RNC Cheated Paul at Republican National Convention: New Evidence

If I’ve learned one thing over the past year as I’ve watched the Republican nominating process unfold, it’s that our “choice” is an illusion. In light of the facts surrounding Mitt Romney’s nomination at the Republican National Convention, I’m left questioning everything I thought I knew about American Democracy.

The Facts

Updated: September 22, 2012

Six Delegations officially submitted forms to nominate Ron Paul at the Republican National Convention; Nevada, Minnesota, Maine, Iowa, Oregon, Alaska and the Virgin Islands[1]. The party rules at the time of the convention stated a candidate needed a plurality of delegates from at least five states to be nominated.

RULE NO. 40 Nominations
(b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a plurality of the delegates from each of five (5) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination. Republican Party Rules

Additionally, all paperwork  had to be filed with the convention secretary at least one hour prior to roll call.

“Wayne Terhune, chairman of the Nevada delegation, reported that his state joined at least four others in submitting to the secretary of the convention, Kim Reynolds, valid and timely documents nominating Ron Paul. Minnesota delegate Gary Heyer confirmed to the Los Angeles Times that his state joined Nevada, Minnesota, Iowa, Oregon, Alaska, and the Virgin Islands in submitting the forms to Reynolds.” The New American[5]

See also Wayne Terhune Press Release.

Until recently, it was delegates’ word against National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus. But new video footage of the paperwork being submitted to Kim Reynolds has surfaced. The forms to nominate Ron Paul were given to the convention secretary (Iowa Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds)[2] on August 28th, during the speech of Rick Berg, Congressman from North Dakota. See video evidence below. You can hear Rick Berg speaking in the background. Corresponding footage of the convention on C-Span places the time of delivery at exactly 3:41 PM. That means the paperwork was in the convention secretary’s hands 1 hour and 24 minutes before the roll call which occurred at 5:05 PM the same afternoon.

From there the paperwork should have been presented to the Convention Nominating Committee. However, at some point the paperwork wound up in the hands of Ben Ginsberg, Chief Attorney for the Romney campaign)[3]. Either the paperwork never made it to the GOP Nominating Committee or the committee simply ignored them.

John Sununu, a member of the Republican National Committee, the Convention Nominating Committee and Bush II’s Chief of Staff, nominated Mitt Romney for president. Ron Paul was never nominated[4]. There was no official explanation as to why.

Rule Changes

There were changes to the party rules during the convention that stated that eight delegates were required to be nominated. Many believed these rule changes made Ron Paul ineligible since he only had six. There is only one problem with that theory. The new rules has no bearing on this years convention. Perhaps the GOP was content to let the misinformation persist as it handily took the focus off of them to provide any substantive explanation.

The misinformation seems to have stemmed from articles published by the New York Times and the Las Vegas Sun. Reason.com posted “The New York Times and the Las Vegas Sun Times mislead their readers on the exact cause and effect of the rule change and refusal to nominate Paul, since the rule change from five to eight, which did happen, is not meant to go into effect until the next national convention. While rule change and denial of nomination both occurred, they are not directly causally connected.”

So the question remains. Why was Ron Paul not nominated?

Reince Priebus, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee was asked to explain why Ron Paul was not nominated. In light of the evidence in the first video, one can watch this video knowing full well that he is lying through his teeth.

Is the picture starting to come clear for you now? Are you starting to see the lengths that the party elites went to the make sure that Ron Paul was not the nominee? Is this how you want your presidential candidate to be selected; brute force, lying, and cheating?

I know there are people who just don’t like Ron Paul. I’m fine with that. But I can’t imagine any American, knowing the facts of how Mitt Romney came to be the party’s nominee, could not be outraged at the Republican Party’s behavior. Even Michael Steele, former RNC Chairman said, “What the Republican National Committee did to Ron Paul was the height of rudeness and stupidity…This is crazy! … They are afraid of that which they cannot control.


1. New York Times: “Delegates from Nevada tried to nominate Mr. Paul from the floor, submitting petitions from their own state as well as Minnesota, Maine, Iowa, Oregon, Alaska and the Virgin Islands.”

2. Las Vegas Sun: “At the last moment, Paul supporters handed the petitions to the convention secretary.”

3. Slate: “I’ve got your guys trying to put Paul’s name into nomination,” he said, pointing at the papers. “Right here, buddy.” ~Ginsberg to Rand Paul’s Chief of Staff, Doug Stafford

4. Slate: There would be no nominating Ron Paul from the floor. John Sununu—who had just gotten the new rules pushed through the committee—nominated Mitt Romney for president. Nobody nominated Ron Paul.

5. The New American

About these ads

9 responses to “RNC Cheated Paul at Republican National Convention: New Evidence

  1. Pingback: 3 Examples of Why Republican Natives Are Restless—and Desperate « What Would Thomas Jefferson Do?·

  2. Not to mention the kidnapping of the Virginia and Rhodes Island delegates. Yes, I do mean kidnapping. The us driver drove the delegates from VA and RI around three times, with the delegates demanding to be let off, then the bus driver drove the delegates away from the convention center without letting them off. Being held against one’s will is kidnapping. By the time the delegates arrives at the convention center, the vote to change convention rules passed, while one of the Committee Rules member who would have opposed them, a Virginia delegate, was held against his will on a bus.

  3. A few things to point out: while I agree that the 2008-as-revised-in-2010 rules demand that pluralities in 5 states were required, I don’t agree that the people running the show in Tampa were using *those* rules, either in letter or in spirit. They were using the 2012 rules in letter, and the orders of their leash-holders in spirit. There were several new-in-2012 rule-changes that passed the convention-rules-committee (~123 people minus several that were ‘lost’ by a bus driver), and were then rammed through the convention-as-a-body (~2222 people) by blatant abuse of the rules… as directly *ordered* by the pre-scripted teleprompter outcome.

    We suspect, but we have no proof beyond the circumstantial, that the ‘lost’ bus driver(s) were ordered to delay Virginia et al, so as to prevent a minority rules-report. (Elizabeth says this is kidnapping, but that’s only true if we can show evidence of malicious intent on the part of the bus driver, or get ahold of some documentation that proves the bus driver was *ordered* to detain the delegates — so far we have no hard evidence.) Some people say that the minority report *was* still filed, others say it was not. However, we have video evidence that Boehner, who helped rules-chair Sununu ram the final not-officially-contested-by-the-minority rules report past the 2222 delegates, WAS an intentional abuse of the process, *ordered* by his superiors via teleprompter. This is particularly terrifying, because Boehner is the highest-ranking elected Republican Party official in the known universe at the moment.

    Who could have such power over the Speaker Of The House? Certainly not Priebus, nor Sununu. Obama might think he has such powers, but Boehner would tell him to stuff it, right? Maybe the combined forces of Romney’s lawyer Ben Ginsberg and the presumptuous nominee Mitt? Possible, but in Ginsberg’s own words, the last-minute rules-changes were presented “for friends” he declined to name, which strongly suggests *not* for Mitt Romney. http://matthewhurtt.com/morton-blackwell-blasts-ben-ginsberg-over-rnc-power-grab/ Who are the “friends” which are holding all these leashes? The most obvious answer is the top campaign donors for the Romney campaign, which not-so-coincidentally happen to be the top campaign donors for the Obama campaign: powerful corporations looking for more bailouts, the military-industrial complex looking for continued tensions in the Middle East, and the like. This is no fantastic conspiracy theory, blaming Area 51 alien mindmelds or the Rothschilds or Manchurian brainwashing or the Bilderburgers or the Illuminati or the Zionist Overlords or the mafia or the cryogenically preserved Nazis or whatever.

    This is a boring plain-jane pseudo-conspiracy aka power cartel: the people who financially benefit from current government policies are doing their darndest to keep on getting them thar benefits, indefinitely. Crucially, they need NOT communicate with each other, even, because they all can SEE they benefit, and they all can individually act to maintain the establishment-system which provides them with those benefits, regardless of which major-party candidate wins. Since the same leash-holders control both parties (via huge donations and media control, plus rarely, a bit of advice), we end up with a one-party system disguised as a two-party system, aka the Twin-Party System.

    Libertarian-leaning three-time-prez-candidate Ron Paul on the twin-party system —
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=-t3vZeJvb9U http://digitaljournal.com/article/290426
    ChristiaNation-leaning three-time-prez-candidate Alan Keyes on the twin-party system —
    http://loyaltoliberty.com/?p=1728 http://loyaltoliberty.com/?p=1326
    These two folks understand how the twin-party system really functions, if anybody does. They differ on the reason for the trouble we are in; Ron Paul blames the big banks, following Thomas Jefferson, whereas Alan Keyes blames the failure to put God first, following John Adams. They both agree on the correct solution, however — we need to follow the founding documents, not ignore them and rewrite them. Despite their vast political differences, both see the same twin-party problem, and both see the same Constitutionally-grounded solution. (You *can* vote for either flavor of liberty in 2012, by the way, to send the elites a message: Gary Johnson R-NM but running on the libertarian party ticket this year, and Virgil Goode R-VA but running on the constitution party ticket this year.)

    Here’s the proof of corruption at the DNC designed to keep tensions high in the middle east (Romney supporters led by Jim Talent of Missouri already squashed dissent on Jerusalem in the repub platform-committee before it came to a vote), and here’s the EXACT same mechanism for corruption at the RNC designed to prevent any non-dempub candidate for ever winning the presidency (using Ron Paul and the liberty-pauliticians as the scapegoats… since he is also prevented… but *mainly* trying to prevent a religious-teo-party candidates like Bachmann/Keyes/Buchanan and also the run-of-the-mill tea-party fiscal-candidates like Gary Johnson and Ross Perot… as for the democrats, they already passed rule-changes like this after 1972, so they didn’t need to ram any new rules through *this* year). http://www.fox19.com/story/19479204/reality-check-dnc-runs-over-delegates-with-scripted-platform-vote

    Anyhoo, the point here is, Ginsberg (and to a lesser extent Mitt) do not really care if they lose the election in 2012 by alienating the pauliticians and the tea party and so on. They just care about control over the process, and taking care of their “friends” behind the scenes. Same goes for Obama; he even has the same friends! This view of the situation explains why elite pooh-bahs were willing to cheat on national television to get the 2012 repub rules ‘passed’ and into the record (ditto for the dem platform changes). It also explains why they were willing to disenfranchise not just the six states that were allowed to submit signatures nominating Ron Paul (NV MN IA OR AK VI), but also the many other states that *could* have submitted his name, were they not stripped of their Ron Paul delegates earlier (ME LA OK … and also nearly half the delegates from MA though perhaps not a full plurality?). Fairness and proper procedures at county and state conventions would have resulted in Ron Paul winning nominating-pluralities in not merely 5 states, but 9 or perhaps 10 — sufficient to get his name into nomination even under the rammed-through 2012 rules! The stripping of the Louisiana delegates by Tampa pooh-bahs is particularly horrible, since that was the state-convention where bones were broken, just to try and keep Ron Paul from his fair & square win. http://youtu.be/V2sxcjmzoxU http://centralcitynews.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Lt-Reince-Priebus-7-30-12.pdf

    That the RNC was relying on the rammed-through 2012 version of the rules seems crystal clear, because the rule about submitting names in writing an hour in advance was one of the 2012 rules. Therefore, they were also relying on the 8-state-majority (changed at the last second from a 5-state-plurality that was in the original rules). Furthermore, beyond the 2012 rules forced through by the Romney supporters on the rules-committee, the elite pooh-bahs were also relying on delegates from ME LA OK staying stripped, per Romney supporters on the credentials-committee (also not put to a roll-call vote before the body), so that Ron Paul only ‘had’ 6 out of 8 newly-required-by-the-newly-rammed-through-rules, rather than the 9+ he won. http://youtube.com/watch?v=B39W91O-rUg

    p.s. The reason that Ginsberg had the paperwork also seems quite clear to me — so that he can smear those individuals, get them kicked out of their state party, twist arms, and so on. Not for 2012, but for 2014 and 2016. That’s the whole point of rule#16was15, and also of rule#12: to help purge the elite rockefeller-repub neocon-repub party, run from DC by operatives like Ginsberg, of those pesky Ron Paul folks (cf Gary Johnson and to a lesser extent Ross Perot), and those pesky Michelle Bachmann folks (cf Alan Keyes and to a lesser extent Pat Buchanan), and those pesky Goldwater holdouts (cf Morton Blackwell… a Romney supporter who fought rule#12 on fair-play grounds).

    The purging is ongoing, as a matter of fact — see the Todd Akin headhunt by elites in *both* parties, based on an honest mistake about medical facts, and compare that to how Mitt’s constant flip-flops and Ryan’s constant distortions are glossed over through careful omission of questions in the debates. Ryan claims to hold the same position as Akin, but this is never mentioned. For that matter, look at Linda Lingle, the elite dempub from Hawaii running as a repub nominee for the senate… she has at *least* as many goofy mistakes on her record as Akin, but gets no flak from the national repub elites. Considering how close the senate-race is going to be in 2012, with one loss being the difference between newfound repub-control and continuing dem-control, repubs ought to be rallying-around-the-nominee across the board… not testing out their purge-mechanisms, state by state, for now. However, that assumes that the elite repubs are actually *against* the elite dems… bad assumption!

    Priebus *is* definitely being vague about how Ron Paul was kept from being nominated, and refusing to be pinned down to an actual reason, but I think the evidence is pretty clear: the RNC elites were running this 2012 convention according to the freshly-rammed-through 2012 rules, which say that you have to submit written evidence of majority-support in 8 states an hour in advance. Priebus says the pauliticians “failed to submit the required documentation [not enough states] in a timely fashion”. Perhaps I’m wrong on the Official Excuse… only time will tell. Directing our anger at Priebus, or Boehner, or Sununu, or even Ginsberg & Mitt, seems pretty pointless. The problem is not the bad individuals, the problem is the bad process, the behind-the-scenes push for a pre-determined outcome (using the teleprompter to guarantee it if necessary!). We need to unify around no-more-cheating, which most everyday Republican Party members can support, even those that *prefer* Mitt.

  4. Pingback: OneSquareLight·

  5. Morton Blackwell was recently interviewed by the Carolina Liberty PAC about the 2012 Republican National Convention. In the video he clearly states that, historically, rules changes do not take effect till after the convention. While you are correct that the actions of party elites lead one to believe they were operating under the new rules, this clearly is not how things are supposed to work based on past convention precedence.

  6. (Caveat#1 — have not yet watched the 45-minute video. Will reply back with additional comments once I have.)
    (Caveat#2 — my comments are, ummm, quite verbose… if you’d rather switch to email or something, let me know.)

    Just in general, I can make a few comments, and ask a few questions. First of all, Blackwell has been at every natcon since 1964, and has been deeply involved with natcon-rules-cmte-business as well as RNCmte-standing-rules-cmte-business for almost as long. But even taking his recollection at face value, that by long-standing tradition, the rules as amended during a specific natcon have never gone into effect until ‘after’ that natcon… this still raises many questions for me.

    Q#1. Is the idea that rules never take effect until (sometime) after the natcon in which they are passed really and truly *purely* traditional, at the natcon level? In other words, in very much the same way that presidents voluntarily retiring after two terms in office was a tradition (begun by George Washington — in one of his finest actions bar none — when he refused to become the POTUS-4-LIFE, and gave up power to return to his farm)? Because as history shows us, all it takes for a tradition such as that to be broken is for somebody to see breaking tradition as personally or politically advantageous, or both. FDR became potus4Life in 1932, which directly led to the “traditional” term limit as instituted by George Washington becoming *explicitly* the Supreme Law Of The Land, ratified by congress and the states as the 22nd amendment. Maybe we can amass enough support among everyday repubs to get the no-changing-the-rules-in-the-middle-of-the-cycle tradition permanent, is what I’m trying to suggest. [see note in postscript for which "everyday" repubs I am speaking of here.]

    Q#2. Along the same lines, exactly *when* do we think that the natcon rules of 28th Aug 2012 ought to have (traditionally) gone into effect? Not immediately, right… but when, specifically… 1st Sept 2012, or 7th Nov 2012, or 1st Jan 2013, or 21th Jan 2013, or autumn 2013 before the start of the midterm-primary-season, or 1st Jan 2014, or late summer 2014 sometime prior to the natcon but after all the state-cons, or the week before the 2014 natcon when the temp rules cmte for the 2014 natcon first convenes, or the official opening of the 2014 natcon when the body-as-a-whole first convenes? Maybe the video will answer this question for me… but I’d like some cold hard historical facts, to bolster our case. For example, if there was an amendment at the 1984 natcon to the rules, when did that new amendment first get exercised? Are there *any* historical cases where rules-changes were exercised A) during the natcon which approved the new rules? B) shortly after the natcon but before the general election? C) shortly after the general but before the end of the calendar year? D) the following year, but prior to or during the presidential inauguration? E) the following year, prior to the repub primary season for the midterm elections? And so on.

    Q#3. Is there *any* sort of rule that refers even vaguely to when natl-party-rules-changes actually go into effect? As I pointed out earlier, Priebus acted like they went into effect as soon as they were rammed through the body-as-a-whole by Sununu and Boehner. Is he technically incorrect, as opposed to morally wrong? Meaning, is there any sort of support — however slight — in the rules of the national party, or in the ‘house rules’ of the federal House Of Reps (which methinks is the procedures under which natcons are run… correct me if I’m wrong), that would lend support to the idea of Priebus & Sununu & Boehner being correct on the letter of the law? On the flip side, is there any allusion or text in the rules — however vague — that supports the traditional way of doing things, which Blackwell says is never-change-the-rules-midway-thru, and if so, where? Basically, there are two possibilities. Maybe there is some kind of rule that supports Sununu, but it tends never to be enforced, kinda like the speed limit… the sign says 55mph, and the law says 55mph, but if you drive at 56mph, you still never get pulled over. On the other hand, maybe the situation is more like interpreting the necessary-n-proper clause of the constitution… strict republican Madisonian constitutionalists say that article 1 section 8 is the *sole* list of federal powers, whereas loose Hamiltonian federalists say that implied powers must logically exist (and then proceed to expand the list of implied powers indefinitely). Finally, there is a third possibility, which is that there is literally no explicit mention, anywhere in the rules of the party or of the house, about when something that has been approved at a natcon actually goes into effect… in which case, we have a scenario like the traditional two-term presidency thing, where there is an unwritten rule that has always been followed, until now. I cannot find any mention of when rule-changes go into effect, at least in the natl repub party rules… I didn’t try to read the rules of the House of Reps. For stark contrast, look at the language of alleged-new-rule-twelve, which *explicitly* specifies when any future elitist top-down changes (made under the provisions of this one-rule-to-wring-them-all) will go into effect: 75% of the RNCmte may amend rules 1-25fka24 but any such amendment “shall take effect 30 days after adoption.”

    Q#4. Ignoring tradition, and ignoring existing texts, what do we in the liberty-movement *want* the the exact date to be for when rules-changes go into effect? This is a two-part question, actually — what date would we pick if all we cared about was political advantage to the liberty movement itself, ignoring fairness, and second, what date would we pick if we wanted to maximize fairness, by some metric of fairness? Because, as I mentioned in my first question, now that the tradition has been broken, it seems likely that there *will* be some movement to explicitly specify a rule, as part of the 2014 natcon, that says *exactly* when rules-changes take effect. This push seems particularly likely, given the vile fashion used by the elite pooh-bahs and their minions, ruining the 2012 natcon (now aka coronation), besmirching the name of the Republican Party (which used exacty the same cheating-technique as the dems used for ramming Jerusalem back into their platform), and very likely causing not only Mitt Romney’s loss (57m or 58m votes! many millions of repub-leaning voters stayed home for the 2012 general election in disgust — either at the cheating, or with the lousy nominee, or with the nastiness of the repub party behaviors recently overall), but also indirectly causing the failure to regain the senate (repubs lost nearly all the tossup senate-races because of that very same low turnout… snatching defeat in the form of a net loss of 2 seats resulting in 45r vs 55d, from the jaws of victory in the form of a net gain of 4-to-8 seats… which latter outcome of 51to55r vs 45to49d seemed almost guaranteed just six months earlier).

    Q#5. Finally, without ignoring tradition, and without ignoring the current rules, and taking into account the recent decade or two of previous rules, what do we in the liberty-movement *want* the exact date to be for holding the natcon, itself? Methinks a big part of the trouble at the 2012 natcon was caused by the Lateness Of The Hour, with the general election against Obama looming. Remember, the everyday repub (see terminology section) was mainly driven by the idea of anybody-but-obama, right? Furthermore, it seemed clear to me than many of the repubs at the August natcon, who chanted USA USA USA to drown out dissent… which is so totally ironic and disgusting it almost makes me cry… were not really doing it because they are eeevvviiilllll and hate pauliticians in particular and the Constitution in general… instead, my hunch is that they were panicked by the thought of another four years of Obama, and thus made the poor tactical decision to violate their usual tendency towards fairness, and cheer on the cheating. Now, certainly it is true that there *were* some evil minions at Tampa this year, and certainly some of the delegates and RNC staff *were* intentionally cheating, intentionally stifling dissent, and intentionally trying to rig the rules so that there would be a coronation of Mitt, with the name Ron Paul never to be mentioned… but I assert these bad folks were a very small minority. (If my assertion is wrong, and 70% of the ~2222 delegates in Tampa this year *were* enemies of freedom, then we probably aren’t going to win, ever, by trying to remake the repub party from the inside… because it is too late. But I don’t think I’m wrong.) Assuming that the vast majority of repubs want to have a fair natcon, where dissent is recognized, and where discussion from the floor is allowed, and where the rules are followed, and where the nominee is *not* necessarily known in advance… then we need to pick a calendar date for the natcon which gives all us repubs (liberty-repubs as well as the rest of the repubs) sufficient time to rally around the eventual nominee, and to rally around the eventual platform, and to celebrate that nominee, and to promote that platform, and to beat the dems. Part of the problem with the late August date for the natcon was that it *had* to be a coronation, and the entire party already *had* to have rallied around the nominee, because there was not enough *time* left before the presidential debates in October and the general election vote in November to promote the platform and celebrate the nominee — if we first had to rally around those things! The single month of September is simply not enough time. Therefore, we need to come up with a set of calendar-dates which *do* give enough time, for all the purposes that are under consideration. [see postscript for one possibility -- that we could pick multiple dates for a functionally-split national convention]

    Q#6. Once we have the answers to #4 and #5 from above, we need to write up some county-resolutions now, and drum up support for state-resolutions at the state-conventions in early 2014, so that by the time the national convention of circa-Labor-Day-2014 rolls around, we can get the national rules of the republican party changed appropriately. Obviously, based on what we decide is a good date-choice (or perhaps multiple-dates) for the natcon as our answer to question #5 above, we will need to make adjustments to rule#13 and rule#20 and maybe rule#25 plus other rules [using the alleged-2012-rules for numbering]. I also think we want to insert a new subsection into alleged-2012 rule#27(c) that indicates our answer to question #4 above. Specifically, I’d like to see something mirroring the language found in alleged-2012-rule#16(d)(2) and rule#16(d)(12) which say that state-party-rules involving del-picking and prez-candidate-picking *must* be set in stone before October 2011, or they cannot be used in the 2012 cycle. We need to write up some stuff which has similar language to alleged-2012-rule#16(d)(12), explicitly giving a process for certifying any rule-changes that are made at the natcon, and in particular certifying that the procedures and mechanisms used to pass the rule-changes at the (presumably earlier chronologically) natcon were both proper and fair. Audit the rules-changes, just as we want to audit the Fed, in other words. As part of that new language, we need to specify a date by which the certification of any rules-changes must be completed, a particular procedure by which certification of any rules-changes is to be accomplished, and finally, a particular date on which the newly-certified rules-changes (if any! they might all be rejected) will go into effect. Perhaps we should also have some sort of appeals-process, I’m not sure. My suggestion is that we have a split-date for the previously-singular natcon, with virtualized-convention-phase-one in July for cred/rules/plat/potus/vpotus, followed by a physical-and-virtual-convention-phase-two in October — see postscript. If that works out, then the audit of any rules-changes made in July at natcon-phase-one could quite naturally be accomplished at the natcon-phase-two during the month of October. My point is that we need to start thinking hard about broader issues, and what we want to accomplish in the future. We’d love to see alleged-rule-twelve overturned, for instance, and since Mitt lost so dramatically (most due to poor turnout because of pauliticians and other everyday repubs disgusted with the nominee in particular and the nomination process in general), we are likely to get that accomplished. But we also need to think constructively: what rules *ought* to be in place? What rules *should* be used, to help guarantee the future conventions are fair, and to discourage cheating by *structurally* making it disadvantageous? Once we figure out what we want, we need to start pushing propaganda ASAP… so that by the time the 2014 natcon rolls around, we have generated enough support to get our fair changes actually enacted as the National Party Rules.

    p.s. Terminology: the kind of “everyday” repub I’m speaking of are those that want the Party to be run fairly — Morton Blackwell is a goldwater-style liberty repub… so of course he wants fairness… and pauliticians want fairness… but those types are already about liberty & justice for all, so this isn’t too surprising. Say there are 5m of us, or so. There are, however, a very large number of Romney supporters in the party (57 or 58 million to be precise). Blackwell was one of those… but I would argue that the number of liberty-minded voters who could stomach casting their November ballot for Mitt was exceedingly small, and that there are at *least* 51m Mitt-voters that did so without many reservations… anybody but Obama, in other words. Of those 51m folks, however, I submit that ~99% of them wanted to beat Ron Paul *fairly* and by the rules, and only 1m of them were actually HAPPY to see pauliticians being cheated by the deaf-chair-gambit in Tampa (and elsewhere), and even fewer supported the bone-breaking in Louisiana.

    So we have 5m liberty-repubs as group#1 (led by Ron Paul but also including nominee-supporters like Blackwell & Rand Paul), versus less than 1m cheating-repubs as group#2 (with puppet-leadership such as Ben anything-to-win Ginsberg and John the-constitution-is-a-suicide-pact Sununu… but those guys are *controlled* by their unspecified ‘friends’ in the twin-party power cartel described in my earlier post). That leaves about 50m everyday repubs as group#3. This group gets most of their news from teevee. This group tends to be followers, tends to respect authority, and in particular tends to give authority the benefit of the doubt — they are not paranoid, they assume most people are Good, they don’t watch closely for cheating… and therefore they neither perceive nor believe that any cheating *is* going on. To the 50m everyday repubs, who in voting for Mitt this past November merely did what their group#2 establishment-leadership told them to do… what the talking-heads on their teevee told them to do… and most crucially what their peers in group#3 were all doing… the primary process was fair, because otherwise, wouldn’t they have seen on teevee that it was not fair, wouldn’t they have heard from their establishment-leadership that it was not fair, and most crucially, wouldn’t they have heard from their echo chamber peers in group#3 by word of mouth that it was not fair? Sigh….

    Point being, if we few liberty-repubs wish to remake the repub party from within, we have to out-maneuver the fewer than a million cheating-repubs that pull nasty tricks like changing the rules midstream — which means, we must convince the 50m everyday repubs that cheating happened, and who was responsible. The fairy tale being pushed by the evil brains that are the power behind the 1m corrupt brains of group#2, directly into the mostly-innocent 50m brains of group#3, is that the *real* cheater in 2012 was Ron Paul, because even though he got third in Iowa popvote, he won all the Iowa delegates. (You know, and I know, that Ron Paul scrupulously followed the rules in Iowa… and that those strange-seeming rules that pauliticians were so very careful to follow, were in fact rules that were laid down by the evil brains and/or the corrupt brains of past generations… who put the strange-seeming delegate-rules-system into place for their own nefarious purposes… and only complain *now* when their own rules are used, strictly as written, for the benefit of somebody *other* than themselves… such as when Romney lost to Ron Paul in the Virgin Islands and in North Dakota popvotes yet still ended up with the vast majority of the delegate-slates from those states… what I’m talking about here is PERCEPTION, the beliefs of the 50m everyday voters we must win over to our side, not about facts.) The true tale, of the blatant teleprompter-scripted corruption in Tampa, and of the bone-breaking corruption in Louisiana, and of the abuse of the credentials process… that is the tale we must tell, to the 50m everyday repubs, if we want to win. We don’t have the teevee media at our beck & call, and we don’t have the power-cartel funding our efforts with million & billions as needed, but we do have truth on our side.

    Concrete example. At the Oklahoma st-con there were a few corrupt minions who abused the process… in particular, causing delays, and bending-or-breaking the rules to bring in a couple hundred Romney-voters, then pushing them through credentials by outright fiat. There were also some anomalies related to the introduction of a liberty-slate, but those could have been honest misunderstandings. After all the delays for credentials, the stacon was ended abruptly, and perhaps unfairly; the liberty-folks in Oklahoma reconvened in the parking-lot, to finish the stacon properly, per the rules. They took their case to Tampa, but were quickly shut down by the establishment folks at the natcon, via a different sort of abuse of the credentials process (with respect to the Oklahoma delegation) at the natcon level. Ironically, the natcon cred cmte used bizarre logic to ignore the very obvious state-con fraud in Oklahoma where ~223 people were snuck in via the back door, and seat the Romney-slate as the official delegation from Oklahoma… and then turned right around and immediately used the exact *opposite* logic to unseat the paulitician delegation from Maine, based on far less serious allegations that ~2 people were not properly credentialed at the Maine state-con. My hunch is that nobody in group#3, the 50m everyday repubs that usually just follow orders, has any idea about this blatant hypocrisy and rule-rigging. Even many pauliticians prolly don’t know the specifics of this particularly glaring and poignant abuse of power. We need to spread the word.

    However, note that spreading the word is complicated by the fact that rules-committee and credentials-committee business is often exceedingly complex! In order for some voter to actually grok that Boehner was *cheating* when he followed the teleprompter-scripted outcome in Tampa, and in order for some voter to actually understand that the credentials committee was *wrong* to seat Oklahoma’s Romney slate (‘elected’ with many alleged state-level-credentials-violations) and then *hypocritically immoral* to then turn around and unseat Maine’s paulitician slate (elected with a very few alleged state-level-credentials-violations), that voter has to have a pretty firm grasp on Robert’s Rules, on the correct credentials process, and on all sorts of esoteric parliamentary stuff. The everyday repub in group#3 often will have an understanding of the rules that is very fuzzy, compared to the likes of Blackwell… for instance, many of those 50m everyday-repubs in group#3 wouldn’t quite understand that the deaf-chair-gambit is against the rules, because they have seen it so often, they assume it to be normal, and therefore assume it must be legal according to the rules! Educating people about what the actual rules are, and about what dirty tricks that are against the rules actually look like, is therefore an essential part of trying to spread the word that Tampa was unfair, and that Louisiana was unfair, and that Oregon was unfair, and that Oklahoma was unfair, and that all the other places where cheating happened were unfair / immoral / wrong / bad. Only then can we interest people in any proposed solutions — because if they don’t believe there was a problem, then why would they agree to change anything, since the current system is already working just fine? As a side benefit, being able to explain to the everyday repubs we want to bring to our side not merely what the rules actually are, but also what dirty tricks actually look like, means that we pauliticians must first educate ourselves about such things. That more than anything else will prepare us for future battles.

    p.p.s. My suggestion for replacing the late-August-natcon-date would be that we hold two national conventions (and zero national cons!). This allows us to have our contentious brokered convention cake when necessary in any particular election cycle, and also eat our celebratory rally-around-the-nominee televised convention bonanza, too. The chronologically earlier biz-convention can be during the inspiring week of July 2nd, the date the declaration of independence was actually voted on, closely followed by the traditional date of celebrating it, July 4th. The chronologically later celebratory-convention can be during the inspiring week of October 12th, the traditional date of celebrating when the old world and the new world first discovered they were not alone. The choice of the presidential nominee, and the construction of the platform, will occur during the biz-convention in July, which means that all state-conventions and state-primaries must be completed by approximately Flag Day, which is June 14th. Even in 2012, the second year that the RNC has opted to hold a late-August/early-September convention, 96% of the primaries and caucuses were completed by June 16th, except for Utah on June 26th, and pokey Nebraska which finished on July 14th, so mandating that everybody finish by mid-June will not impose a severe handicap. Consider the case of Texas in 2012, which suffered a lawsuit challenge to their 2010 census redistricting lines, and had to push back their entire schedule by many months, in most cases skipping precinct-conventions and going straight to county conventions, and even going so far as to hold their primary-vote before their state-convention, unlike normal years… yet they still managed to finish up before Flag Day. As for the dems, they can continue to have their convention in August, right around Labor Day, aka Union National Labor Relations Board Day. Perhaps we repubs can keep the outcome of our vpotus voting back on July 2nd a closely-held secret, neither published nor televised, up until the dems have their convention? The pundits tend not to predict the correct VP choice, when they guesstimate beforehand, so this would not be infeasible to accomplish. Revealing the vpotus on Labor Day would help give us a nice ratings-boost, dampening the bump for the dems from their convention… and besides, since we will already have our *actual* nominee, whereas the dems will only have a presumptuous nominee up until their Labor-day-coronation ceremony, we can make fun of their teleprompter-scripted natcon. Imagine the repub nominee leading the crowd protests outside the DNC, if you dare. How many hundreds of thousands of everyday grassroots repubs would buy a bus-ticket for *that* march on the DNC?

    Finally, note that my choice of the week of October 12th for the celebratory-convention, where we have speeches by leading Republicans lauding our nominees, blasting the dem nominees, and promoting our platform-ideas as vastly superior to their platform-ideas, is right smack in the middle of the presidential debates. This is by design — it is a feature, not a bug. The potus and vpotus debates tend to suffer from severe liberal-media-bias, with the talking-heads after the debates (and often the moderators *during* the debates) failing to address the toughest issues, failing to fairly fact-check, and in general spinning like windmills. Holding our celebratory-convention during those prez-debates will allow us to show blooper-clips of Hillary & Obama (or whomever the dem nominee is that year), pointing out where they flip-flop, pointing out where they make mistakes, pointing out where they fail to live up to the presidential standards, and pointing out where they just look like outright loons (Biden anybody?). This sort of split-national-convention idea seems correct to me, although it certainly isn’t traditional. With the advent of television, we need to have a unified televised spectacle, late in the campaign-cycle, which brings out republican celebrity personalities and key leaders, pushing for the republican nominee as the best choice. However, to achieve that crucial media-oriented push for our final nominee, and to still hold a fair and inclusive national convention… which could well be brokered, which might involve dissent, which may even possibly necessitate the name of more than one potential nominee being televised… seems impossible to do simultaneously. Therefore, rather than pretending we can combine the vigorous dissent of a traditional 1856-thru-1976-style of convention simultaneously with the modern 1984-thru-2012-style celebratory televised nominating convention, we must bite the bullet and split them chronologically: dissent in early July, then rally around the nominee in time to promote our freshly-baked platform and our freshly-victorious nominee for the next six weeks or so, not to mention preparing a massive protest against the DNC coronation festivities in August, continue to promote our platform and our nominee during September with a laser focus on the flaws in the dem nominee and the dem platform during, and then bring out the heavy guns in October for the televised debates that coincide with our celebratory convention, filled with big-name speakers, top-notch entertainers, and a fully unified body of fifty million republicans ready to get out the vote to at least one non-voting and/or independent friend each, giving us a turnout of 100M to the paltry 60m that the dems might manage with their teleprompter-scripted coronation.

    See also — using the numbering scheme of the alleged-rules-of-2012 that were rammed through — the existing rule#20(a) which says state-conventions must be finished 35 days prior to the national convention, and also rule#16(c)(1) which says state-conventions must be finished by the “second Saturday in June” which is somewhere between June 8th and June 15th. Implementing my suggestion, that the biz-convention be held the week of July 2nd, means that we would need to adjust rule#20(a) to say something like 10 days, instead of the 35 days currently mandatory. That presents practical problems related to airline tickets and hotel bookings and such, obviously. On a seemingly-unrelated note, there is also the cost issue: holding two national conventions rather than one basically doubles the expense, since we would then have to book two convention-centers, hire two security firms, two PR firms, two catering crews, two janitorial crews, two sets of bus-drivers, and so on. Methinks we can kill two birds with one stone, however. Rather than trying to get all the delegates from all 50 states plus DC plus 5 territories (including far-flung places like Guam) to all physically congregate in a single physical location for the biz-convention, why not run the meetings and the social hobnobbing that culminates in the finalized platform and the finalized republican presidential nominee across the internet? Rather than having physical meetings in a sports arena with voice-votes, we can have virtual meetings using two-way video chat and electronic voting. Rather than having social hobnobbing at a fancy hotel ballroom gathering, we can have social networking via google/facebook/twitter/tumblr/reddit/etc, plus specialized websites specific to the republican national biz-convention. Building such infrastructure will be expensive, but we can reuse it again and again, not just in future national biz-conventions, but also for the celebratory-convention, for the regular RNCmte meetings between election cycles, for state-party-business, and so on. If we get the patents on the key technologies we can even charge the democrats a few million bucks for the privilege of using our ideas… that’ll make George Soros have a conniption, no doubt. Bonus!

  7. Here is the recent history. The date given is the first official opening day, but usually a week of temp-cmte work comes first, plus 3 or 4 or 5 days after the given date.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republican_National_Conventions
    27 Aug 2012 FL too late [lose] …. might have been brokered (estab-Mitt-Romney beats liberty-Ron-Paul … then loses to incum Obama by a hair)
    01 Sep 2008 MN too late [lose]
    30 Aug 2004 NY too late [incum]
    31 Jul 2000 PA too late [tie]
    12 Aug 1996 CA too late [lose]
    17 Aug 1992 TX too late [lose]
    15 Aug 1988 LA too late [incum]
    20 Aug 1984 TX too late [incum]
    14 Jul 1980 MI ideal………….. reagan (who with help from Ron Paul almost caused 1976 to be brokered)
    16 Aug 1976 MO too late
    21 Aug 1972 FL too late
    05 Aug 1968 FL too late
    13 Jul 1964 CA ideal………….. goldwater
    25 Jul 1960 IL too late
    20 Aug 1956 CA too late
    07 Jul 1952 IL ideal………….. eisenhower
    21 Jun 1948 PA ideal………….. most recent brokered natcon (estab-Tom-Dewey beats liberty-Bob-Taft… then loses to incum Truman by a hair)
    26 Jun 1944 IL ideal
    24 Jun 1940 PA ideal………….. next-most recent brokered natcon (Ayn Rand campaigned for the nominee)
    09 Jun 1936 OH too early
    14 Jun 1932 IL too early
    12 Jun 1928 KS too early
    10 Jun 1924 OH too early
    08 Jun 1920 IL too early ……… third-most-recent brokered natcon (Coolidge the surprise grassroots pick for vpotus!)
    07 Jun 1916 IL too early
    18 Jun 1912 IL ideal
    16 Jun 1908 IL ideal
    21 Jun 1904 IL ideal
    19 Jun 1900 PA ideal …………. McKinley & TR
    [Earlier natcons were always in June, or even May in a couple cases]

    Note that liberty-candidates seem to benefit from natcons held closer to the fourth of July… which makes sense, right?

    This website has a great overview of the external forces shaping the natcon process.
    http://p2012.org/chrn/conv12.html

    In particular, it mentions the Summer Olympic Games, held in late-July through mid-August, as being part of the reason natcons were moved to late August. The advantage to moving the business-portion of the natcon back into the traditional early-July location is that we can still avoid overlap with the Olympics — and in fact, take advantage of many synergetic opportunites. In years when the Olympics are held in the USA, for instance, there will be a torch-bearing marathon that travels criss-cross through the entire country. If we are holding our natcon on July 2nd, we can have the olympic torch cross the (virtual) stage, with one of our delegates as the torch-bearer. That would be cool, right? Moreover, since we’ll have an official repub nominee by the time the Summer Olympic Games actually commence, we can send our nominee to the Games as a political move, helping to introduce them to the international community (cf Romney’s time in Poland and Israel… which was not very well-spent by this particular repub presumptive nominee… but is a sound concept overall methinks).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_Olympic_Games#List_of_modern_Summer_Olympic_Games
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_torch_relays

    The earliest that the Summer Games have begun in the modern 1984-present incarnation is July 19th, and the latest they have ended is October 2nd. Splitting the natcon into phase-one ending around July 2nd (with a torchbearer cameo when possible), then phase-two centered around October 12th (with cameo speeches by gold-medal-winners when possible), therefore seems like a pretty clear win.

    XXIII 1984 USA 28 Jul – 12 Aug
    XXIV 1988 Korea 17 Sep – 02 Oct
    XXV 1992 Spain 25 Jul – 09 Aug
    XXVI 1996 USA 19 Jul – 04 Aug
    XXVII 2000 Aussie 15 Sep – 01 Oct
    XXVIII 2004 Greece 13 aug – 29 Aug
    XXIX 2008 China 08 aug – 24 Aug
    XXX 2012 UK 27 Jul – 12 Aug
    XXXI 2016 Brazil 05 aug – 21 Aug

  8. Pingback: Dorner, the Urban Legend: Implications Behind a Fraudulent Manifesto « proparanoid·

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s