Topic: Ron Paul
HOW TO GET RON PAUL NOMINATED - ANYWAY This is not the time to back off and just haggle about resolutions and platforms at state and national conventions. It's time to FIGHT!by Alex Wallenwein
(Conservative)
Friday, April 18, 2008
A Strategy
Some Meetups are already giving up hope, but there is a way for us to get Ron Paul the nomination, and it is absolutely doable.
In a nutshell: If enough delegations sit out the first and second vote, McCain won't get his required majority, and the national convention will become a brokered one- which means anything goes.
There are two main hurdles to accomplishing this:
1. To be even presented for nomination, Ron must be able to "demonstrate the support" of a majority of the delegates from at least five states.
2. Getting enough state delegations to sit out the first two votes won't be easy but it is totally within the realm of the possible!.
What depresses so many delegates is that in order to even be selected as delegates to go to the National Convention, they are required by state party rules to sign a pledge that they will "support" John McCain. That is not the end of the story, however.
The only consequence of that is that a delegate's vote for anyone other than McCain will simply not be counted.
That's all!
There are no legal ramifications for breaking that pledge. There are only possible ethical concerns. These ethical concerns, however, are completely swept aside by the possibility of simply NOT VOTING the first time around.
The RNC's party rules expressly contemplate and acknowledge that State Delegations may choose to sit out a vote. Rule 37c states:
(c) In balloting, if any delegation shall pass when its name is called, then at the conclusion of the roll call all delegations which passed shall be called in the order herein before established. No delegation shall be allowed to change its vote until all delegations which passed shall have been given a second opportunity to vote.
That means (a) it's ok to abstain from voting, and (b) the only consequence is that the passing delegation(s) must be given another chance to vote before any other delegations are released from their pledges.
The Big Challenge:
The big hurdle to climb is the requirement of paragraph (b) of Rule 40, which states that in order to even be presented for nomination, a candidate must be able to demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates of at least five states. Here is the rule:
(b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of five (5) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination.
The rule does not define what precise "demonstration of support" is required. In other words, it is not necessary that Ron Paul must have won a majority of the "beauty contest" (popular primary) vote in five states in order to be entitled to all their delegates.
What is a demonstration of support?
A candidate can ask that the delegations of five states where he believes he has enough support be polled by roll call so as to enable him to demonstrate that he has the support of a majority of delegates then and there at the National Convention.
That means we have to get to work on the delegates of each state after the state conventions are over.
Many Republicans hate McCain, or at least dislike him.
There is a huge arsenal of issues on which McCain has exposed himself as a sell-out to conservative Republicans: national sovereignty, free speech (McCain/Feingold), amnesty, guns, abortion you name it, he has voted against conservative values on these.
There is also evidence he "sang" in Vietnam, costing untold numbers of his fellow POWs their life.
It should not be too difficult to convince conservative delegates not to vote for him with that evidence especially in light of the fact that the party rules explicitly contemplate the "passing" of votes by state delegations!
The Strategy:
The strategy therefore must be to get as many Ron Paul delegates selected to represent their state at the National Convention.
That means our delegates need to stay low key.
Resolutions are a dead giveaway, especially when they are fought over things like opposition to the war, or abolishing the Federal Reserve and the IRS, all signature issues of Ron Paul.
So, the best plan is to shut up, move along, do what you ave to do to get selected, sign the pledge to "support" McCain (it doesn't say you promise not to abstain!) and just get in short of outright lying, of course.
If there are any ethical concerns about this supposed "stealth tactic", think about what ethical concerns you may have if you allow McCain to become president by your inaction.
Old guard Republicans may complain about supposed "stealth" or deception-but what is it their preferred candidates do when they swear in their oath of office to "support and defend" the Constitution and then do the opposite?
What is more unethical?
What is more damaging to the country?
What is more destructive of the very foundation of our government and our way of life?
My question is: As long as there is even a sliver of a chance to get Ron Paul the GOP nomination why give up??
Why resign yourself to debating endlessly about the fine points of endless party resolutions and platforms knowing they are routinely ignored, anyway?
These party honchos and their favorite sell-out candidates constantly ignore and violate even our Constitution! What makes you think they won't utterly ignore whatever provisions we manage to get into the national party platform?
Is that worth the price of being spotted and "marked for death" by the party honchos at the state conventions? I don't think so.
Not when you consider what's really at stake.
So, please, please, please don't give up! Ron Paul still has plenty of fight left in him at his advanced age. Why shouldn't we?
Let's fight for what's important (Ron Paul winning) - not for what routinely gets ignored!
Alex Wallenwein
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 308 thumbs so far
2008 Alex Wallenwein, all rights reserved.
Published: Friday, April 18, 2008
Last modified: Friday, April 18, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Alex Wallenwein only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Alex Wallenwein 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.
Because of people like you, there is still hope for America because hope is still alive for Ron Paul. Great plan. Lets put it to action.
Also for thoes Ron Paul supporters like me who get infuriated with other people who are less educated preaching against R.P. by writing 'news articles' like this one [link edited for length] we should send them a message that Ron Paul and his supporters are, in fact, a force to be reckoned with. Lets show this 'writer' what Ron Paul supporters can do. Comment this douche's article that doubts us. We need more writers like Alex Wallenwein
What are you people going to be writing about after January of 2009? I propose an article title: How to sneak Ron Paul into the White House.
Ron Paul is a political failure. We need to find someone who will actually appeal to real Mainstream people. If not we will have more Ralph Naderish Ron Pauls out there.
I will tell you what, let's see if we can convince Ron Paul to run for governor of Texas. If he can win there, then maybe he can run after McCain leaves office in 2016. Is that ok with you guys? Don't you think that Ron Paul could win in Texas?
This is a great article, written with heart and brain. I only hope that enough of the right people read it. Any Ron Paul blog should post this "Front Page" on a regular basis. All the facts are true to the best of my knowledge and the strategy is the best we have. I hope many follow it!
I love your optimism, but I have my doubts I hope it plays out like you envision but for now I'm on the Bob Barr bandwagon, I make a case for his canidacy on my blog http://dj28.wordpress.com/ check it out if you have time
I like your point about the Republican (and Democrat) elected officials swearing to defend the Constitution and then almost immediately breaking that oath. Bush and Cheney should be impeached for that very thing.
I admire your determination and ingenuity, however I am skeptical that the numbers add up. I don't intend to discourage you, so much as give you something to think about, to either refine your strategy or realize that another one is in order. (For me that other strategy is supporting the Libertarian Party, but I'll get to that later.)
If you don't have enough delegates to get five states to support Ron Paul, so that he can be officially presented as a nominee, how are you going to get enough states to "pass" when it comes their turn to vote, such that John McCain will not win on the first ballot? (And that is the goal, obviously. Without a second ballot, the stealth delegates might as well have stayed home.) Once you get those five states, that's just the beginning.
It is not just a matter of enough states, it is also a matter of WHICH states. A handful of big states voting could give McCain the nomination on the first round.
Do each of the states vote on whether they are going to vote? If not, you need to organize that very carefully in advance. Obviously, you can't just say to them, right before the first ballot, "Hey, we've got this idea..."
You would need a majority of Ron Paul delegates in each state that is going to pass on the first ballot. Your plan calls for convincing the non-Ron Paul delegates for Huckabee, Romney and the others to pass, since there are probably not enough Ron Paul delegates, stealthy or otherwise, to pull this off without them.
Delegates of other candidates might go along with this plan if one of those fellows is not McCain's running mate, but it seems unlikely. Their candidates have endorsed McCain and will probably be speaking on his behalf. Also, those voters are likely to be in favor of the war and not inclined to want to help Ron Paul. But that doesn't necessarily mean that you shouldn't try, of course.
Let's assume they go for it, though. Can the true McCain supporters go ahead and vote, anyway? Can you really stop them just by majority vote of your delegation? And, at that point, what if they offer a motion to suspend the rules? Will you have a majority of the delegates at the entire convention? That's a LOT of stealth delegates.
If, after every state has had a chance to vote and enough of them have passed, such that McCain does not have enough votes to win on the first ballot, what happens when they decide to force the others to vote, having now realized the danger?How can you stop them? Again, you would need a majority of the delegates present, otherwise, they will force every state to vote on the first ballot.
I imagine that when a state passes, it is usually because they have a technical problem and everyone in their delegation agrees, out of fairness, to wait, rather than using that clause as a political ploy, but that's just a guess. Too many states doing this will draw suspicions.
Are you certain that the majority number needed to give McCain a first round victory would not adjust to a lower threshhold if a state passes? In other words, does he need a certain hard number of votes, regardless of how many states vote, or does he merely need a majority of the votes cast in the first ballot from those states who do go ahead and vote in the first round? The first scenario is a lot easier to deal with.
What I'm getting at is that you not only need a majority of delegates at the convention as a whole, (to avoid suspension of the rules), but also a majority within a majority of states (in order to get enough of them to both nominate him and pass on the first round) and you must have majorities in the biggest states as well, because just a few of the larger states could out-vote a large number of the smaller states. That is a very, very tall order.
Also, what rule forces the McCain supporters within a state to abide by your decision to pass if they do not wish to pass? In other words, are you certain that you can keep them from voting in the first round by having an in-state majority who wishes to pass? What if McCain's supporters, though a minority in a given state, go ahead and vote, anyway? What is to stop them? If they manage to vote anyway, then that state will have voted (with some voters within the state, namely you, abstaining) and the second ballot never happens. Though it baffles me, some of McCain's delegates may actually want to vote for McCain.
It could get ugly. "These people are trying to stop me from voting for John McCain!" "Yes, well, our state voted to pass on the first round." "Why did you do that?" "We want to wait for the second ballot." "Why?" "Eh...no reason."
McCain has won so many states and has so many delegates, I do not see how it is possible that there are enough stealth Ron Paul delegates to even come close to pulling this off. But if there are, you still have to manage to keep the rules from being changed and that will require a majority of delegates present at the entire convention being willing to go along with this plan.
In the process of reaching out to the other delegates, your plan will almost surely be revealed to the powers that be. There's really no way to approach the number of potential allies that you will need to find and to also keep this strategy a secret. When the Republican Party leadership learns of this plan, they will undoubtedly make rules changes to ensure that nothing embarrassing happens. (It is on national television, after all.) They've changed the rules on Ron Paul supporters before at the last minute, they would undoubtedly do it again.
Even if enough states pass on the first round, that only throws it into a brokered convention. It doesn't guarantee Ron Paul comes out on top. However, if you can get those five states to support his nomination, that might force them to let Ron Paul speak at the convention, which would be a victory in itself.
Like one of the people who commented above me, I am going to be supporting the Libertarian Party's nominee. However, rather than Bob Barr, I am hoping that it will be Mary Ruwart, whose platform is very similar to Ron Paul's. Mary has known Ron Paul for many years and is the closest we can get to carrying on the Ron Paul platform outside of Ron Paul himself. Bob Barr is better than Clinton, Obama and McCain, but his platform is not like Ron Paul's. Mary's is just as bold.
The Ron Paul Revolution is not about Ron Paul, as he himself has said. It is about liberty.
Mary Ruwart can carry the Ron Paul Revolution torch into November and give us somebody to vote for whose votes will actually mean something. Write-in votes for Ron Paul in November will likely not even be counted and they certainly will not be reported. The Libertarian votes will be.
I urge Ron Paul supporters to support the Libertarian Party this fall and, if this plan does not work and Ron Paul is not the Republican nominee, to vote for the Libertarian candidate for president.
The Libertarian Party nominating convention will be May 22nd-26th, in Denver, and it will almost certainly be broadcast on C-SPAN.
Another thing to ponder: every single state and territory will have three delegates in their delegation who are party leaders, (probably delegation leaders, too.) These will be genuine McCain supporters. If anything has to be done unanimously within a state, they will scuttle it. If you try to have a discussion about Ron Paul, they will report it to people who can foil it. You won't be able to approach other delegates without them finding out about the plan. These are the delegates who are the best-connnected within the party. They'll make your life difficult. Just something to plan for. I hope this helps. Good luck.
Good: another constructive idea. I don't know enough about U.S. conventions; in Canada the leadership conventions have secret ballots, but I don't think it works that way; I remember, from my boyhood, watching state delegations full of Goldwater supporters having to openly and reluctantly vote for Nixon. (You know, this year is starting to remind me a hell of a lot of 1960: Paul as Goldwater, McCain as Nixon, Obama as JFK, Clinton as LBJ -- it's deja vu all over again.)
I like the analysis. If someone has genuinely stolen something from you, then you are not stealing from them when you claim your property. It is likely, however, that Ron Pauls best chance will be in the year 2032, after President Obama and President Hillary have finished officially eliminating the Constituion. By 2032, America will be ready for someone like 92 year old Ron Paul, who will lead a real revolutionary army, just like George Washington did.
I will reiterate my point in short form: This plan is counting on using the Republican Party's rules in an admittedly clever manner, however, the plan does not account for a suspension of those same rules.
Like the above comments I see some problems inside the GOP.
1. They will know of a plan like this the scope is too small, plus organization is harder.
2. Once known a plan like this is torn assunder due to suspending party rules.
3. There are more than just the powers that be behind some of this, and i do not think they will allow something like this to happen.
My main concerns, are simply that the party of each state will force the delegates to be bound first round, and even if they abstain, would they be able to vote freely, in round 1 part 2?
I understand the usage of the parties rules against them and It very much has a higher success rate than we are commenting on, but I think that is what gives this movement the edge it desperately needs, we are all willing to go that extra mile, peel off our RP stickers, and go in supporting conservative principals, btw RP does have enough support already, for this to happen, if you pay attention to some of the lesser known, (and lesser spoken) lines of communication between some of the groups you would be able to see that all over the nation RP is gain more and more ground. For example, even tho not perfect, Missouri was a good show for us, it showed that we can hold out.
Filibuster, it is a term, i do not know if there is such a thing for delegates, but maybe, (and i do not know the rules as well as others) but maybe they can just simply abstain until it becomes a brokered convention. Mccain may have delegates, but the stealth aspect of this is the fact that some of those delegates aren't really his, like missouri they are fighting a very up hill battle to get away from the all or nothing rule system. (however, the state can still allow for delegates being bound.) at this point RP delegates would have to make them selves known, despite ethical dilemmas.
simply because no matter what the party says, we still represent a portion of that party, and if it is big enough, they can do nothing to stop us. there are more and more and more strategies, that will get us the same things. Voting in a different form (ie write in or libertarian) would stretch this movement to far. We would lose the necessary support to get RP the win if it is plausible.
So keep hope keep hope, and let this revolution continue, do not, please, do not abandon that which those have worked hard to achieve, the worst thing to happen is for this movement to splinter. too many small groups will do nothing but pull votes away from the republican base, and give the democrats the win, then the republicans can blame the failed movement, (supporters and Paul) for them losing. This is not an option.
I would like to point out that there is no conflict of interest between supporting the Libertarian candidate in the fall (whoever that may be) and supporting Ron Paul now, though I see supporting the Libertarians now as the more rational approach.
If this plan does not - or, as I suspect, cannot - work, McCain will be the Republican nominee. At that point, you can support the Libertarian candidate, whose platform may be almost identical to Ron Paul's in most respects, without having any effect on his nomination (because it will all be over.) At that point, the only option would be to write-in Ron Paul and that makes no sense. Those votes will likely not be counted and they will certainly not be reported.
The Libertarian Party has an ideology very close to that of most Ron Paul supporters. The Republican Party does not. The Libertarian Party is waiting with open arms for Ron Paul supporters. The Republican Party would prefer that they leave.
This movement can have its own party or it can be an ineffectual wing of a party that marginalizes it. I prefer the first option.
The Libertarian Party has more political leverage than the Ron Paul Republicans operating within the Republican Party. You gain leverage by getting farther away from the thing you are trying to move, not by getting closer to it.
Libertarians can hold a balance of power without even electing people (though they do elect people), simply by gaining enough of a percentage of the electorate. Operating within the Republican Party becomes an all or nothing proposition -- and an exercise in frustration at that.
Surrounding ourselves with like-minded people, even in a smaller party, is a much more enjoyable option than immersing ourselves in a party that mocks and insults us and has an almost violent hatred of us.
Here is an interesting link for people who want to be Ron Paul delegates. The heavy hand of the Republican Party leadership is already at work.
This article provides proof that the GOP will not put up with the kinds of things which are, frankly, the only reasons that Ron Paul supporters are going to the convention for in the first place.
And need I mention that your donations to the GOP and the fees you pay to access their convention will only empower McCain and HIS supporters? (By the way, nobody tells the attendees of the Libertarian Party convention how they should behave or when they should applaud!)
Further proof: In Missouri, Ron Paul delegates were forced to sign oaths saying that they would support McCain.
It is one thing to break or manipulate party rules, quite another to break an oath. Missouri delegates cannot participate in this plan without violating their oath, which presumably, would violate their principles. And principles are presumably why they support Ron Paul.
Harley -- I am not familiar with Missouri politicians, but my guess is: yes, they almost undoubtedly have violated their oaths to uphold the U.S. Constitution. But just because somebody else violates an oath, doesn't mean that a principled person who wishes to be trusted in the future should do likewise. That's what makes us different from them.
Still more proof that the GOP is no place for Ron Paul revolutionaries... The stories are rolling in now.
Please join the Libertarian Party. Or, at the very least, hedge your bets by helping the Libertarian Party gain ballot access. Please vote Libertarian in the fall. You need not leave the GOP to do this, but I would recommend it -- for your own mental health.
D\\\'oh, That's the most unusual username I think I have ever seen. :)
One reason that the Libertarian Party is a better choice is that they have better ballot access and a bigger party. They have far more elected office holders than all of the other "minor" parties combined.
Also, the Constitution Party tends to emphasize religious views more than most voters are comfortable with. The Constitution Party has never made a larger impact than the Libertarian Party. I see no reason why it would now.
Just IGNORE (refuse to take notice of) Scott Frost. I'm sure he's a good person, but he wanted to take over this article with his own agenda. Sorry Scott. Your user name should probably be MSM.
Great article Alex. I'm e-mailing it out all over Oregon in the morning.
HQ should definitely look into this, for accuracy sake. When I read this it sounds like "passing" and "abstaining" are two different things.
However, Rule 40 seems like a bigger opportunity. I don't doubt that Ron Paul has the support of the majority of delegates in at least 5 states. I wouldn't be surprised though, if John McCain didn't have enough support to be nominated.
I'm an owner operator trucker n I try very hard 2 keep up on what is going on. I am appauled @ what is happening to my once great country. there are only 2 men in politics thha scare the heck out of politions Ron Paul & Govenor Jesse Ventura!!! Why? because they are the only 2 that know how to fix what 28 years of bush's and Clinton's in the whitehouse has done to this great nation. So Mr. Paul we as Americans emplore You Dont Give Up On us!!! Join forces with Jesse Ventura and Run You ( WE AMERICANS ) need you FOR OUR NEXT PRESIDENT !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank You
James J. Gover
Just more proof that the r3VOLution WILL NOT play by the rules, and are not Republicans. We will fight you people every step of the way...and that is so much easier because you have conducted your r3VOLution on Social Networking Sites, and you have chosen to take over our party.
I hope you know that means war...and we will fight you as long as we have breath in our bodies.
Oh, and you just told every Republican what you are planning.
As I said in the previous misive, operatives like me have infiltrated your movement, and we send regulr reports to strategists wihin the party, and we work to marginalize you.
Some local idiots in my area even went on the local radio to announce that they were "forming a hippie-conservative coalition" to take over the GOP.
You can mark that event as the downfall of your movement. I got face time with the national party leadership in my effort to convince them you guys had to be stopped, and gave a few ideas...some of which were implemented.
Joan -- When Ron Paul supporters, myself included, tried to tell mainstream, neocon Republicans things that they did not want to hear, stating cold hard facts and logic to them, they treated us the same way that I am being treated now. They told us to shut up and go away. They told others to ignore us. They called us names. They mocked us. They buried their heads in the sand to avoid our message. These things are all happening to me wherever I try to discuss these things with Ron Paul supporters.
Yet nobody can explain to me how Ron Paul can win. I pointed out that the numbers are not there. Two plus two will never equal more than four. I pointed out the fatal flaws in the various plans, all of which try to force a brokered convention using the GOP's rules against them, ignoring the fact that the rules they are using to achieve that can be suspended. To overturn the suspension, Ron Paul's supporters would need a majority of delegates.
I am merely pointing out things that need to be considered. If you were canoeing down a river and I knew that you were headed for a waterfall, should I tell you or let you find out the hard way? Should I NOT point out flaws in the plans?
Yes, I am advocating supporting the Libertarian Party. But you don't even need to leave the Republican Party to do that, so what is the problem? Libertarians, such as myself, temporarily left the Libertarian Party to help a lone Republican long shot -- Ron Paul. Apparently, Republicans are unwilling to return the favor. Apparently, Republicans do not wish to advocate liberty on all fronts. That is indeed sad.
As for Ron Paul's chances of being nominated, it really doesn't matter whether you believe me or not. Two plus two equals four.
Quote: "Oh, and you just told every Republican what you are planning."
Yep, that's the difference between us and you. You get yourselves elected claiming to be friends of Liberty - and then trash every aspect of the Constitution.
What you are missing here is that we are playing exactly by the rules - your rules - while you guys (see Nueces County, TX GOP actions) are not only unwilling but unable to comply with them.
Go ahead. "Infiltrate" all you want. We conduct our business out in the open - unlike you.
Please read my other article: "How to Deceptively Sneak Ron Paul Into the White House " and comment there. I'd like to know your position on the issues raised there.
Think whatever you want, obviously none of you know what actually goes on at National. You think you actually get to VOTE on the 1st round? Or does the fact that you've showed up, and are already pledged, count as the 1st round? Think before you believe. There are so many other possibilities. The question is not, is God on Your side, but: Are You on God's side?
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.
2008 Alex Wallenwein, all rights reserved.