Many of the Ron Paul supporters at the Nevada GOP convention in Reno this weekend were like blind bank robbers: You know someone is going to get shot; you just don’t know who…and it’s just as likely they’ll shoot one of their own.
That’s exactly the situation we’re seeing unfold as some of the more rabid Paulites vent their spleens against state Sen. Bob Beers - who served as state convention chairman in Reno over the weekend - and Nevada GOP Chairwoman Sue Lowden. Both are philosophical allies who have a strong libertarian-leaning streak. For Ron Paul people to attack them as “thugs” and “criminals” for how the election of delegates to the national convention went down Saturday evening is outrageous, in addition to being ignorant.
I cannot point out often enough or strongly enough that Chairwoman Sue Lowden is the ONLY Republican party chairman in the entire country to invite Ron Paul to speak at her state convention. The notion that she is hostile to Rep. Paul and tried to engineer a backroom plot to deny any of his supporters a place in Nevada’s delegation to the national convention in Minneapolis is as far away from the truth as some of these Ron Paul nuts are from reality.
In fact, I’m being told that a deal HAD been struck with the Paulites to include their supporters, along with supporters of McCain and Romney, on the slate of candidates for the 22 at-large delegate slots. But at the last minute Paul’s out-of-state coordinator, Jeff Greenspan, either reneged on the deal believing enough Ron Paul supporters had shown up to the convention to get all 22 slots, or Greenspan didn’t have the authority or ability to make the deal in the first place and the Ron Paul mob rolled right over him.
I don’t know. All I know is that Greenspan is now trying to say the party broke the deal. However, if you look at the slate the party put forward, it DID include Paul supporters. So Greenspan’s post-convention spin that a conspiracy existed to block Ron Paul people from going to the national convention doesn’t hold much water. This guy simply is not to be believed.
The problem with paranoia - and it runs deep in the Ron Paul camp - is that you see boogeymen behind every tree even when there’s nothing there. The Nevada GOP has gone out of its way to welcome Paul’s supporters and embrace them. Far more so than probably any other state party in the country. In return, Beers and Lowden are now being called every foul word in the book by loon platoons.
Just goes to prove that no good deed goes unpunished.
Posted on April 28th, 2008 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: Nevada
Thanks for the update Chuck. From outside of NV it’s hard to know what exactly happened.
Hi Chuck and Readers, this is Jeff Greenspan.
There are facts and there are innuendo.
Look for the evidence, not Chuck’s opinions, because the evidence contains the truth.
Best Regards.
Chuck, can you produce the list of delegates you refer to? No you cannot.
Can you produce the evidence I said or implied there was a conspiracy?
No you cannot.
Again…. facts and evidence vs. “Muth’s Truths”
It is my observation that Ron Paul (and his supporters) have endured unprofessional, shabby, biased, disrespectful, and undemocratic treatment throughout this election from the press and the party (including this typical article). And you feel the Ron Paul crowd should conduct themselves according to “whose” rules….the party? the press? Amy Vanderbuilt? When “the party” decides to treat all their candidates with respect and fairness and political correctness…I believe the problem will be solved.
It would seem to me that Ron Paul had the #2 spot in the Caucus.. That means, seeing that the front runner in the Causcus was Mitt and he bowed-out, that Ron Paul should get about 90% of the Delegates. Especially since McCain is not a Republican but a Democrat in Republican clothing. Why should Nevada settle for anyone less than a Republican? You obviously want Lieberman for your Vice… Oh joy… You have three choices barring Ron Paul:
1. Hillary (Socialist)
2. Obama (Communist)
3. McCain (Fascist)
I will no longer vote for Evil… PERIOD. there is no lesser, ther on IS
Gee, Jeff. Sure. As evidence I’ll present YOUR exact words as you wrote them today to State Chairman Sue Lowden. According to Jon Ralston’s Flash e-newsletter you wrote:
“In advance, we tried to work out a solution with the nominations committee that would ensure that state delegates that support Ron Paul would be part of that unified convention as well. Naturally, we also prepared for contingencies. Unfortunately, we had to put the contingency plan into action as soon as I found out that the nominations committee, or certain parties on it, had no intention on holding up their end of the bargain.”
I didn’t make up those words, Jeff. They’re yours. Or are you going to tell us next that someone conspired to make up those words, attribute them to you, and leak them to Jon Ralston?
The FACT is you allege that “certain parties” were conspiring to undermine efforts to assure that some Ron Paul supporters were selected to attend the national convention. Interesting that you didn’t name names. Was Chairman Lowden part of that conspiracy? Was Bob Beers part of the conspiracy? If not, why are you allowing your supporters to trash both of these fine people who share much of Rep. Paul’s philosophy and agenda? If so, present YOUR proof that they were part of the conspiracy you allege.
All Sue Lowden ever did was try to find a place in the party for you and Ron Paul’s people. And this is how you return the favor? You have no integrity or honor as far as I can see, Jeff. Then again, as you well know, I’ve suspected as much for quite some time now.
Chuck - I was on the NPR interview with you this morning. I certainly wish you’d addressed the issue at that time, but I guess the moderator didn’t realize this was an issue. I wasn’t privy to any deal, but that isn’t really the point of what I want to say. It’s more about deals in general.
You probably didn’t know that we had a deal with a group of delegates to support consensus rules as an alternative to the set of rules proposed by the rules committee. That group was likely promised something else unrelated, so they backed out of the deal five minutes before the rules report. Did we whine and cry about a broken deal? No, we didn’t. We typed up a quick alternative that we thought was fair, and we presented it. That alternative got hundreds of McCain and Romney votes and passed. Because it was fair.
You’ve been involved in these things for a long time, so I don’t have to tell you. Conventions and politics in general are an ever shifting and morphing creature of broken and formed alliances. They are never pretty. And if they go smoothly, then likely nothing worthwhile got done. Politics is messy, and every time I get involved, I realize I’ve forgotten how messy it is in the interim. But if I have to drag up to Reno to finish this thing, I’ll load up my minivan with delegates and we’ll start a Chip In for McCain people and we’ll make the trip. Because that’s the right thing to do.
Finally, I think Bob Beers is an honorable guy put in a very difficult position. And I think that you’re correct that Sue Lowden bent over backwards to bring Dr. Paul to the convention and to accommodate him. She has been a fine party chair in every respect. And the campaign and the chair have had a very good relationship. I guess until now. And I’m very sorry to see that. Anyone attacking their character should stop immediately. See everyone at the continuation. I’ll bring the pretzels.
Brian Kominsky
Southern Nevada Coordinator
Ron Paul 2008
You said I broke a deal Chuck. If you can produce the slate from the Nominating Committee you can prove it. Otherwise, you’ve got nothing, while I have emails to and from members of the nominating committee.
Again: facts and evidence vs. Muth’s “Truths”
Hey, Timmy. Thanks for helping make my case about how a few wackos like you are making the rest of us Ron Paul supporters look bad. As to your “logic” behind that ridiculous 90 percent figure, someone else has come up with a more down-to-earth realistic figure.
“So Ron Paul got 13.73% of Nevada’s caucus votes,” a friend of mine writes anonymously for fear of being trashed by you loons. “I had to use my calculator to factor it but it looks like….4.2563 delegates.”
That sounds about right. The fact is, however, that you would have gotten more than that. Probably still will. But you got greedy and decided you all wanted the whole enchillada. Despite garnering less than 15 percent of the caucus vote, you think you deserve 90 percent of the delegates? Put down the bong, Tim.
Brian, I was quite impressed with how professionally you handled yourself on the radio this morning. Far better than Jeff Greenspan has handled things. The guy just isn’t trustworthy or grounded in reality. The party ought to tell Jeff to buzz off and only deal with you directly. I think with Jeff out of the picture it might be possible to put Humpty Dumpty together again. This could still be a win-win for both Ron Paul’s supporters and the party.
“The guy just isn’t trustworthy or grounded in reality.”
Once again: innuendo vs. facts.
Chuck, produce one shred of evidence to support your allegation. Otherwise, your blog truly is muthsfantasies.com
Facts + evidence vs. Muth’s “Truths”
The problem, once again Jeff, is that you can’t read plain English - or your paranoia is so deep you simply block out reality. I never said you “broke a deal.” My exact quote (see above) was:
“In fact, I’m being told that a deal HAD been struck with the Paulites to include their supporters, along with supporters of McCain and Romney, on the slate of candidates for the 22 at-large delegate slots. But at the last minute Paul’s out-of-state coordinator, Jeff Greenspan, either reneged on the deal believing enough Ron Paul supporters had shown up to the convention to get all 22 slots, or Greenspan didn’t have the authority or ability to make the deal in the first place and the Ron Paul mob rolled right over him. I don’t know. All I know is that Greenspan is now trying to say the party broke the deal.”
Try reading for content, Jeff. I didn’t say you broke the deal, only that I’d been told there was an agreement to include Ron Paul supporters on the slate card to be presented to the convention. As to the existence of a deal, YOU’RE the one who claims there was a deal but that it was broken by “certain parties.” Curiously unnamed “certain parties.”
As to whether or not you broke the deal, I specifically wrote “I don’t know.” In the real world, Jeff, I don’t know means - and I better write this slowly so you can understand it - I…don’t…know.
I just know that an out-of-state political agitator who can’t read plain English can’t be trusted. I don’t know if you broke the deal or not, Jeff, but based on your behavior and track record you sure don’t get the benefit of the doubt vs. two longtime staunch NEVADA Republicans who have devoted so many years and so much money to the NEVADA Republican Party. Maybe you should take your paranoia back to Arizona.
As to the difference of opinion in what’s true between Greenspan and Muth, “If if’s not written, It’s not true”. Why don’t both of you guys post the links to the true written data along with any video links RIGHT HERE so all of us can decide for ourselves. Both of you make yourselves look bad bickering over the internet. I Am a Ron Paul supporter but I support the truth above anything else and I don’t believe anyone’s getting it here. Knock off this bovine flatulance, it only creates global warming, and do the right thing.
What I’ve written is right here in black and white.
What I object to is Greenspan coming in from out-of-state and trying to make two exceptionally good NEVADA Republicans look bad. Nor am I going to sit by and let these loons get away with trying to defeat Sen. Beers and elect a Democrat to fill his seat…which, by the way, would mean the Democrats would take control of the state Senate.
You may think of this as mere “bovine flatulance,” but we limited-government types take the possibility of Senate Minority Leader Dina Taxus becoming MAJORITY Leader very seriously.
Chuck, if you can prove I broke a deal do so.
Since you cannot, then you must result to innuendo and accusations.
Come up with it, Chuck. Come clean.
Facts + evidence vs. Muth’s “Truths”
Mr. Muth. What you’ve written is in your own words. I could easily write anything I want to too. What I’m asking for is any link to copy or video of the truth as it was written or taped from the event. Anything else is just heresay I’m sure you would agree. I believe anyone reading these posts deserves to see for themselves. The copy/paste from the e-newsletter is fast but to create belief you would be better served by providing a link to this data. This is what I’m requesting of you and Mr. Greenspan, access to the truth and nothing more. Not all of us are so intimate as you are it seems with politics so we depend on you to SHOW us the truth regardless of the side you have chosen. The truth has no sides, it just is. As for my “bovine” comment, I apologize for this unessesary retoric as it gets us nowhere. I’ll ask the same of you and others too.
M.
While Sue Lowden did invite Ron Paul to the convention and she did welcome me personally to become an active participant in party affairs, these things are not inconsistent with the impression of some that she worked actively to shut down the convention to prevent a sweep by the Ron Paul faction in the matter of delegates. In fact there are eyewitness accounts of her being overheard discussing how to invalidate the election of delegates by congressional district. This version of how the convention was closed is consistent with what actually happened and is not consistent with the claim that she was neutral. One other thing is that a deceptive poll of delegates was conducted by party headquarters. The information was designed to help the John McCain campaign in determining the number of Ron Paul delegates.
Mr. Greenspan. Can you post proof that you didn’t break a deal. If you can’t, then knock it off. You’re not convincing me that anyone’s lied here, they’ve done a fine job of showing how they operate. I’ll believe, as others should do also, what proof you put up. Anything less is just unacceptable.
M.
Knowing full well how Jeff has a tendency to make words mean whatever he wants them to mean, we have take this one step at a time.
Jeff, did you or did you not have an agreement with the party in which the official slate of candidates that was to come out of the Nominations Committee would include Ron Paul supporters? Was there or wasn’t there such an agreement either verbally or in writing? Yes or no?
Mark, I’m a former Clark County, NEVADA, GOP county chairman. I’m a former NEVADA Republican Party executive director. I ran against NEVADA Democrat Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus a dozen years ago. I was also national chairman of the libertarian-leaning Republican Liberty Caucus and executive director of the American Conservative Union. I’ve been training candidates and grassroots activists, often at my own expense and without compensation, for the better part of the last decade. And I’ve known both Sue Lowden and Bob Beers personally and quite well since 1995.
I’ve also been a longtime supporter of Ron Paul and contributed money to his presidential campaign (you could look it up). So any notion that I’m “anti-Ron Paul,” as some idiots have alleged, is absurd.
Jeff Greenspan is an out-of-state political operative from Arizona, I believe, who has, at best, very limited knowledge or experience with the politics and people involved in the Republican Party in Nevada. I’ll let our records speak for themselves in this regard.
Greenspan accuses “certain parties” on the Nominations Committee of breaking a deal he claims he had. That’s not “writing anything I want to.” That’s writing Greenspan’s own words. If he’s claiming there was a conspiracy by “certain parties” to kill the deal, then the burden is on him to name names and expressly detail exactly how they broke the deal he claims he had.
As it is, it appears that *someone* put out a forged/fake copy of what was made to look like the official slate of delegates which didn’t have any Ron Paul supporters listed. I’m told that Sen. Beers held the paper up and pointed out that it was indeed a fake because his name had been put on it and he absolutely, positively had NOT agreed to be a delegate to the national convention (don’t know if this is on the video you all are referencing or not).
So it appears that Greenspan may have used the unauthorized distribution of this fake slate flyer as his excuse to renege on his deal and seek the rules change to allow nominations from the floor, or as he put it in his own words, the “contingency” plan. If so, he moved forward without verifying whether or not the flyer which had been distributed was authentic before unleashing his “contingency plan.” And if so, that was completely irresponsible on his part and he, not Sen. Beers or Chairwoman Lowden, was ultimately reponsible for the chaos that ensued.
The ball is in Greenspan’s court. If he didn’t break the deal, then who are these secret “certain entities” who he now claims broke the deal?
By the way, you can read the full text of Greenspan’s email to Chairwoman Lowden unedited and in it’s entirety here:
http://conservablogs.com/muthstruths/2008/04/28/greenspans-tall-tale/
Mr Muth. Thanks for your reply. I do not question your credentials or your party allegiance, only where the truth lies. I believe the people of this great country deserve to know the truth as I’m sure you do.
Best,
M.
Mr. Greenspan, I’m still waiting for your response.
Anyone who’s watched and kept up with this election from the start knows there has been a blatant and obvious bias against Ron Paul from the GOP and the media since the start. This isn’t even debatable anymore at this point.
To assume Ron Paul supporters would not be, or even should not be suspicious or on the lookout for more bias and unfairness is absurd.
The truth is that only Ron Paul represents conservatives. While the media can label John McCain as a conservative all they want, it only fools the people who do not pay attention to things. Those who do not pay attention are the same very people who do not go to the conventions.
The conventions have been part of the process for all our of lives. If McCain had the support in Nevada, then he would have had people there. If nobody shows up for McCain, who are you or the GOP to tell the people that the 2nd part of the process is no longer valid? And that because of the first step of the process, and what has happened in other states that the delegates should be chosen solely off that? And remember, John McCain did not get more votes than Ron Paul.
The bottom line is that if John McCain had more support, then he would have gotten more delegates. You can blame Ron Paul supporters all you want, you can say they were trying to take over, and you can say whatever else you want about it. But the bottom line is that it was only possible because John McCain did not have the support. Make excuses for the lack of support all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact.
The Nevada GOP did not screw Ron Paul. As usual, the GOP will experience blowback and their bias shows through. Maybe not to those who will make excuses, but to every American with an open mind. People know the bias is there, they know whats up. And now it’s only being confirmed. Who the Nevada GOP screwed over was the people of Nevada out of a fair process.
If Ron Paul supporters hadn’t shown up to support him. Would Ron Paul have been given any delegates? Should Ron Paul have been given delegates? No. And if Ron Paul supporters hadn’t shown up and then complained they didn’t get any delegates what would have been the response?
The response would have been - learn the process, get the support, and get involved/show up.
And would it have been McCain supporters fault if Ron Paul supporters didn’t show up?
The bottom line here, and what everyone who’s pay attention will take away from this(if they didn’t already know), is that the GOP is all about following the rules and procedures just so long as it ends up the way they want. As soon as a situation is apparent that ends with a result they aren’t happy with, the rules change.
Now, I don’t know if you’ve ever played Monopoly with a player who gets to change the rules whenever they want. But you aren’t likely to do very well. I’d say most of us would simply not play with the person, or you would take over the game and say - hey look it’s right here in the rules. Now, go to jail and don’t collect $200 and quit crying about it.
The general rule of thumb is, if the situation were reversed and you wouldn’t have the same opinion, then you are most likely being a hypocrite. And hypocrites might get a bit of attention, but nobody will listen to them in the long run.
Mr. Muth, I just came across your article via Google.
I would like to say that I was not aware that back room “deals” constituted democracy in the state of Nevada. Attempting to prevent delegates from exercising their right to vote on any issue is not a very honorable thing for anyone to be doing.
Why do you throw around so many insults? In your article and nearly every comment you made to this thread it seems that you have called almost everyone either nuts, rabid, paranoid, idiots, wackos, etc.
Do you honestly support Ron Paul? I ask this because it really sounds to me as if you hate Ron Paul.
Regarding Bob Beers, I believe you might be right about him. He doesn’t seem like a bad guy and it would be a terrible idea to try and replace him with a Democrat. But Mr. Beers definitely needs to make things right with the convention. He has left many people on edge and I believe he will be watched quite closely to ensure that he does not try to pull a fast one or be involved in any sort of funny business.
John, I wasn’t the one who made the deal. It was Ron Paul’s own out-of-state political operative who says he made a deal. So take your “democracy” concern up with him.
That being said, screening potential delegates by an official Nominations Committee isn’t anything new or even anti-democratic. It’s done all the time - inside and outside politics. Anyone who has been active for any length of time knows this.
As for my support for Ron Paul, I’ve been a fan of his since long before most of his present day supporters ever even heard of him. I contributed money to his presidential campaign. However, here in the real world I recognize the fact that he will not be the GOP’s presidential nominee.
As for those I refer to as nuts, rabid, paranoid, idiots, wackos, etc., I do so only because the ones I’m referring to - not all, but the ones I’m referring to - ARE nuts, rabid, paranoid, idiots and wackos.
“Badmedia,” I’ll concede that there has been, indeed, a level of anti-Ron Paul bias on the part of some Republican Party leaders. That wasn’t the case here in Nevada.
And the point you and others fail to grasp is that while Ron Paul edged out John McCain in Nevada, Mitt Romney won the state. If anyone has a claim to the majority of delegates in Nevada it’s Romney. And he’s supporting McCain.
If you apportion delegates based on caucus performance, it’s my understanding that while Paul came in second, he received less than 15 percent of the vote. That means he should legitimately receive about 15 percent of the convention delegates - which comes to 4 or 5.
The problem is that your folks tried to get all 22. You got greedy. You over-reached. You weren’t satisfied with a “fair” distribution. You wanted the entire loaf.
Chuck, what I see as the biggest issue here, is a lack of people trusting one another and of getting along in our party as a whole.
Yes, it is true that some of Ron’s followers are just rude and crazy people. (even the campaign knows this and wishes these people would learn some tact, decorum and how to conduct themselves as Ron, as you know, is a soft spoken, kind, decent Christian man, never rude, etc.)
Yes, it is true that many “long time” followers are not this way and are decent people.
I won’t comment on yalls current situation in Nevada, because one, it is yalls situation to resolve and secondly I wasn’t there nor know enough about it anyway.
My comments are on our party in general. I don’t understand why “some” in our party see these “new people” as the glass half empty approach and not the inverse as the glass half full?
We NEED new, energetic people in the party. I believe once many of the RP followers realize that not everyone is “out to get them,” and if the quote “establishment” would WELCOME THEM, befriend them and vice versa, that they too can see this as a “win win” for the party in general and overall.
I really do believe that many of these neophytes can be taught, trained how to actually campaign, and to become very effective members and to be apart of our party for the long term.
I do not like some of tone I see coming from BOTH SIDES in our party, by “some,” not all on each side of the RP divide.
I know here in the Houston, Texas area “some” in our party went out of their way to welcome some of these new, neophyte RP people at a county/senate convention, and some of those people realized that “hey, they are not all out to get us, wow, we were welcomed and given delegate spots.” Then, I know in other areas where the “establishment” type folks prepared to “hunker down” and go to war against the RP people before they ever showed up, with statements like “we need to shut these “newcomers” out at all cost,” etc. (HORRIBLE attitude i.e. glass half empty)
That type of behavior from long time inner party (so called) “leaders” (I put that in quotes because a REAL party leader wouldn’t treat people that way, especially new, energetic neophytes) is harmful to the party. It is now THEM making new enemies, instead of doing the inverse and making new friends to join hands, work together in our common areas of overlap to BEAT THE DEMOCRATS!!!!
Some on both sides of this need to learn how to make friends and see this as a “win win” and the glass half full.
Sadly, some on both sides do not and have not. I have personally seen appalling behavior and attitudes on all sides in our party. NONE of it is helpful.
On another topic, I do remember you coming to Texas a few years ago when you were RLC chairman to meet with Congressman Paul. We actually had lunch together at a place across the street from Ron’s office in Clute, Tx
…if you remember that? haha
I cannot speak to your views or stances on Ron since, but I do remember your involvement and support of Ron in the past.
It is just unfortunate that “some” in our party on both sides operate as they do. It is not “Christian like” on EITHER side!!!
Here in Texas I TRY to show party regulars how it’s a positive, and I TRY to show some of the RP people how to behave. Sometimes neither side listens, and both sides lose as a result and the chance for “all” to come together for a common goal is lost.
I have been a Republican since I was in elementary school in the 70’s. When I turned 15 and got my first car in 1983 the first thing I did was go out and put an “I LOVE REAGAN” sticker on the back. In 1986, I couldn’t WAIT to turn 18 to vote our idiot Democrat Governor, Mark White out of office and have voted every election every year since. I had printed “IMPEACH CLINTON” stickers in 93/94 and was selling them ouf of the Dallas Co. Republican HQ. So I speak from a lifetime of work in the party as a Christian “paleo-conservative” ideologically.
Come, let us reason and work together as a party.
Michael Franks
Former Texas State Republican Executive Committee SD18
A Former Campaign Chairman-Congressman Ron Paul 1996
Printer, organizer of the Bush/Cheney sign effort for Texas 2000, 2004
(www.bushcheneysigns.com website is down at the moment)
Printed MUCH of Ron Paul’s Presidential race nationwide
Printed some of McCains signs too
National Delegate 2004 NYC
Owner Texas GOP Store- Nationwide Republican political printing
www.TexasGOPstore.com
Chuck, you and I have been friends for a long time now. So I hope you will hear me out, and not call me all the names I usually see you calling our mutual enemies.
You are a long-time Nevada GOP activist. Were you at the convention? If so, I’d like to hear your first-hand report of exactly how YOU saw everything go down. (And if not, it looks like you chose the wrong year to lay out!)
We’ve both been at this stuff for quite some time, and you know as well as I do that “out-of-state political operatives” are quite common in presidential (and many other) campaigns, and they can be quite effective. So I’m not sure that’s a charge to even try to throw around. (Now, you might not *like* the “out-of-state political operative” — but that’s a different matter entirely!)
I am (obviously) not in Nevada. But I can tell you that all across the state here in Georgia, regardless of the fact that the Ron Paul supporters had upwards of 40% of the delegates at most of the District Conventions, the GOP shut us down everywhere. Out of 39 District delegate and 39 alternate slots, we got, I think, two Alternates — and that’s only because they didn’t know we were Ron Paul supporters.
The State Convention is coming up. I don’t know if we’ll have a majority, but we’ll at least have a sizable plurality. Do you think they will therefore “give us” any of the delegate slots? Or will we have to fight for whatever we can get, tooth and nail… and if we DO have the majority, take all that we can?
I spent the entire weekend watching every news report, reading every blog, downloading every video, and chatting with every delegate — on BOTH sides of the issue here — about exactly what THEY saw go down at the NV convention. And I have to tell you, even in spite of my bias, it looks to me like the RP folks learned the rules, followed the rules, and were winning by the rules — and the GOP leaders threw the rules out the window, and shut it all down because they weren’t winning. I’m sure the people in charge are really nice and fun to yuk it up with on a personal level, but we both know that if they HAD been winning — by their rules — they would have told the RP people to shut up and stop whining, and go home and learn the rules. Even if they ARE “libertarian-leaning” (whatever that is supposed to mean nowadays). Or “conservative” or whatever they like to call themselves lately.
Chuck, as we’re seeing all across the country, the RP supporters *have* learned the rules, and are winning delegate slots all over the place. I hope you’re going to be in Minneapolis-St. Paul in September; it’s going to be a lot of fun.
Now, be kind to me. You know how delicate my disposition is.
Bill Greene, founder
Delegates for Ron Paul for Vice President
http://www.delegatesforronpaul.com/
Chuck,
Since you say you are a Ron Paul supporter, I am finding it difficult to figure out why you are most concerned with the issue of the deal that was supposedly made and then broken.
I am a Ron Paul supporter, and more importantly a supporter of the ideas of this revolution, and it seems to me that there are a few other issues that are much more important.
First off, there is no rule or bylaw that says we are bound to any candidate here in Nevada. That means that even if Romney says he wants his supporters to go with McCain, they simply don’t have to.
Secondly, since we are not bound, and Ron Paul supporters dominated the convention, it seems only fair that we get as many delegates as we are able. After all, we knocked on doors until our knuckles bled to get the numbers that we have, and we studied the rules long and hard to make sure we could keep things fair. It is only right that our hard work be acknowledged. We are the ones who showed up, and showed up prepared.
Lastly, the fact that the convention was adjourned in a manner that went completely against the rules should not be overlooked. An adjournment requires a motion from the floor and then a vote. This entire process, however, was entirely circumvented by a quick announcement and a bang of the gavel. That this happened after we had won, reportedly, 7 of the 9 congressional district delegates, and when there was not one warning the entire day that we had any sort of time limit, may be purely coincidental, but should also not be overlooked.
I sincerely hope that you can find it within yourself to focus on these much more important and concrete issues, if you are indeed a supporter of the revolution.
Thank you.
Michael, I absolutely remember that meeting with Dr. Paul in Texas several years ago. We had lunch with Eric Dondero, who was working for him at the time. At that underlines one of my points: I’ve know Dr. Paul and have been a supporter of his for a long time; long before many of his current supporters ever even heard of him.
And I don’t disagree with what you’ve written here in general. And that’s what has be so annoyed with Greenspan and the loony fringe here in Nevada. Unlike other states, Chairwoman Lowden welcomed and encouraged the Ron Paul folks to stay involved after the caucus was over and Ron was mathematically eliminated.
And I can tell you, without violating a trust, that Chairwoman Lowden came under a lot of pressure and a lot of criticism for inviting Ron to speak at the Nevada GOP convention. But she stuck to her guns and insisted that Ron be allowed to speak knowing full well that the McCain folks weren’t happy about it.
So after all she put up with and risked in defense of Ron speaking at the convention, when it would have been so easy to do otherwise, to have Greenspan and the loons turn on her like rabid dogs is simply inexcusable and unacceptable.
I think the party and the Ron Paul folks should sit down and try to come to another reasonable agreement which will make all sides happy - but if it were up to me, I’d never negotiate with Greenspan again. His word is no good. The Ron Paul folks need to send in a new negotiator.
Bill, I have too much respect for you to beat you up on anything here. I can certainly agree that some out-of-state operatives can be very effective and helpful. On the other hand, other out-of-state operatives can be disastrous. (See: NRCC)
And I understand your point about what is going on in Georgia; however, that was NOT the case here in Nevada. Ron Paul got 14 percent of the caucus vote and the party agreed to give him 14 percent of the delegate slots. But on convention morning, Greenspan and Company decided to break the deal and go for all 31 slots.
It’s not even that they tried to go for all 31 slots. It’s that they agreed to a deal and then broke it and tried to go for all 31 slots while accusing party leaders who were NOT hostile to Ron Paul of dishonorable behavior.
Frankly, you know I’ve never been a big fan of McCain and would love to see the entire Nevada delegation go to our friend Ron Paul. I’m not sure that would be “fair” in light of the caucus results, but it would sure be my preference. But if that’s what they wanted to do, then Greenspan shouldn’t have agreed to the four slots which were offered. He bit the hand that fed him. Not very professional - whether an in-state operative or an out-of-state operative.
All the best, Bill.
Hi All -
I find this discussion very interesting; some of it confirms what I witnessed at the Convention, and some of it I could have no way of knowing about, true or not. Here is my perspective.
My friend and I, eager to see the process through from Caucus to the end, attended the Washoe COunty and also Nevada State Conventions (albeit learning along the way). My friend even attended a Parliamentary Procedures class to get better informed.
Our first indication that something was up was when Sen. Beers tried to silence Mr. Weber’s call for some Parliamentary point to be addressed. His premature and unfounded call for Sergeant at Arms to stand by shows his belligerence. Don’t know what brought it all on, but nothing evident to us on the floor. From there, Sen. Beers seemed intent on strong-arming things from there on out.
Regarding the voting in of delegates, we were led to believe from the COunty COnvention that this was one of the fundtions of the State COnvention. We had come in part to participate in this process. Due to the sheer numbers of delegates attending, we assumed there would have been some pre-printed list we could vote off of. We had no idea that another plan wasin play, and so we voted to keep what we perceived as the original voting proceedure. If that would be time-consuming and messy, then so be it. Maybe the Convention should have been 2-3 days, if that much time was needed. Why did the Party assume this could all be shopved through in one day?
My firend and I were some of those staying past the 5 pm gavel, and we almost had a quorum with which to continue business. The way the “end” was handled also left the feeling of being hookwinked. Where was the orderly, rules-oriented proceedure I had come to expect of Republicans?
Contrary to many in the “stay after school” crowd, I was not a Ron Paul supporter. I was originally a Romney supporter, now turned McCain supporter. And yet, I felt that my input was not valued, wanted, needed, that I was, in fact, just hindering the plan that the “leaders” had already decided.
I agree with Michael Franks of Texas that, although messy, it is a GOOD thing that more people are becoming involved in the process and being energized. So what if it’s for a candidate that is not the officially-sanctioned candidate? Do we believe in the system, or not?
As a home schooler, I like to show my kids things up-close wherever possible; I am glad they were not at the State Convention, although seeing disillusionment up-close can be educational. I am trying to teach them it is a GOOD thing to get involved, that they, too, can make an impact in their world, etc. They came with me to the Caucus. I hope we can wade through this mess and have something positive to teach our children.