Some folks who aren’t exactly thrilled with the shenanigans pulled by the Ron Paul troops at the Nevada GOP convention last weekend are making their opinions known. The following letter appears in today’s edition of the Nevada Appeal…
Paul Supporters Should Unite, Not Disrupt the GOP
My wife and I were delegates and attended the Nevada State Republican Convention last Saturday. We wanted to be part of the process to ensure Nevada’s values regarding immigration, the war against terrorism, tax cuts, energy and other issues are carried forward to the National Convention later this year.
We think Sen. Bob Beers did an admirable job trying to keep order that was eventually destroyed by the “Ron Paul Losers.” Ron Paul addressed the convention in his usual whiny, ranting way completely oblivious of the fact he lost the Republican caucus in Nevada to Mitt Romney and is, in reality, the “loser” 51 percent to 14 percent. Paul said he is “still running” for president. He’s running all right, running on empty!
Romney also addressed the convention, in an upbeat and positive way, acknowledged McCain’s victories and urged us all to come together to support McCain in the fall election. But the dysfunctional “Ron Paul Losers” kept trying to disrupt the proceedings even though Ron Paul is the loser, and has no chance of ever winning the nomination.
These losers were in such a minority that, when sensible people finally left the convention floor in disgust, the “Ron Paul Losers” couldn’t even muster a quorum to keep things going. So it’s clear that all these losers can do is disrupt. What these losers need to realize is that their plight is hopeless and that strength comes from working together rather than trying to fragment the party. It’s the American way. But, since this is America, these losers are free to keep acting like fools!
JERE SCHULTZ
Carson City
Posted on May 1st, 2008 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: Nevada
The vote to amend the rules passed by nearly 2/3rds of the delegates that voted. Ron Paul supporters did not have 2/3rds of the people there. Jere represents the minority. Also, we could not muster a quorum because Bob Beers recessed the convention indefinitely without discussion or a vote. This is an infraction of Robert’s Rules of Order. Also, in addition to Bob Beers illegally recessing the convention you had McCain folks 60 minutes prior to the recess urging everyone to leave to prevent a quorom.
The were no shenanigans. Ron Paul supporters played by the rules. Ron Paul supporters won. The party leaders and McCain supporters couldn’t handle it.
Perhaps if Jere didn’t have the same biases against Ron Paul supporters as many within the rest of the GOP, this could have gone smoother.
McCain didn’t win Nevada either. And last I checked this is still a republic.
Chuck, what’s the slogan you’ve put at the bottom of your newsletters for YEARS? What’s happened?
Let me remind you, and others who may not get your newsletter:
It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds. Samuel Adams
But now, Ron Paul supporters aren’t allowed to be angry? How long have we sat back and watched the GOP in power completely stray from their platform? But I guess it’s ok because there’s a R in the White House?
I know you support Ron Paul’s positions. You’re probably THE MAIN REASON I knew who he was and supported him even before he started to run for President.
Get angry at angry Ron Paul supporters all you want, but it seems to go against everything I know about you to throw your weight behind the GOP machinery when they’ve betrayed us FAR TOO MANY TIMES to count.
jmho
Everyone, please get this straight: I am NOT angry at Ron Paul supporters - other than the unhinged fringe elements in the ranks.
I’m angry with Jeff Greenspan for luring the party leaders - primarily Chairwoman Sue Lowden, who actually WELCOMED him and the Ron Paul folks into the party, and is the ONLY state GOP chairman to invite Ron Paul to speak at her convention - into thinking he spoke for and represented the Ron Paul campaign and then negotiated an agreement with the party over the delegate selection process only to renege on the deal at the last minute.
The party leaders negotiated with Greenspan in good faith and then he turned around an stabbed them in the back. THAT’S what I’m angry about. And the Ron Paul folks should be angry with him, too - for making what it appears to most of them a lousy agreement in the first place without so much as informing them in advance as to what he was doing.
This is all about Greenspan breaking a deal he had no authority to make.
Now…what’s done is done. The Ron Paul campaign ought to yank Greenspan out of any further involvement in Nevada and then maybe everyone can try to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
Umm, why would they think 1 person would just represent and be able to make such deals in the first place? Doesn’t it say a good bit about how the GOP operates when it is making back door deals like this in the first place? It seems to me there was a process that is setup for a reason.
Need I remind these people who walked out, and are upset at Ron Paul supporters. If things were in reverse, how would you feel? How would you feel if you went to take part in the political process, and you were treated as such because you did not follow the party line? Do you not realize that when you bend the rules as such for yourself, you then allow the rules to be bent for others. Because you supported a system which did such to begin with.
And under such a system, even if you agree with who the nominee is etc, you still did not have a choice in the matter. You did not get to make that choice, you were merely lucky enough to be in agreement. Because if you were to make another choice other than what the GOP establishment wants, then you would be in the same boat as Ron Paul supporters.
So you gotta ask yourself. Is this really how a free people have elections?
Chuck. I don’t know why you are upset. I’d personally be more upset that those in charge believe they have the power to take the election process out of the hands of the people through such deals. Where does your loyality lie? Is it with simple the party. Or the principles of that party?
I think there is a lot confusion, illustrated by badmedia’s comments, about the fact that a political parties convention is not an election in the democratic sense of the word. Political Parties have, historically, been more effective and have achieved more when back door deals were how political parties worked. For instance millions of immigrants were given housing and jobs and support because of political parties when they arrived in America. Now you have Ron Paul supporters who have not been part of the party establishment before complaining about how the establishment is run. If they had been involved in the party for longer than Ron Paul’s presidency they might have already known that. But they haven’t most of them are johnny-come-latelies who are complaining that they deserve to be heard. What have they done for the party that they deserve the same say as people who have worked their entire lives to push the party forward. If the reason they didn’t get involved in the party sooner is because they felt the party wasn’t in line with their platform why didn’t they get involved earlier?
Fact + evidence vs. Muth’s “Truths”
Chuck you are long on wild accusations and yet again have zero facts to present.
When you have one tiny little sliver of evidence to present, do it. We’re waiting!
Jeff, I see you continue to refuse to answer the question of whether or not you made a deal with the party to accept four slots on the national delegation slate. I wonder why that is? It’s a simple question. Did you…or didn’t you?
I certainly asked for them and have been quite open about it. Now, will Mr. Hirsch please reveal how many and which names he selected from among Ron Paul supporters for the recommended nominating committee’s ballot.
I’ve been completely open about the fact that I wanted to negotiate a solution acceptable to everyone prior to the convention.
Heck, I told EVERYONE precisely how many Ron Paul delegates would be there that day = 600. Maybe no one believed it? Tough luck.
The nominating committee reneged on the deal, and the delegates on the floor got a rule change. So what? That’s how conventions work.
Did you expect 600 people to just rollover?
You live in fantasyland. Or your mental abailities are escapting you at the moment.
www.muthsfantasies.com
No, you’ve been anything BUT “quite open about it.” Did you or did you not agree to accept four slots on the “unity” delegation slate? And did you or did you not choose and submit four names for those slots from the list of applications which came into the party? Why won’t you answer these simple questions?
Yes. How’s that?
Now, let’s see who they put on. I’ve been telling you this for 4 days. I’ve been OPENLY calling for you to obtain the document and post it. I don’t know how much more open I can be about it. Jeez, Chuck.
(Full disclosure: I got a copy, zero RP supporters on it. The one with the little x’s on it to the left of the names, you know. Well you don’t know, but Howard does.)
I was open about it before the convention and have been since you began your character assassination - but, whatever, your blog, your gig.
To repeat what I posted the other day: Getting character assassinated by Chuck Muth is a badge of honor for an honest man.
Oh my goodness, I just realized something. Chuck, perhaps it is you who are being played! Someone close to you is exploiting your weakness. Knowing your affinity for them, they are feeding you stories to exploit your “attack dog” approach as an intimidation technique.
Did it perhaps ever occur to you that what you are being fed by the the person(s) you have affinity for may not be wholly accurate because they are using you? (Bet it wouldn’t be the first time!)
Hmmmm….. something to consider anyway, esp since every single way you’ve tried to smear me is easily countered by the merest of evidence and they’ve given you quite a few angles to try so far all without success.
Keep trying, I guess, or whatever. Your blog.
OK, finally we’re getting somewhere.
Since you’re the one asking for facts, the fact is this is the FIRST time you’ve unequivocally admitted to making a “deal” of some sort. Now…
Please tell us exactly what the deal was and exactly who you made the deal with. Was it with Chairwoman Lowden? Was it with convention Chairman Beers? Was it with Nominations Committee Chairman Mathews? Or was it someone else? Of a combination of people?
This isn’t “character assassination,” Jeff. YOU are the one who made the accusation in your letter to Chairman Lowden that you came to believe that “certain parties” weren’t going to hold up their end of the bargain. All I’ve been trying to do is get you to provide the specific details behind your non-specific accusation which, until just now, you’ve steadfastly refused to provide. All of this could have been avoided if you would have simply answered my questions openly, honestly and promptly.
If you continue to answer straight questions with straight answers, and it turns out that you can back up your accusation, I’ll certainly following those facts to where they lead and will report so. I have no dog in this fight. If you had a deal, and the person(s) with whom you had the deal broke it, I’ll be more than happy to publish that fact and will support what you did regarding the rules change vote.
But let’s continue to get all the facts out on the table first…
So, please, what exactly was the deal you had and with whom did you make this deal?
Chuck, good gracious. I’ve been saying this for DAYS now.
Guess what… “Certain parties” (not Sue, well maybe Sue I don’t know, I hope not, but that’s not who I meant by “certain parties”) did **NOT** hold up their end of the bargain!
I OPENLY tried to see (work a deal) if the McCain folks, party and Ron Paul folks could establish some kind of delegate deal acceptable to all parties so we wouldn’t end up in this situation and someone or more than one on the nominating committee or elsewhere in the party decided that they wanted to reneg.
As you state above, 4 delegates were discussed.
Prior to convention I OPENLY told everyone in the party who cared to hear that 600 RP delegates would show up.
Day of convention, zero (RP) delegates were actually on the nominating committee’s list.
775 delegates on the floor felt that any good Republican on the floor should be able to submit for consideration as a national delegate by the body of the delegates at the convention.
Where’s the news? What’s the big revelation? Where’s the dirt for pete’s sake?
The only news I see is that you believe that a supermajority or vast majority of state delegates’ opinions should be DISregarded.
I really don’t think that that’s the kind of thing you, Chuck, want to express publicly. Talk about divisive.
Or that 600 Ron Paul delegates should have shown up to lose. Is that what you are suggesting should have happened?
Since you’re a “fact” guy, the fact is I tried to reach both Sue Lowden and Bob Beers immediately after the convention was recessed to find out what had happened. I was unable to reach either. The fact is, my initial reporting on what happened at the convention was based on published newspaper and blog reports, not any conversations I had with the party leaders. And to refresh your memory, I was quite complimentary of the organizing efforts of the Paul delegates in that initial report. I also wrote:
That was on Sunday, April 27th. Five days ago. And if was only now that you finally confirmed that a deal had, in fact, been struck.
I’ll also note that in that first report, there was NO mention of you whatsoever. Indeed, it was only after I obtained a copy of the email you sent to Chairman Lowden that you were brought into my reporting. And since in that letter to Chairman Lowden you made some accusations about someone on the party’s side breaking the deal, I’ve simply been trying to get you to back up your accusations…which until now you’ve refused to do.
Now if you could just put your paranoia to the side and answer staight, legitimate questions about your accusations, we can proceed with trying to get to the bottom of this REGARDLESS of where it might lead. Yes, some of the folks involved are friends of mine, but if they brought on the rules change by breaking the deal you had with them, then they got what they deserved and I’ll say so.
But let’s continue to get the facts and see where they lead. So again, please answer the above question: What exactly was the deal you made and with whom?
See, Jeff, here you go again. In one post you say you made a deal. In the last post you write that you “tried” to make a deal and that four slots were “discussed.” Which is it, Jeff? Did you have a deal or didn’t you? And if so, who did you make the deal with? And if you didn’t have a deal, then how can you accuse “certain parties” of breaking a deal you didn’t have.
Your unwillingness to be straight on this is what’s causing the problem, Jeff. You say one thing one minute and something completely contradictory the next. Make up your mind, please.
Again, Chuck, it’s simple strategy.
If there WAS a deal and no one reneged we wouldn’t be in this situation.
If there WAS a deal and someone reneged, the Ron Paul delegates correctly implemented their contingency.
If there WAS NOT a deal, then it would make sense to try to gain as many national delegates as possible if you had the numbers, would it not?
So, logically, there either WAS a deal and someone reneged , thereby forcing the Ron Paul delegates to implement their contingency, or there WAS NOT a deal and the Ron Paul delegates were successful because of their numbers and correct positions on traditional Republican principles.
I am not a person to name names because, frankly, I think dirty laundry should be kept in the family.
But someone asked or enticed you to take it public. And you indulged them.
So, given your nasty demeanor over the past few days, I figured I’d draw the fire from you rather than have you aim it at the very good people who comprise the principled conservative constitutional movement in your state and in the Nevada Republican Party.
That’s the long and the short of it. So, if you must continue, then fire away on me, not them.
In short: go sit on it. Heeeyyyyy!
That’s what I thought. You continue to talk out of both sides of your mouth. You made a serious accusation against some very fine Nevada Republicans, but won’t back it up. You have no honor, Jeff. Everyone can now see for themselves, based on your own words, that you have no credibility.
You sure “figured” on a lot of things. Apparently what you didn’t figure on was someone actually calling your bluff. Big mistake.
What bluff, Chuck?
If there was no deal, then the Ron Paul delegates did the correct thing and were successful due to their numbers and traditional Republican principles.
If there was a deal, then someone reneged because there were zero RP supporters on the nominating committee’s ballot/slate.
As I have said already 100 times now, your answer is on that piece of paper. So, quit being lazy and go get yourself a copy from your buddies.
Unlike you I do not attack Republicans in public. Except for you. Oh that’s right you’re not Republican.
Nice try, Jeff. Let’s get back to your own words. I asked you point blank if you had made a deal on the delegate slate. Your exact words (see above) were: “Yes. How’s that?”
But when asked exactly what the deal was and with whom you had the deal, you did a 180 just minutes later, saying you “tried” to make a deal.
The “deal,” Jeff, is the heart of this matter, because YOU are the one accusing others of breaking it. But in the span of mere minutes you went from “Yes” you had a deal to you “tried” to make a deal. Make up your mind. Was there a deal or wasn’t there? If so, what exactly was the deal and with whom did you make it? Put up or shut up, Jeff.
You started all this by attacking “certain parties” who you claim broke a deal you claim you had. I’m simply asking that you back up your accusation…something you continue to refuse to do.
Hold on a sec, pal. Just who did I make a serious accusation against? It wasn’t Sue. I emailed the proper people the state party chair, the state party vice and the convention chair. Who else should I have reached out to? You’re the expert apparently, so do tell.
It was YOU who made this public. Not me. It was YOU who in your enamoration of one or more of who you think are your friends, you thought that your public defense of them was helping them and you hurt them far more by making this dirty laundry public.
I didn’t. YOU did.
Publicly, I didn’t say a single negative thing about a Nevada Republican. And I still have not.
So you did far more damage here than you did good, Chuck.
We did nothing wrong. I’ve been completely open. I told the party everything up front. I’ve been perfectly open here. Time after time. Response after response.
You published the letter publicly, not me.
If someone else miscalculated their strategy or underestimated Ron Paul’s numbers, that’s THEIR fault not mine.
Furthermore and especially after your nastiness, I am not going to make up for your laze. If you are so hard hitting then go get the facts from the nominating committee and post them.
The answers are there. Your buddies have them. So go get them and post them.
Otherwise go stuff it. You can continue your lies and slander if you want, I couldn’t care less. I can take it. Unlike you I’m not a wuss.
Maybe not, but you certainly are acting childish now that you’ve been put on the spot. The fact remains, you accused certain unnamed Nevada Republicans of breaking a deal you say you had with them, but refuse to say what the deal was and with whom you had it.
And now with this last post you’ve invented a whole new story.
In your earlier claims, you’ve said you discovered that the Nominations Committee, or “certain parties” on it, broke the deal that you say, depending on what time of day it is, you had or “tried” to have, on Saturday morning. NOW you’re saying that upon discovering that they broke this deal, you “emailed” Chairman Lowden and Convention Chairman Beers?
Are you serious? You’re there at the convention with everything going on, you think some unnamed parties have broken a deal you thought you had or “tried” to have, and you EMAILED Lowden and Beers about it? Like they were reading emails in the midst of a major party convention from the podium? Why didn’t you just walk over to them and raise your concerns directly?
Good Lord, Jeff. You just keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper.
And contrary to your assertion above, while you certainly were able to dish it out in your post-convention letter to Chairman Lowden, you obviously can’t “take it” - as evidenced by the increasing agitation you’re displaying now that someone has pinned you down over your baseless accusations against highly-respected Nevada Republican leaders and volunteers.
From what I can gather:
*Jeff worked a deal with other members within the ranks of the GOP to have a certain number of RP delegates (4?) go to the convention.
*When the delegate slate actually was brought forth it had no Ron Paul delegates on there. Whether or not this slate was fake is up for debate, but honestly Chuck are you saying Jeff should have KNOWN it was fake? Why? How?
*Based on that questionable slate, the Ron Paul people sprung into action.
Now we’re wondering who reneged on the deal? If Jeff reneged on a deal it was because he was made to believe the other side reneged FIRST (no RP delegates).
Quite frankly, in his situation I would have done the SAME DAMN THING.
Well, Martina, with all due respect that would have been irresponsible.
I don’t know if an official slate of recommended delegates ever existed. All I know is that a fake one was distributed. By whom, no one knows at this point. But convention chairman Beers advised all of the delegates from the podium that it was a fake. If this is the “evidence” Jeff relied on for “going nuclear” - and he’s yet to say whether it was - then he should have verified the authenticity first.
And by the way, there’s a good deal of paranoia going ’round from all sides over this. Some are suggesting that Paul supporters themselves put out the fake slate to give them the excuse they were looking for to try to get all 31 of the seats rather than just the four Greenspan supposedly negotiated for.
Concerned Student. I am an American citizen. That in itself gives me every right to be heard. There is nothing that says that a person must be involved in the political process for a certain amount of time before they are allowed to take part in the process. If it is someone’s first time, then it is exactly that, there first time. It is your right!
As an American citizen, I have every right to be upset at how things have happened. From Day 1 of this election it has been the biggest eye opener of how corrupt our system is. Before Ron Paul, it was my belief that the majority of Americans were just plain out stupid. And well can’t say that has literally changed much, however what has been made apparent to me and others is that the reason is due to the media bias towards anyone who does not want to increase the size of government. It is just as obvious that the political process is stacked in the hands of a few people, and the election process is rigged.
Maybe this is how the GOP has operated in the past. But it doesn’t make it right, and it certainly isn’t in the rules of how things are to be handled. As soon as people ask for them to follow the rules established for a fair election process, there are those such as yourself defending backroom deals and things which are not in the rules.
I don’t know what kind of education you have, but where I come from, that is what you call shady and corrupt.
But let me tell you what is what. I and many others are quite sick of the GOP and the establishment and what they have done in this election. If you are a Ron Paul supporter or not, it is a fact that he was not given a fair shake, and the people were NOT allowed a fair election as a result. The entire thing has been a soap opera scam.
The American people have NO CHOICE in the elections. And the GOP is proving that everyday. Even if you don’t support Ron Paul, you have lost that choice. Because as I said in the original post, if you happen to support the nominee, then you just got lucky. If you support anyone other than the nominee, you are discarded without thought.
And here we have people who actively support this process of corruption. Not because the process is right or fair, but because they do not care about anything other than supporting the party. And it’s blind stupidity at that. As John McCain literally has 0 chance of winning the election, and everyone knows it.
In fact, the only reason John McCain, or any of the other candidates got the votes they did in a majority is because the Republican party has lost nearly half it’s membership. The only ones left in the party are NOT conservatives. They are neo-cons, and if you look past the part of the name where it says conservative, and look at what they support you will find they are the mostly liberals.
Quite frankly, anyone calling themselves a conservative and supports John McCain isn’t a very good conservative. They are a liberal who just doesn’t want to admit it.
So quite frankly, I could honestly not care what any of these politicians say anymore. Nor do I care what the media says, I don’t even turn on my TV anymore at all.
I did not file my taxes this year, and I will not. I will not pay another dime to this corrupt government who feels backdoor deals get things done while ignoring the constitution and fair elections. It’s a complete breach of contract, and that contract between the people and the government is the constitution. We have 3rd world BS going on in this country today, and I for 1 am sick of it.
A government which does not follow the constitution is not my government. I will NOT be anything less than a free man until the day I die. If I die sooner because of that, then so be it.
But I am sick of the GOP, and I am sick of people like chuck here who want to defend a system of backdoor deals that is out of the hands of the people.
Chuck,
In the days leading up to the convention the State GOP gave or sold our delegate information to McCain’s campaign. The McCain campaign conducted a deceptive poll to gauge our numbers. The very next day the State GOP party leadership conducted another deceptive phone poll meant to gauge our numbers. These two actions sent a very loud and clear message to the Ron Paul supporters that the State GOP leadership was up to something. Many Ron Paul supporters were very upset that their own party used such a deceptive tactic.
I think Jeff has a great idea. I think you should get the delegate list from Sue Lowden and post it publicly. As an attendee to the State Convention I did not see the nomination committee’s list that you claim had Ron Paul supporters on it.
Jason, do you have an proof to back up any of your accusations, or are you just spinning conspiracy theories from your head the way Jeff has been doing.
And you and Jeff are the ones saying there was a delegate list which didn’t have any Ron Paul names on it. So why don’t YOU produce this phantom list?
Chuck,
I answered both telephone polls, but I did not record the conversation. I can get you in touch with approximately 50 delegates to the State Convention that received the same poll. They will tell you the same thing.
I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am a goldwater conservative, and a fan of reagan, who is upset with the direction the Republican Party has taken during the past 10 years.
I don’t know anything about the delegate list created by the nominations committee. I never saw it, nor was it distributed to any of the attendees in any organized fashion.
The only thing I know with 100% certainty is that Ron Paul supporters were poised to win 80-90% of the delegate slots and the State GOP leadership illegally called for an indefinite recess without a discussion or vote.
To be blunt it was a very stupid political move given the fact that we comprised a majority or a near majority of the convention attendees.
What makes this whole mess so unnecessary is that Ron Paul supporters are primarily focused on national issues, and we never had any qualms with the State GOP leaders until 6PM on April 26th, 2008 when the convention was recessed without a discussion or vote.
I’m being told - and admittedly I’m no expert on this - but I’m being told that the convention chairman CAN call for a recess without a vote from the floor. If so, and this is exactly what Sen. Beers did, then calling for the recess was not “illegal” by any stretch of the definition. Someone will have to produce specific passages from the bylaws or Robert’s Rules. I don’t know them by heart.
As for the complaint that some delegates left the room so as to deny a quorum in order to reconvene, that sounds like the kind of organizational move using the rules that the Ron Paul people used earlier in the day to force nominations from the floor. If so, why is it OK for you folks to use the rules to your benefit, but it’s not OK for others to use the same rules to their benefit? You can’t have it both ways, Jason.
Sounds like your folks got rolled by your own party’s rules Chuck, it was good old fashioned politicking and you and your buddies can’t handle it. So you’re bringing it to all the local newsrags in an effort to discredit the people who rolled you in the eyes of anyone who’ll listen.
Try to get your facts straight before writing in the future, Stephen. It’s not my party, as I’m not a registered Republican and haven’t been for some time now. And I am and have always been a Ron Paul supporter. What I’m not a supporter of is a Ron Paul operative embarrassing everyone by double-talking and double-crossing folks who tried to welcome him and Ron Paul supporters into the party.
Chuck - I got the polling calls, both deceptive, one from the McCain campaign and one from the party. Both were geared to find out who you supported. And I don’t care that the McCain campaign polled us, it may be the only time since before the caucus when they actually did their jobs. If I’m John McCain, I want a refund from his state coordinator. I don’t know the guy, but he’s been stealing McCain’s money.
But, since when is it the job of the Nevada Republican Party to poll the delegates? Especially by lying to the delegates. The lie told to each called delegate was that they were asking who you supported to arrange seating by supported candidate. As you may know, seating was only by county. So put on your investigative reporter hat and ask the party what they were trying to accomplish by polling the delegates so deceptively.
And claiming not to be an expert doesn’t let any of us off the hook. You seem to be taking someone’s word for what is legal and what is illegal. My reading of the convention rules and Roberts’ Rules is that what the chairman did is absolutely illegal. A motion to recess is one that must be moved from the floor, which it was not. It must be seconded. Which it was not. And it must be voted for by fifty percent plus one of the delegates. Which it was not. If you care to crack open a copy of Roberts’ Rules, you may find something different and I’d be happy to see it. I prefer to think that Chairman Beers did not act illegally. Brian
1.) I couldn’t care less about any pre-convention phone polling or what the McCain campaign did or didn’t do. Neither is important. Who cares?
2.) The Parlimentarian - who also happens to be President of the Nevada Bar Association - ruled that the convention chairman had full authority to recess the convention on his own with no motion from the floor. Case closed. Move on.
The parliamentarian was thoroughly unfamiliar with parliamentary procedure. He wasn’t even aware that the parliamentarian should never take the mic and speak to the body of the convention. When he did that he was de facto taking over the chair of the convention. That is breaking parliamentary procedure rule number one. I hope you don’t give the same deference to all attorneys. Seems to me that Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer probably have legal resumes out the wazoo, much longer than the cv of our parliamentarian. But I wouldn’t trust them to decide a pee wee football game. A journalist opens up RONR tenth edition and finds the proper procedure, then it’s “case closed.” No journalist has done this. And apparently journalism is among the profession that attracts the least curious people these days. Getting quotes and sources is fine, but actually checking facts is part of the process, is it not?
And apparently you have inside information the rest of us do not. In fact, the parliamentarian was not consulted when I appealed from the decision of the chair about the recess. The parliamentarian nor the chair is the final authority in such things. The convention delegates are. And the delegates were ignored.
You don’t care if the party polled people as if it were working for the McCain campaign? In fact, what the party did might be construed as an in kind contribution if the results were given to the McCain campaign. I would think that one’s jouralistic hackels might be raised a bit by that. Oh well.
Chuck - I have participated in what I hope is a friendly dialog. But I’m getting the idea that your outrage is pretty one sided. Conventions and politics in general are pretty ugly business. They never go smoothly and someone’s ego or face is always getting bruised. And in my rather moderate experience, it is never “case closed” or all one sided. That’s just a way of shutting down dialog. Good luck with your blog.
Brian
You’re comparing a state party convention to…the Supreme Court? Brian, you are taking this WAY too seriously.
And yes, my outrage is absolutely one-sided. My ONLY interest in this is Jeff Greenspan breaking his word. If he hadn’t given his word and the Ron Paul people had taken over the convention and elected 31 Ron Paul delegates…fine. But I don’t like an untrustworthy double-dealer whose word isn’t worth spit.
Otherwise, I’m no longer a party official and no longer officially a member of the Republican Party. So yeah, this inconsequential pissing match between you Paul folks and the party is something which means absolutely nothing to me. The only thing that means anything to me is that what Greenspan did resulted in attacks against two very good friends of mine and two longtime Republicans who have paid their dues in the GOP many times over. Something which can’t be said of the vast majority of Paul delegates who showed up to the party convention this year for the first time in their lives.
When you attack Sue Lowden and Bob Beers, you bring me into the fight. And I don’t play softball.
I don’t think I attacked Sue Lowden or Bob Beers. And if I “attack” someone (verbally or in writing) I will do so in front of them or sign my name to anything written. Bob Beers came to our meeting Wednesday, and I think he’ll be the first to tell you that I am willing to say in front of him anything that I say privately. I kind of like the guy, as I’ve told you. And up until the convention, I always thought Sue Lowden was a fine chair of the party. How she proceeds from here will decide whether I continue to hold that opinion. I am not optimistic by nature, but I am hoping for the best.
No conspiracy theories here. No character assassination.
Oh, and I wasn’t comparing anything to the supreme court. Just making that point that someone being an attorney or the president of the bar association isn’t necessarily a sign that they are knowledgeable. That’s all. Brian