I feel like Al Pacino in “The Godfather - Part III”: Everytime I try to walk away from this Nevada GOP convention fiasco, I get pulled back in.
The following is a first-person account of Jeff Greenspan - Ron Paul’s hired-gun from Arizona who came into Nevada looking for a conspiracy and, by golly, found one - by someone who knows him personally and has dealt with him in the past:
“(Jeff Greenspan) he is a total conspiranoid. If there is a whacked-out idea, he believes it. From Chemtrails to 9/11, everybody is hiding secrets that only he and a few other true believers know. . . . He runs a yahoogroup where folks of his ilk can exchange their ‘proofs’ of all these nonsensical conspiracy theories…not understanding that they have become a conspiracy themselves.
“I cannot imagine how he ever got hired by the Ron Paul team. He has acceptable people skills only as long as you agree with him. But if you disagree, you become the devil incarnate.
“Politics requires far more subtle talents. But an extreme lack of political ability seems to be the hallmark of the Ron Paul True Believers, most of whom have never run for office or participated in any meaningful way in the political process. They don’t believe that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. They have few or no skills of persuasion. No patience for differences.
“The tragedy is that Jeff is actually a nice guy with a bright mind. But then so are many Islamists. Insanity can be like that.”
This explains a LOT.
Many good Ron Paul people in Nevada have been led down the garden path by this paranoid Pied Piper. The guy slinks into our state, convinces the state party leadership that he can speak for the Ron Paul delegates, cuts a deal to get four Ron Paul folks on the slate of candidates to go to the national convention, shows up at the Nevada GOP convention on Saturday morning only to find out the Ron Paul delegates aren’t prepared to vote for the deal he cut, so he spins this conspiracy story that it was the PARTY that broke the deal in order to avoid ending up with egg all over his face.
Now here’s an appeal to rational Ron Paul delegates. Just put aside your Greenspan-driven paranoia for a minute or two and ask yourself honestly some questions here…
If Nevada Republican Party Chairwoman Sue Lowden was so hostile to Ron Paul and his supporters, why did she go out of her way to invite him to speak at the convention DESPITE the ardent objections by the McCain folks?
Oh, you didn’t know the McCain campaign gave her a hard time about inviting Paul and she told them to pound dirt? Hmmm. Maybe you all should make sure of your facts before calling her a “criminal”…and worse.
Anyway, if Sue Lowden had already stood up to the McCain campaign on the Ron Paul speaking invitation, as she did, and has been on record since Day One as welcoming Ron Paul’s supporters - including rolling out the welcome mat for Jeff Greenspan - why would she suddenly change her mind at the last minute? What could possibly have been her motivation?
And if ANY of you think Sue Lowden can be pushed around by the McCain camp, you don’t know squat - and you sure don’t know about how she stood up the Culinary Union in the early 90s. That…was…brutal. This woman buckles to NOBODY.
Anyway, Mrs. Lowden welcomes Greenspan and works with him in an ongoing effort to include the Ron Paul supporters in the party, including bucking the party’s nominee and inviting Ron Paul to speak at the convention. Now…
The deal Greenspan says he made, and party insiders confirm, was for Ron Paul delegates to get four slots on the “unity” slate of candidates the Nominations Committee was preparing to present to the convention. Greenspan, by his own admission, never saw that official slate and, therefore, has no idea whether or not there were four Ron Paul delegates on it or not. This means he broke his deal with the party based on…nothing.
OK, now think logically. Knowing that eliminating the four delegates from the slate would infuriate the Ron Paul supporters who Chairwoman Lowden had welcomed with open arms, why in the world would they do something like that? After all, out of 31 slots the Ron Paul people were only getting FOUR. What in the world about this deal would the party be willing to risk an outright revolt over?
If anyone had reason to reject this deal it was the Ron Paul delegates who had no idea that Greenspan sold them down the river. I mean, this is Jack and the Beanstalk stuff here. Greenspan sold the Ron Paul supporters out for four lousy delegate slots.
Now, for you foks who say Greenspan didn’t have the authority to negotiate “legally” in the first place and that I don’t know how these things work, let me ‘splain the real world to you.
The party was fully aware that Greenspan couldn’t seal any deal in concrete; they knew full well that the ultimate decision would be up to the delegates. In this regard, Greenspan was operating like a union boss who negotiates for the best terms he thinks he can get from the employer and then takes the deal to the workers for ratification.
And this is why I have such disdain for Jeff Greenspan. He apparently never even told the Ron Paul delegates he was involved in negotiations on their behalf - and then double-crossed the people he negotiated with by never even taking the deal to the Ron Paul folks, let alone advocate for it, before blowing it up.
Let me reiterate: The party was giving up practically NOTHING in this deal they thought they had with Greenspan. Four measly slots out of 31? What possible motivation could the party have to back out of such a lopsided deal in their favor? It makes no sense.
But let’s assume for the moment that Greenspan DID have some kind of “evidence” that the Nominations Committee was prepared to strike the Ron Paul delegates off the “unity” slate. He didn’t - at least he hasn’t presented any thus far - but let’s say he did.
If that had been the case, why didn’t Greenspan take his concerns immediately and directly to Chairwoman Lowden - who had been nothing but accommodating and welcoming to Greenspan and the Ron Paul folks - before deploying what he called his “contingency plan”? Why didn’t he at least give her the courtesy of an opportunity to address and fix the problem if what Greenspan alleges was actually true before he “went nuclear” on her?
No, the only thing that makes any sense is that Jeff Greenspan got caught with his pants down and reverted to his well-known and well-established “conspiracy” schtick to try to save face and pull his fat from the fire. And apparently he has fooled an awful lot of Ron Paul people into believing his fairy tale.
I don’t know how many times I have to say it. I don’t care if Greenspan and the party negotiated for a “unity” ticket of delegates to the national convention. And I don’t care if the Ron Paul delegates capture all 31 seats at the national convention. It’s meaningless.
But what I DO care about is a two-faced charlatan who friends of mine dealt with in good faith before being double-crossed and made to look like scoundrels. And I’m supposed to sit by and let such character assassination go by unremarked?
Uh-uh. Homey don’t play that.
Posted on May 4th, 2008 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: Nevada
Hello Mr. Muth.
So what’s it going to take for everyone to get back to business, without this “charlatan”, and let things run their course? Getting back to the convention and wrapping things up seems to important.
Clever - avoid a libel suit by quoting someone else saying that Mr. Greenspan is a nut, instead of yourself saying it.
Maybe he is, though. Who cares? And who cares about so called deals and deals being broken? Again, it must be reiterated that deals really can’t be made without the approval of the convention delegates as a whole. And, it appears they rejected that, by rejecting the nomination committee report. What has to be dealt with now is the the Convention voted to accept nominations from the floor, and from there, their will must be followed. It’s certainly within their rights. And, was their a conspiracy to sabotage the balloting results once it became clear they seemed to favor candidates who themselves favor Ron Paul? Maybe, maybe not. But, when this convention returns from recess, it is the balloting process that must continue, unless the Convention delegates vote in another motion or rule change.
In the end, Nevada may end up with a lot of delegates who favor Ron Paul. Yet, we know that McCain will still win the nomination. So, as long as the RP delegates feel as they’re a part of the big tent, and not disenfranchised, there will be unity in the end.
Mr. Muth,
As a Virgian resident I must admit I have never meet nor heard of Mr. Jeff Greenspan nor am I aware of your views. However, I’m a long term republican for nearly 20 years and aside from the real “fiasco” of our party from my view miles away I continue to read reports regarding the Nevada GOP connection.
May we review a few valid points? First, as a former banker I did loose friends and business contacts on 9-11. I have read the full 9-11 report and still stay in contact with some of the families who lost loved ones on that day. Instead of sharing my views regarding 9-11 I’ll share with you the exact thoughts and questions two widows continue to question. 1) why would our own government issue cash to each family in exchange for silence regarding the issues of 9-11? 2) Why did building 7 fall without any major damage from the attack of 9-11? Having studied history for many years I will never forget the declassified proposed plan called “Operation Northwoods” this operation alone combined many steps we saw on 9-11. Personally I think it’s healthy for the “people” to question all actions of the government. In recent months the CIA did in fact admit to killing Robert Kennedy. Perhaps you should consider the questions of many of the widows and hold off on the so called conspiracy issues and simply answer the above points.
Even if you don’t question 9-11 issues one thing is for sure for those of us who followed the early primary states we all noted that Ron Paul’s name was omitted from many results all around the nation. The major media sources would issue a poll just after each debate and even though Ron won first place the media pundits would claim foul but never provide proof of such actions. Further, the MSM would yield Paul’s 1st place finish to another presidential candidate allowing the second place finisher the opportunity to present his views during a longer time allotment.
The pundits told us Rudy is the Man and night after night our nation was told if he wasn’t then Fred was the man…. In fact they compared Fred to Ronald yet these men failed. Last summer McCain pushed the plans of Illegal immigration upon our nation with his buddy Ted Kennedy. He claims he learned his lesson but we heard that during his former scandals. John McCain no more represents the limited Gov. view of our party then having Clinton run in his place.
Why is there support for John McCain from the GOP?
Again I don’t know Greenspan so I can’t support or oppose your view of the story but what I can say is this: As a Ron Paul Republican I support the worth of Christ words first, the true value of our founders ideals and if the party wants to support both views then I support the party but it must be noticed with action. If the party or party member is out of step with the views of our founders then I support Impeachment or removal from public office regardless of party. I must say many GOP members and Demarcates would be removed from office with my litmus test.
Chuck, you and the person you quoted are liars and you can take me to court on that.
Secondly, I did see the nominating committee’s slate. You said I admitted that I did not. Lie. I said over and over on this very blog in response to you that I had.
Furthermore, I told you to get a copy and your lies would be proven false. Yet you refuse to do so because you DESIRE to continue lying.
Talk about conspiranoid.
If you believe that you are helping Sue Lowden, you’re not. You are making her look like a fool and yourself look like a fool in love.
Chuckie, if you could produce ONE SHRED of evidence for your outrageous accusations, this would all be over. But you CANT.
Facts + evidence vs. Muth’s “Truths”.
Jeff, Jeff, Jeff. Liar, liar, pants on fire? Is that the best you can do?
You are getting so pathetic. And this is getting so tiresome. It was YOU who made the accusation which started all of this, therefore it is YOU upon whom the burden of proof lies.
You broke a deal you yourself admitted you made - though you steadfastly refuse to admit exactly what that deal was and with whom you made it. But you did admit you broke it. However, the reason you gave for breaking it was including in YOUR OWN WORDS in your post-convention letter to Sue Lowden…
YOU, Jeff, made the accusation that the Nominations Committee “had no intention of holding up their end of the bargain.”
Prove it…or get lost. I have no more time to waste on you.
As a Ron Paul supporter in NV, I knew of the POTENTIAL deals Jeff had made with the party. I also knew that we wanted more than four national delegates if we had the majority on Convention day (which we did).
I perceive that you’ve been involved in politics for a long time, Chuck. So why does it surprise you that we fought for as many delegates as we could? Isn’t that the point of a convention: to let the majority decide the convention’s decisions?
Jeff never promised that all Ron Paul supporters would follow the “official” slate. All he did was make sure that Dr. Paul was represented in the case that our group did not have a voting majority on that day. Politics can be a hard game… get real or get out.
Jeff never deceived us about his plans or his intentions.
I also think it’s cowardly for you to libel Jeff by quoting someone else, without any source or name to go with it… I think you have a lot to prove.
let me get this straight… Romney gets first place, Ron Paul gets second place, McCain gets third, and the deal that is to be made is for Ron Paul to get 4 delegates out of… how many? Romney is not in the race any longer, and no one asked me who I support? You can not assume I support McCain if I once supported Romney, so why is Ron Paul issued less delegates than McCain?
Hmmm…
Can someone clarify this logically? Because it just doesn’t make sense to me.
I’d like to see this explained too. Maybe Romney’s supporters don’t endorse McCain, maybe they do. While he may have some personal reason for endorsing McCain, that doesn’t nessesarily mean the people who voted for him do.
Go easy on this one Mr. Muth.
Sure, it’s simple math. Ron Paul received just under 14 percent of the vote at the January 19th caucus; therefore, he receives 14 percent of the delegates to the national convention. That would be four.
Chuck,
This is not Chicago and Jeff Greenspan is not a machine ward boss or alderman. He has NOTHING to deal to the Republican party cigar chompers or anyone else with regard to a state convention.
If the Republican party leadership wants to announce to the rabble their pre-convention rule re-writes or smoke filled room decisions through Greenspan, good luck. Unfortunately, not only does non-machine politician Greenspan have no cush city no-show jobs to hand out in exchange for votes he deals, nor does he control city services to deny non-voters, but few of the 750 voters who demanded the right to vote for un-filtered nominations have access to Greenspan to even receive relayed messages from Republican cigar chompers. Maybe the cigar chompers should just publically announce their decrees to all the delegates.
Here’s an idea: Next time, perhaps the party should not hold mock caucuses and claim to the mock-caucusers and newspapers that the purpose of the caucuses is to give voters the power to elect their neighbors to the county convention, who in turn will elect their fellow delegates to the state convention, who in turn will elect their fellow delegates to the national convention. That was a lie.
Next time perhaps the Republican cigar-chompers should truthfully market their caucuses. They can send out Hans and whatever her name was to hold mock caucuses and tell the newspapers that the way it really works is like this: At the precinct caucuses, voters are empowered to elect through their votes their neighbors to the county conventions, who in turn will elect through their votes their fellow delegates to the state convention, who in turn will have NO say about who is selected by a committee in a smoke filled room to be delegates to the national convention.
Telling the truth from the start would make a lot more sense than having to use you as a mouthpiece to try to equate a power-less presidential campaign director being told what he would be given with somebody who had something to deal to the Republican party leadership.
Much to the apparent dismay of the party leadership, the Ron Paul Republicans were inspired by the caucus/conventions process and learned at least a few things about getting out their vote. Its a shame that the Bob Beers wing of the party and you threw us under the bus. You could have played by the rules and let us have our little victory. But I suppose we’ve also learned a few things by seeing to what absurd lengths you guys felt compelled to go to stop such a meaningless victory–such as I wonder how “meaningless” y’all feel that victory really was?
“Mike,” don’t look now but I think there’s a black helicopter following you.
What in the world is so difficult for you people to understand about this? I’ve written, and everybody knows, Jeff didn’t have the power to make an iron-clad “back room deal” on behalf of the Paul campaign. His role was the same as that of a union negotiator hammering out a deal with an employer. He made what he thought was a fair deal with the other side and then was SUPPOSED to take it to the members - in this case the Ron Paul delegates - and advocate on behalf of the deal he negotiated.
The problem - and the ONLY problem - I have with this is that Greenspan didn’t hold up his end of the bargain. With no proof whatsoever, Greenspan “claimed” that “certain parties” on the Nominations Committee were about to break the deal…so he broke it first. That’s simply dishonest.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the party, the Paul representative and the McCain representative trying to hammer out a “deal” which would be fair to all concerned and THEN presenting the deal for an up-or-down vote by the convention delegates. The delegates still retained the ultimate power to accept or reject the deal Greenspan made. The “deal” wasn’t a “decree,” it was a recommendation. There was no conspiracy here to take away your ability to make the final decision.
This isn’t exactly rocket science. What part of it don’t you understand?
Chuck, regarding: “The problem - and the ONLY problem - I have with this is that Greenspan didn’t hold up his end of the bargain. With no proof whatsoever, Greenspan “claimed” that “certain parties” on the Nominations Committee were about to break the deal…so he broke it first. That’s simply dishonest.”
The only “deal” that was broken that mattered or existed was the one that Hans and the party leadership used to market its caucuses to the voters (unless you count Beers’ “deal” to abide by Roberts’ recess rules). That deal said that if we voted for our neighbors in the caucus/conventions, then we/they could ultimately vote for the national delegates. The only thing I can find in your post that might address this broken deal is your black helicopter comment. So, I will assume that your ability to understand that broken deal is equal to your ability to understand that Jeff Greenspan had NOTHING to offer Bernie Zadrowski or whoever these phantom republican party metaphorical union negotiators are. And if Greenspan thought that he had something to offer the few delegates that even know who he is, then his ability to comprehend the essential elements that comprise a “deal” are as lacking as yours.
Mr. Iamaio, you obviously have difficulty understanding plain English or comprehending simple concepts so I’ll not waste any further time or effort trying to ’splain it to you.
Ok, but thanks for not deleting my and your posts. Its nice having this on the record. For posterity: Chuck Muth holds Jeff Greenspan accountable for not delivering to nameless Republicans by not going around to people at the state convention wearing Ron Paul pins and being laughed at as he tells them not to demand that the party follow through on the original deal to allow the state delegates to elect the national delegates.
Chuck Muth seems to believe all that matters is that Greenspan broke some sort of non-binding contract, which may or may not be true but seeing how the “deal” was not an official “deal”, it hardly seems to measure up to the real significance of the Convention which was…
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
WE INTERRUPT THIS RANT for a lesson in free speech.
“Clay Season,” Chuck Muth here. Yes, I have censored your blog post for a couple of reasons.
1.) While you have a right to free speech in this country, you do not have the right to use MY soapbox to exercise your right.
2.) Your opinion in this matter, in my opinion, is…well, ridiculous. Therefore I have opted not to publish it. We have standards here.
We now return everybody to our regular programming…
Clay Season, In Chucks’ defense, he said several times that he doesn’t care about the meaningless convention results at all and only finds Greenspan’s “deal”-making regarding those meaningless convention results to be important.
That’s incomprehensible to me and probably a lot of other people like you, but even granting him that and stipulating that Greenspan could seriously conduct any sort of union-boss style agreement (having no agency from any “union” member to do so), I think we should leave it at that and hope that his hatred for Greenspan’s “deal”-making doesn’t spill over much further into the un-hinged Paultards and child molesting libertarians that he’s attacked recently.
Who knows, I think he’s still a Ron Paul supporter. Maybe he’ll want to make a presentation to the meetup group or the Liberty Alliance and interest some of our local candidates in his candidate training.
Mr. Iamaio, you ALMOST got it.
It’s not Greenspan’s deal-MAKING I have a problem with. It was his deal-BREAKING that pissed me off. He tried to make a deal. Whether he had the authority or not isn’t relevant. He represented to the party leaders, as Ron Paul’s southwest co-ordinator or whatever his title is/was, that he WAS in a position to negotiate a deal and then try to sell it to the rest of you. If you’re fundamentally opposed to any such deal, then you should be mad at Greenspan for trying to speak for you. Don’t take it out on the party. It was absolutely in the party’s interest to try to find a way to unite the party. That is their duty. Anyone who can’t understand that is simply not thinking rationally. This whole mess is due to Jeff Greenspan and his actions. Period. End of story.
As to speaking to your group and/or doing a candidate training for you folks, I’d be absolutely happy to. The more of you who think like Ron Paul in elected offices the better.
Chuck, you said I broke a deal. What deal was that precisely? Please specify.
No, YOU said you broke the deal. Let me remind you of EXACTLY what you wrote to Nevada Republican Party Chairwoman Sue Lowden last week…
“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 continengies. Unfortunately, we had to put the contingency plan into action…”
Still getting tripped up by your own words I see, Jeff.
Not getting tripped up, Chuck.
My note was clear. If you believe that 600 people are going to show up to lose, you’re not that intelligent.
And, by the way, you have yet to demonstrate that it was I who broke any deal. Come up with the evidence, Chuck. It’s right there on the nominating committee’s list.
Do you not have the list? I thought you were in the know with regard to the Nevada GOP.
Or do you have the list but you are lying again?
Jeff, why do you continue to make yourself look like such a fool? I mean, reports that you may be a bit mentally unbalanced gain credence every time you post drivvel like this.
You’re the guy who, in your own words, said you made and deal and admitted you broke the deal. The only discrepancy is whether or not you broke the deal first.
I don’t have a copy of any official nominating committee list. In fact, I don’t even know if one actually exists.
You, however, claim you do. I doubt it. I suspect you are in possession of one of the “fake” lists which was circulated - if you have anything at all. And since YOU are the one making the accusation that the Nominating Committee broke the deal you say you made, it is imcumbent upon YOU to provide the proof or evidence that the Nominating Committee broke its deal with you.
So again, Jeff, put up…or shut up.
“I mean reports that you may be a bit mentally unbalanced gain credence every time to post drivvel like this.”
Are those reports from the same people who reported to me that you obtain prescription meds without prescriptions?
Normally, Jeff, I’d just delete a ridiculous post such as the one you just left; however, since it further shows the world what an immature, irresponsible wingnut you are, I’m gonna leave it up. Congratulations. You are your own worst enemy.
Really Chuck? It’s no different than what you have done: “reports of mental instablility?” Present your evidence or give it a rest.
Jeff, you’re making my case for me. No need for me to do anything other than repeat your own words.
Which, by the way, I’ll do again tomorrow thanks the treasure trove of new banalities you recently provided. Really, Jeff. Thanks a million for making my job so easy.
Again, Chuck, getting character assassinated by Chuck Muth is a badge of honor for an honest man.
Whatever you decide to do, provide evidence!
Again, as an outside observer to all this, Chuck it appears that it is you with the drivel. Maybe Jeff, though, is crazy as he continues to try to dialogue with you!
At the very beginning you accused Jeff of something, then demanded that HE prove that he didn’t. Kind of against the ole “innocent til proven guilty” grain in American life. You say, on the other hand, that it was he that was accusing the nominations committee of something; yet reading his note to Lowden, I see no accusations made - simply a “we put the contingency plan into action”
The contingency plan, letting the majority decide, does not a mess make. The rules change required a 2/3 vote, which is impressive. The convention leadership could have easily dealt with this though, yet through it’s own disorganization (?) didn’t, hence the mess. Don’t blame Jeff for that.
And, talk about immaturity: you started this thread with an unattributed quote of questionable reliability. Yet, you post this character assassination for all the world to see. That’s the height of immaturity in my book.
Let it rest.
“Kevin,” I suspect you are the product of our public school system, as you clearly cannot read for comprehension. Try reading Jeff’s exact words SLOWLY this time…
“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.”
If was Jeff, not me, who made the initial accusation that “certain parties” had broken their deal with him. He doesn’t identify the parties so that they would have an opportunity to defend themselves and he fails to provide any evidence to substantiate his accusation. A rational mind will easily comprehend this. A closed, paranoid mind will not. Which category do you fall into?
I’ll keep this short, so it won’t get deleted (Chuck, I do respect your write to keep or delete whatever comments you want, as this is your blog, and thus your free speech to control):
Someone (not Jeff, as he was not a delegate to the conference) should post the Nominations Committee report, that shows, or does not show, which nominees the committee checked or recommended as delegates to National Conference. If the Committee were following Party process - and I’m sure they were - there would be an official report, voted on by a majority of the Committee. Even if there were backroom deals going on, anyone sophisticated enough in the party process would know it still has to go through this Committee process (I state this as a registered parliamentarian, and one familiar with our Party rules).
Publishing the Committee report would go a long way, a very long way, toward clearing things up, without resorting to accusations of who’s a conspiranoid or a prescription drug abuser.
Chuck, there is an privacy ethics on the Internet of never publishing someone’s email without their consent: Jeff has at least never violated this ethic, whereas you have done so multiple times, so that’s why this outsider reader is seeing all this reaction as splenetic. And that’s not a word that I learned from my public school education, as I was born and raised on a farm
First of all, I don’t even know if there WAS an official Nominations Committee slate. I’ve not discussed this with anyone on the Nominations Committee and I don’t have any copy of any official slate.
However, JEFF claims HE has a copy. So tell Jeff to post it. I wonder why, if he has what he claims he has, hasn’t he done so already?
And where in the world did you come up with this “privacy ethic” that says an email is private unless the sender specifically says otherwise? Every political operative worth a grain of salt knows that EVERY email can be published. It happens all the time. That’s why candidates are trained NEVER to put anything in an email that they don’t want to see in public. Anyone stupid enough to think otherwise shouldn’t be in the political business.
An email sent to me is like a letter to the editor or a “leak.” It is considered public UNLESS the sender specifically asks for it to remain private or only to be printed anonymously. That’s our Politics 101 lesson for today, kids.
“An email sent to me …”
True, true. I forgot, in essence you’re a journalist. I was thinking more of corporate email privacy policies, and the ethic practiced in the world of IT (Information Technology) professionals. It is indeed a different practice among journalists; my bad.
So, whoever forwarded you Jeff’s email violated some trust, I’d presume.
Jeff shouldn’t post a copy, really - he wasn’t a delegate at the convention. And, he may have only seen a paper copy, so it’d be impossible for him to post. There MUST be a Nominations Committee report, this is how all State Party business is processed. Anyone ready to post a copy??
I am not too sure what happened at the convention since I wasn’t there. From reading this blog though, it does seem that Mr. Muth has a bone to grind with Mr. Greenspan. Mr. greenspan did not come off as a nut persay, but it was apparent that he was frustrated by the complete lack of even a basic acknowledgement (sp??) of Mr. Greenspans counter arguments. Just what I thought from reading the back and forth. As for the delegate selection, I agree that 14% of the vote gets you 14% of the delegates, but I wonder then how McCains 13% entitles him to the other 86% of the delegates then? Perhaps the remaining canidates (Paul and McCain) could have been awarded a base number of delegates based on the caucus results, and the remaining 73% could have been nominated and elected popularly at the convention.
I disagree with the notion that 14% of the straw poll gets a nominee 14% of the delegates. This is just another attempt to change the rules once the status quo realized they didn’t like the election results.
We were told from the very beginning of how the process was to be implemented. We were to elect delegates at the Caucus level, which would go to the County Conventions, which would elect delegates at the State Convention, which would elect delegates to go to the Natl Convention. The Paul supporters followed the rules, won the election, and then the losing camp of McCain supporters want to now change the rules because they don’ like the results of the officially conducted election.
Just to demonstrate their lack of credibility, ask yourself why didn’t they publicly announce the winners of the election? Why did they say there were no election results? Even if they want to now challenge the results based on some wild notions that are totally irrelevant like a broken promises by non-delegate Jeff Greenspan or that the straw poll should now replace the official delegate election process which was put in place by the very people now denouncing that process, they should still have published the election results.
It reminds me of Bush’s reasons for invading Iraq. When their story of WMD was proven to be false, they said the real reason for invading was to give the Iraqis an election and a new govt. Then when that proved false they went on to another, and to another, and to another….
So, Chuck - by your logic, 50%+ of the Nevada delegates sent to the RNC should be forced to vote for Romney due to his performance in the Straw Poll, even though he’s not longer in the race? Should Huck, Fred, and Rudy still get their fair share as well? Conduct a straw poll in Nevada with only Paul and McCain on the ballot and I think you’d get some very interesting results…
The simple fact of the matter is that only Ron Paul and McCain are still running, so the votes should be divided between those 2 candidates as the delegates to the state convention see fit. The majority of the delegates to the state convention thought the most fair way to conduct that business was to take nominations from the floor and hold an election, which makes sense, given how we elect leaders in this country. Instead, the party’s method, as stated in the convention rules, was that they be allowed to cherry pick a slate of delegates for the convention to vote up or down. Now, honestly, Chuck - which method of selecting delegates sounds more fair to you - democratically electing delegates from the floor, or allowing party officials to select the entire slate?
[…] Remember Jeff Greenspan, the SW Regional Coordinator for Ron Paul 2008? In case you forgot, Jeff was the clown who cut a deal with the Nevada GOP for 4 Ron Paul delegates before the April 26 Nevada Republican Convention, then proceeded to stab Sue Lowden & Co in the back to save his own ass. […]