What is wrong with all of you? Everyone is missing the underlying point to the fiasco in Reno Saturday night: yes, Ron Paul “beat” John McCain in the Nevada caucus, by one percentage point (http://www.nvgopcaucus.com/results, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nv/nevada_republican_caucus-235.html); hold the caucus today and I am certain we would have a much different result. To think that because RP beat JM in January he would automatically beat him today is ludicrous.
How many Republicans honestly believe all Romney and other candidates’ supporters, now that they are out of the race, back Paul? The RP supporters complain about the party leaders ‘forcing’ us to back McCain, yet you want to force the supporters of Romney and other candidates’ to back RP. We all learned as children a long time ago, “two wrongs do not make a right”. Yes, some other candidates’ supporters I am sure would back RP now that their man is out of the race, but to think it would be fair to allot all other delegates to RP would be the epitome of unfair tactics. The fact that delegates to the national convention are not obligated to any one candidate should put RP supporters at ease; that is, assuming RP is such a phenomenal choice.
If RP is such a great choice, why did he, and others, fail so miserably against Romney in the caucus. In several states no one candidate won by a majority in their respective caucus/primary. Yet, here in
The bottom line is this: yes, RP beat JM. However, hold the caucus today and the best you could possibly hope to achieve would be a 50/50 split. How could that possibly benefit either candidate at his point in the race?
My next comments are replies to the several comments in response to Sen. Beers’ blog and articles in the Las Vegas Review Journal and the Reno-Gazette Journal.
13 comments:
Why should Ron Paul get all the delegates? He shouldn't... he needs to earn them by winning the votes at the state convention. He was well on his way to EARNING them at the convention until the chair 'illegally' called a recess to end it since it was not going the way he liked.
Exactly what travis said: nobody is doing anything "unfair"... we volunteered to be county, and then state delegates, so that we could then elect the national delegates that WE support, according to the legal delegate selection process.
Nobody stopped the 86% of the people that didn't vote for RP from being delegates... but guess what? THEY DIDN'T CARE. RP people actually give a crap about the direction of our country, and we volunteer our time and efforts to get it done. If only 14% of the people vote for someone, but they're the MOST ACTIVE 14%, guess who's gonna win?
Dan,
Thanks for taking the time to start the blog. I posted a very pointed (but no obscene words) letter on Bob Beer's site and it was deleted by his thought police before it was ever posted. No freedom of speech if he can prevent it. Before spending too much time here may I have your assurance that it will be an open forum of uncensored free speech? And may I post the letter here that I sent to Beers?
And yes, I was there from 7:20 a.m. until the abrupt end, plus an hour or two beyond.
The simple answer to your question is that each delegate at the Nevada State Convention had the right, as an American, to cast a vote as he or she saw fit. Correction: SEE'S fit since it is now in the future tense because of Bob Beers unethical conduct. The fact that Romney took the number one spot was an impressive win for him back in January, but look where he is now.
Ron Paul held the majority at the convention because of what he stands for, the Constitution, limited government, no more illegal pre-emptive wars based on lies, and everything else this country should stand for.
I stand behind him 100%.
travis & thesst,
thank you for taking the time to post. I find it hard to believe that after being at the convention in Reno you honestly think RP would garner ALL of the non-RP & JM delegates. Do you not think it is possible that some of the Romney, et al supporters would have had JM as their second choice? Yes, I am certain that some of those delegates had RP as their second choice, but to think he would/should win/take ALL of the remaining delegates is absurd. Please remember, Nevada is not a winner-take-all state; therefore, however an election of delegates played out, neither candidate would get ALL of the delegates unless they received ALL of the votes.
reno delegate,
by all means, post your letter. I can assure you, this will be an uncensored forum. That being said, there are obvious guidelines:, no harsh obscenities, no physical threats, no posting of personal/private information without consent. This list is by no means complete. So long as all posts/comments stay within the spirit of 'free speech' without inflicting harm, little if any censorship will occur.
One more thing, though I wouldn't call it censorship, diligence is a requirement on this forum. You must be able to back up any claims with hard facts. Examples of this will be seen in my next few posts. Opinions will not be subject to diligence, however they will be subject to question(s).
thanks for reading and posting.
Dan
Ron Paul doesn't "deserve" to get all the delegates in Nevada because he beat McCain. As a republican, I abhor the idea that people are 'deserving' or 'entitled' to get things for whatever reason. What I demand is that the field be fair. It's true: there were a lot of Ron Paul supporters there, and if they took control of the convention it's because of one thing: they had the numbers to win the votes. It will be interesting to see how many Ron Paul supporters actually care about the party-I hope they are not just making a mockery of this election cycle (Lord knows the remaining candidates are doing a fine job of that already). I have had to take another look at Ron Paul's supporters after this weekend: they did not disrupt the convention...they played by the rules and were winning. Three things have bothered me ever since: 1)Why were we not told that there was a time limit for the convention? 2)Why was this supposed to be a rally for John McCain when he didn't even bother to come to the convention is his sister state? and 3) Paul supporters all went up many notches in my book due to the clearly underhanded machinations of the party orgnaizers and McCain camp--what I have seen and read in the news lately spinning this against Paul's people is a frightening wake up call...maybe there is something to the idea that the media is keeping this group from it's place as a legitimate campain.
anonymous...
I couldn't agree more with your statement "...As a republican, I abhor the idea that people are 'deserving' or 'entitled' to get things for whatever reason." My comments to you start with, yes, they did in fact disrupt the proceedings of the convention. Did they play by the rules? I would probably agree with that. Where I feel their disruption came to play was after Sen. Beers called for a recess. Storming the stage like something out Young Frankenstein was not very civil behavior. How would you expect the party leaders to attempt to gain order with unruly delegates shouting in their face(s). Some of these shouts were obscene, and possibly threatening. I think most sane people would consider that disruptive. To your point concerning announcing the lack of time remaining, I wholeheartedly agree. If it were announced early, say noon to 1p, I believe ALL delegates would have heeded the sense of urgency to complete the business at hand. Lastly, to your point of "...the clearly underhanded machinations of the party orgnaizers and McCain camp", what factual basis do you have for this statement? I will give you benefit of the doubt, but without proof it is irresponsible to make such comments.
As requested by reno delegate on this forum, this is intended to be a completely open and uncensored forum. Opinion are fantastic, but I will question everyone and every statement where facts are necessary.
Thanks for your time, and I look forward to more of your comments.
Dan
Dan, were you there? I was, from 7:20 a.m. until well past the end. I didn't hear one person shout an obscenity or make a threat. Yes there were many boos. A large one when Beers called the Seargent at Arms when a man, Mike Weber, the person who nominated Beers as the chairman, spoke within the boundaries of Robert's Rules of Order. The biggest boos, from 90% of the attendee's, was when Beers abruptly ended the convention and scurried off in a cowardly fashion rather than allow people the right to vote for a candidate who was not of his or the GOP establishment's choice.
You said you want proof of underhanded machinations? Near the bottom of this post you'll find a link from an eye witness. One of many.
As mentioned in my first post, here is a letter I wrote to Bob Beers blog, which his staff apparently chose to delete rather than post.
---
To quote Bernie Zadrowski,
Chairman, Clark County Republican Party
"The contract indicated that the room had been reserved until 5 p.m., and as there was still many hours of work that needed to be done, the decision was made by the State Party Leadership to recess the meeting to another time. As a result we failed to elect delegates to the national convention."
The 5:00 p.m. deadline for the room was never mentioned by the chairman, Senator Bob Beers, and without explanation he abruptly ended the convention a few minutes before 5:00 p.m. It was only after he left that the attendee's became aware of the deadline.
Why did Bob Beers keep the information to himself rather than announcing the fact at the beginning of the convention? Why did he show a film of Newt Gingrich and invite a speaker to address the convention in the afternoon when there was so much work to be done?
The answer is either gross incompetence on the part of Bob Beers or an underhanded, unethical dirty trick because it was clear that Ron Paul supporters outnumbered John McCain supporters, and Bob Beers didn't want to allow a vote for national delegates in Nevada.
Whether it was incompetence or a dirty trick, Senator Bob Beers undermined the people's right to vote, and I call for his impeachment from office.
A large number of people devoted their time and spent money travelling from Las Vegas and rural Nevada to Reno for the state convention, because they cared enough about this country to take part in the voting process.
I witnessed first-hand that people like Bob Beers are taking away our right to vote for the candidate of our choice, and that is inexcusable in a Constitutional Republic.
Personally, I will vote for Ron Paul all the way, even if it means a write-in vote.
---
Note: I found out after I wrote the letter that it was an intentional ploy to prevent people from exercising their right to vote and is one of the most despicable things a senator can do to undermine this country.
Here's a link with the full story.
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/47172
reno delegate,
thank you again for posting. Please feel free to post comments where you see fit (Sen. Beers blog, the RJ or the Reno Gazette) directing those concerned to a blog that allows for uncensored comments.
Yes, I was at the Convention. I was not there as early as you, but I was there for the start of the Convention until the remaining delegates were found to NOT have a quorum; this after a second count was made. As a side note, if there were so many caring delegates why was it necessary to count a second time? Will we be able to vote for delegates more than once if our preferred candidate (national delegate or President) is not elected? This would be a very dangerous precedent.
Almost immediately after Sen. Beers called for a recess I was standing next to Chmn. Zadrowski while the crowd was shouting at Sen. Beers, and anyone else who was on stage. I personally heard obscenities directed at Sen. Beers and Chmn. Zadrowski. Additionally, as quoted from the Nevada Appeal, “When convention chairman state Sen. Bob Beers of Las Vegas announced they were out of time and would have to recess to another day; the Paul delegates erupted in jeers, cursing and protests.”
When Sen. Beers did call for a recess, he did provide an explanation:
From the Nevada Appeal:
“When convention chairman state Sen. Bob Beers of Las Vegas announced they were out of time and would have to recess to another day; the Paul delegates erupted in jeers, cursing and protests.”
From the Reno Gazette
“But as the convention continued into the evening, chairman Bob Beers said the party's contract for the hall at the Peppermill Resort Casino had expired and the event would be rescheduled.”
From the Las Vegas Review-Journal
“State Sen. Bob Beers, R-Las Vegas, the convention chairman, announced that the convention would recess indefinitely about 6 p.m., saying the party's contract with the Peppermill Hotel Casino had expired and the gathering would reconvene at a later date.”
Could Sen. Beers have announced the time constraints earlier in the day? Absolutely! To expect him to have announced at the beginning of the Convention is illogical. At the beginning of the Convention no one could have known the Convention would have run out of time. Again, I feel the Party could have handled the issue of time much better. Unfortunately, unless a member of the Party steps forward to explain the process of procuring a meeting space, and all of the details involved with that process, it is irresponsible to make statements as to why or how time became an issue.
When you mention Sen. Beers may allowed speakers to take up valuable time of the Convention, please remember, Ron Paul was one of those speakers. Are you implying Ron Paul’s speech was a waste of Convention time?
Some other posts (on this blog, the RJ or Sen. Beers’ blog) have implied Sen. Beers may have called for a recess ‘illegally’. I have completed reading the section of Robert’s Rules concerning ‘recess’, and Sen. Beers was well within the Rules to call for a recess in the manner he did. The call for recess does not require a 2nd, nor is it a debatable motion if made when another question is before the assembly.
Lastly, in attempt to explain the “…proof of underhanded machinations”, I find it odd that you cite a source as biased as www.dailypaul.com. I think most people would agree that Ron Paul supporters would gain much greater validity by citing an unbiased source.
Actually no one is foring Ron Paul on anyone. He won. He was ahead in the preference polls and he was ahead in delegates. He beat Mccain in the caucuses @ the county conventions and at the state. It was the will of the people that John Mccain lose to Ron Paul. Not the will of Ron Paul. It is not ROn Paul's fault, nor the fault of his supporters that Mccain is an unattractive candidate who is unpopular in Nevada does not represent Nevada's views. He will continue to lose here.
Oh and "Lastly" Daily Paul wasn't the source. It was an open letter to more than one media outlet from a DELEGATE who was IN RENO. We can rally around your OPINION, or we can listen to the facts as described by an actual witness. Somehow I fear that you will stick to your OPINION and ignore the facts.
LibertyReign
When I said “yet you want to force the supporters of Romney and other candidates’ to back RP”, I was talking about the wishes of the RP supporters to give the delegates of the other candidates to RP simply because he beat JM in the caucuses. As I stated before:
Yes, some other candidates’ supporters I am sure would back RP now that their man is out of the race, but to think it would be fair to allot all other delegates to RP would be the epitome of unfair tactics.
To say that RP was ahead in the preference polls actually means very little. For example, I prefer Diet Coke; when that is not available I am not going to choose Diet Pepsi simply because it is the second most popular diet soda. Instead I will choose from the flavors that are available at that time: Mountain Dew, Dr. Pepper etc, and not necessarily a diet soda. Yes, RP did beat JM at the caucuses, but we did not vote for candidates at the county and state conventions, we were merely electing delegates that supported one candidate or another. Additionally, with no delegates announced from the state convention to attend the National convention because of this how could RP have beat JM at the state convention, even if there was a vote?
Anonymous
Thank you for the clarification, the letter was indeed posted to several outlets. With that, I suggest you read my response to reno delegate, I did attend the convention and was there from the start until the quorum was not reached and the convention left the room. This is my blog so yes, it is my opinion. My opinion, however, is based on fact. Please show me where I am ignoring the facts. I ask you this because the letter you reference was posted by an ardent RP supporter. This you would know if you investigated a little further.
Post a Comment