the libertarian leanings of the BOR and my intent was to show that a reading of those first 10 amendments shows a definite libertarian leaning of our founders, including every man who signed it. Of course some more than others. I don't remember and didn't see anything in my post about adherence to the constitution, but we can discuss that also if you'd like. I would consider Thomas Jefferson a classical liberal who heavily favored Republicanism. And yes, Jefferson had definite libertarian leanings and believed the federal government should definitely not violate the rights of the individual. Conservatives want to keep, follow and defend the founding principles of this nation, as laid out in our founding documents. If a person doesn't care that the federal government is one by one, laying waste to the natural rights of American citizens, then that person, by definition, cannot be a conservative. If libertarians are going to pay lip service to the rule of law then they can pay lip service to my rear end as well. If you're ok with delegates "abstaining" from their sworn duty in order to subvert the political process than you're no better than the pack of weasels you're trying to replace. Abstaining from voting breaks no law.
This has nothing to do with the Constitution. It is about taking advantage of poorly crafted RNC rules.
Under the Constitution, Presidential Electors are not bound to anyone. They can vote for whomever they choose, regardless of who won the popular vote in the state. The party that wins the state's popular vote gets to choose the electors, so the electors are usually dedicated party stalwarts, who will vote for the winner. But every once in a while one of them votes for someone else. This is how our system actually works.
For instance, what if Paul supporters who are bound to vote for Romney in the first round by state rules simply abstain from casting their ballots?
#2. To: We The People (#1)
That is exactly what I'd do.
#3. To: Thunderbird, We The People, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#2)
all that rhetoric you provided about adherence to the Constitution was just what..bullshit?
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#4. To: hondo68 (#3)
There's a reason that there are actual people elected as delegates, instead of just counting the primary vote results directly. It's so that they can make decisions based on reasoning. They supposed to analyze the situation and make a judgment. Yes, some thinking may be required, as painful as that may be for some.
#5. To: Thunderbird (#4)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#6. To: Thunderbird (#2)
That is exactly what I'd do.
#7. To: We The People (#6)
Where in any of our conversations is "all that rhetoric (I) provided about adherence to the Constitution"?
#8. To: Thunderbird (#7)
This one right here ...the one that ended when I asked you if you thought Thomas Jefferson was a conservative.
#9. To: Thunderbird (#2)
all that rhetoric you provided about adherence to the Constitution was just what..
Iran’s main drive for acquiring atomic weapons is not for use against Israel but as a deterrent against U.S. intervention -- Major General Zeevi Farkash, head of the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate
#10. To: Thunderbird (#4)
You sound like a liberal...we know whats best for the rest you.
Iran’s main drive for acquiring atomic weapons is not for use against Israel but as a deterrent against U.S. intervention -- Major General Zeevi Farkash, head of the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]