Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
John McCain Steals a Victory From Ron Paul in Louisiana? Preliminary results from the Louisiana caucus have a combined McCain/pro-life slate in first leaving Paul supporters asking what exactly happened?by World
(libertarian)
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Preliminary results from the 2008 Louisiana presidential caucus are in according to the LAGOP:
"Preliminary results show that a majority of the 105 state convention delegates who have been elected ran on a statewide pro-life uncommitted slate," Villere said. "I congratulate the candidates and supporters of this group on their victory and look forward to working with them to keep our Party platform pro-life at the state and national conventions," he said.
Delegate candidates endorsed by US Senator John McCain (R-AZ) appear to have won more state convention delegate positions than any other presidential slate at the Louisiana Caucuses.
Results from Louisiana's Republican caucuses and the informal designation of a "winning slate" are preliminary for two reasons. First, about 500 individuals who attended the event were not shown to be registered Republicans on voter rolls. These individuals were allowed to cast "provisional ballots," which are not included in the current candidate tallies on the Party's website, www.lagop.com. State Party staffers are currently working with Registrars of Voters across the state to confirm with certainty the eligibility of each candidate. Party rules allow anyone registered as Republican as of November 30, 2007 to have voted last evening. The ballots of those who are found eligible will be added to totals and the outcomes of some races in Districts 1,2,4,5 and 6 could possibly be affected.
Second, candidates for delegate in Louisiana historically have run on one or another slate, but NOT on multiple slates. This year, however, many candidates ran on more than one slate. There was significant overlap, for example, between the McCain and Pro-Life slates. So determination of which slate won is not as clear-cut. But it certainly APPEARS that the order was: Uncommitted Pro-Life, McCain, Paul, Romney, others.
Identification of candidates with the various slates is not an official Party function and such analysis is provided solely as a courtesy to members of the press and as a response to the numerous inquiries received by the Party regarding this topic.
I waited eagerly two days for the initial preliminary results of the 2008 Louisiana caucus. And the winner is...John McCain...maybe ??? I had to read the release a few times to better understand how the winner was decided. Unlike caucuses in Iowa and Nevada, it's safe to say the Louisiana GOP rules are complicated, even confusing. That likely explains the lack of any significant media coverage, to the detriment of Louisiana voters whose voice apparently counts less that that of caucus-goers in other states.
The clear "winner" was the Pro-life / Pro-family slate, essentially uncommitted voters. That seems odd given how close we are to Super Tuesday and how other caucuses were able to avoid having any significant uncommitted vote.? If you were really uncommitted, would you even bother to show up to a caucus?
Beyond the confusion of the uncommitted vote which appears to be a political machination of the "lesser tier" candidates in Louisiana, namely Huckabee, Guliani, and McCain, the party provides the explanation "candidates for delegate in Louisiana historically have run on one or another slate, but NOT on multiple slates" (with the inference that just such a scenario happened this year). "There was significant overlap, for example, between the McCain and Pro-Life slates. So determination of which slate won is not as clear-cut." That line took me a while to decipher. The Pro-Life (uncommitted) slate "won" the election (if that is possible), and McCain came in "second", although he was allowed to run on both the uncommitted slate and as an individual candidate, against previous historical precedent. Does that mean that a share of the Pro-Life (uncommitted) votes were actually attributed to John McCain when deciding who "appears" to have garnered the most delegate positions? The LAGOP is not clear on this. In fact there is little transparency in the process, just posted results of individual citizens running to be a delegate, without any mention of their affiliation
If "identification of candidates with the various slates is not an official Party function" why did the LAGOP feel that an analysis which seems somewhat arbitrary, or at least cryptic and secretive, would be a courtesy to members of the press? The LAGOP is certainly within their rights to select representatives through any system they feel is in the best interest of their members. You just have to wonder, does the current system fit that bill?
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 80 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of World only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. World is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
.. you would think that some of those "pro-life/pro-family" delegates belong to Ron Paul since "Roe" (of Roe vs Wade) endorsed him? And I just don't get why people are voting for McCain They want big government AND war again? Or a politician who flip flops all the time so you can't trust what he says?
Your attempt at explaining this debacle may be more helpful than none at all, but I still don't understand what the hell happened. Thanks for the effort though.
I imagine that uncommitted delegates could vote for whomever they chose at the state meeting. An informed voter is probably more likely to select Ron Paul than the average American given the paucity of media coverage he receives, especially if they hold true to the pro-life tennet they were elected on. It just muddies the waters even more about who actually won in Louisiana.
I was confused too. I think the Pro-life/uncommited slate was supposed to be for Fred Thompson. He dropped out just hours before the caucus.
The right way to analyze this would be to show the slates and which 75 delegates and 75 alternates won. It would be more honest to put the names of the candidates and then "other" if no candidate is mentioned in a slate.
Here's how I saw it yesterday when I first read the LAGOP press release.
They double counted votes for McCain. They added both the McCain votes (delegates) from his individual slate and the McCain votes (delegates) which were listed within the "ProLife" slate together to come up with his grand total.
This was so he would be the presidential candidate with the most votes. Otherwise it was Paul who was going to win because he had the most individual candidate votes (delegates) under his slate. And his delegates didn't play the "ProLife" slate game.
The LAGOP then went out of their way to congratualate the Paul voters because they wanted to cover their ass.
If I were a Republican in Louisiana I would be outraged. Delegates should have to declare a candidate they are supporting rather than some non-specific slate. It appears the Republicans in that state have intentionally created a system that can be easily subverted. Shame on them- it shows a real absence of integrity on their part.
Exactly, David in Grand Coteau! I cannot believe people do not see anything wrong with saying human life is sacred and no one has the right to decide if a child lives or dies, while killing and maiming children in other countries. Can anyone say hypocrisy?
The power brokers in the LA GOP party used this arcane process to protect there turf (also know as their entitled right to decide for the others). In essence they created this "slate" out of the clear blue sky so that no matter what the individual "citizens" vote for on Feb 15th the power brokers will still control the final outcome. Whomever, GOP power brokers higher up on the national food chain "pay" them "tell" them who should be their boy that is who these lackeys from this so called pro life slate will commit themselves to.
Of course I reserve the right to be wrong about this and write it off to my excessive cynicism.
(if you saw this anywhere else on the net, this is the updated version as we found the Huckabee ticket).
I'm cross-checking the other slates' flyers I have and here are some interesting tid-bits: REMEMBER: ALL delegates are "uncommitted", even the Ron Paul delegates.
THIS IS BASED ON RESULTS BEFORE THE PROVISIONALS ARE COUNTED. This all refers to district 5:
1) 3 people on the Romney slate and also listed on the McCain slate
2)On the McCain slate, only 6 people won a slot BEFORE the provisional were counted.
3)There are 4 people on the Huckabee slate. 2 of them also appear on the Romney slate and all 4 appear on the Pl/PF slate. None of them appear on the McCain ticket.
On the PL/PF slate:
1) 3 people are also listed on the Romney slate
2) 4 people are for Huckabee; one other is undecided
3) 4 people are also on the McCain slate
4) 9 of them won a delegate spot before the provisionals
5) of the 9 that won, 4 are on the McCain slate, 2 are on the Romney slate and 2 are on the Huckabee slate.
Now you can see why I dispute the idea that McCain came in first and that the PL/PF ticket is Thompson people.
The voters can cast up to 15 votes each for 15 different delegates (no multiple votes for a single candidate, but no requirement to vote for 15 either). Each delegate has historically appeared on one slate (or team if you prefer). Apparently this year some delegates appeared on multiple slates (teams). I presume it would be possible for any delegate to appear on all slates (teams) if they did the appropriate paperwork and filing.
At the end of the caucus, each delegate's total votes are determined. The delegates with the top 15 vote totals are 'elected' to go to the state caucus and choose delegates to the national GOP convention.
If John Dough recieves the most votes and is selected to be a delegate, but appeared on the slates (teams) for Pro-life, McCain, Romney, and Huckabee, whose delegate is he really?
This is the problem the LA GOP faces. How do you "count" someone who appears on multiple slates (teams)?
The delegates are certainly known. They were the top 15 vote-getters. The difficulty is determining who they "belong to" if they were listed on more than one slate (team).
Only time will tell. Eventually these delegates will cast votes in the state caucus to choose the national delegates.
Posted By: Kate in Louisiana
Date: 2008-01-24 17:05:10
Thank you for explaining this very complicated, tricky, dirty mess as clearly as humanly possible! My husband & I have been very concerned about the overlap voting for the non-Paul delegates, which are mostly local or state professional politians scratching their own way to the money pie.
In south Louisiana we have experienced big government at it's worst and don't want more of the same. Part of the CAFTA route also blasts right through between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. People are already having their farms taken away and cemetaries are being wiped out to give to big corporations for growth of the North American Union--which profits HUGE PRIVATE mega-corporations and private BANKS.
The GOP can whine about other people "taking over the party" (apparently meant to be a private party), but many of the Ron Paul supporters have been long-time Republicans who are just sick of what we're being offered on both sides--which are really one and the same.
John McCain didn't steal the caucus from Ron Paul. That implies that he has the organizational ability in LA to make that happen. The LA GOP stole the caucus from Ron Paul. The Pro-life slate is nothing more than LA GOP Party loyalist's that were put on the slate because they will fall into line with whatever the LA GOP leadership decides to do at the convention. The fact that some of them were McCain supporters or formerly Thompson supporters is irrelevant to how they will fall into line at the convention. The LA GOP ran this slate to ensure that known loyal party members would be at the convention so that the LA Party leadership can play politics and perhaps be king makers and deal brokers at the convention.
"Identification of candidates with the various slates is not an official Party function and such analysis is provided solely as a courtesy to members of the press and as a response to the numerous inquiries received by the Party regarding this topic."
So in essence the LA GOP is saying they can arbitrarily divy up the "thompson delegates" any way they see fit and are not obligated to tell anyone who got what? If Ron Paul got single dips and McCain got double dips how would we ever know? How can this system even be legal?
Posted By: Richard Brodie
Date: 2008-01-26 02:21:57
All they are giving out is the delegates NAMES, not even what CANDIDATE they voted for!!! The Louisiana GOP is a JOKE! It's obviously controlled by a bunch of manipulators who are confident they can get away with openly and brazenly cheating Ron Paul out of his legitimately achieved first place win and the delegates that go along with it.
THEY KNOW who the delegates voted for, otherwise how could they be reporting that McCain "appears" to have won the most of any candidate and that Paul came in a "close second?" So what is their excuse for withholding that information from the American public? Whoever has the power to conceal this information, and is using it to throw an election, should be prosecuted for vote tampering.
And furthermore, how long could it take to verify the simple facts about which of the 500 "provisional" delegates were "properly qualified" by virtue of having registered before the November 30th deadline? There is no excuse for the results not having been finalized TWO DAYS AGO.
It is the LA GOP that is not "properly qualified" to run an honest election. All this nitpicking about exactly what day a delegate was registered Republican, and yet THEY can change the rules at the last minute to allow non-RP delegates to vote TWICE, while using NOVEMBER 1ST rolls to determine qualification! This whole caucus stinks to high heaven, as does the media's refusal to investigate and report on such an egregiously un-American attempt to subvert a Presidential election.
I wrote the national chairman of the GOP, Mr. Duncan expressing my outrage at the events in Louisiana. After a few days, I received a response stating that my comments or a summary of all the comments they receive will be passed to the Chairman. Yeah, right.
I would love to get an explanation for some things. How can a delegate be both committed to a candidate and uncommitted? When it comes time to vote at the state convention, will he/she vote for the candidate they were committed to or feel free to vote for any candidate they wish? It would seem to me that any vote for a delegate that was on a committed slate should have any votes that they received as an uncommitted delegate invalidated. It is impossible to be both. The delegate only gets one vote, and he cannot vote twice. I would love to here the LAGOP explain the rules which bind a committed delegate and how that same delegate can also be uncommitted. Interesting.
Next, I would love to hear an official representative of the LAGOP state that while they extended the deadline at the 11th hour for the submission of new delegate slates, that they would have done the same if Dr. Paul’s campaign would have requested an extension so they could submit a slate. Everyone that believes they would have extended the deadline for Dr. Paul’s campaign please stand on your head. Dr. Paul’s campaign would have been told that granting an extension would be against the published rules. Sorry Dr. Paul.
The hypocrisy is so blatant and outrageous that it would be funny if it were not so sad, and scary. Joseph Stalin would be proud of the actions of the LAGOP.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
