Ron Paul Delegates Back Down; Strike Deal with RNC

All those progressives, masquerading as loyal Ron Paul supporters! The Contingent from Maine will show them what real Ron Paul supporters are like! They won't back down!

I'm picturing William Wallace in Braveheart shouting, "Hold, Hold."

When I get those four or five letters a week from Willard I send each one back telling him I'm waiting until the Maine delegation is seated at the convention and hears Ron Paul's speech during prime time. He could teach that young Ryan a thing or two.

Ron Paul delegates backed down?

From Apollo's link . .

" . . both sides are close to announcing a deal that could help avoid a potentially embarrassing moment for Mitt Romney on the day he receives the GOP presidential nomination."

From what I understand is that there will be no compromise from the Maine Delegation. They are heroes for doing that.

I had this strange understanding that the idea was to nominate a candidate to represent the party in a presidential election.

However, I am willing to admit I understood things completely wrong.

It really is about hearing a former candidate ,who gave up his campaign, get a good time slot at a convention , for a speech about everything that is wrong w/ America and how it can be fixed ,but
hasn't been able to get thru congress in his years there !

Silly me!

Isn't it about time for this silliness to cease.

It IS about time for this silliness to cease. Seat the delegates that were elected.

"...and how it can be fixed ,but hasn't been able to get thru congress in his years there"

Bruce, you do know Ron's Audit the Fed Bill passed the House 327-98 a few weeks ago... right?

Yeah, we knew about that. And auditing the fed means nothing. An "audit" doesn't change things.

Tell that to the legions of convicted embezzlers now behind bars.

Apollo

I guess you are right, we live in the world that allows thieves and murderers to be our overlords there is really nothing we can do about it, might as well fight over the scraps that they allow us. Look at Corzine for instance, stole billions from individuals accounts and he is sorry, well I mean he was governor of that righteous state on New Jersey, quite fitting.

And what will Ron Paul say in his speech? That Romney is another Obama? With all the Republican bashing I hear from Ron Paul supporters, it is ironic that they are fighting about having a seat at the table at the REPUBLICAN party convention! The latest from the Ron Paul cheerleaders is that Romney is worse than Obama. Why aren't they insisting that their leader be allowed to speak at the DEMOCRAT party convention since they work so hard to re-elect Obama?

And what will Ron Paul teach Paul Ryan? You mean to say Ron Paul has a plan for saving Medicare that he has been keeping secret all this time? Or that Ron Paul has a budget plan or a plan for revitalizing our economy other than depleting our military budget in order to "save money" - a line borrowed from Obama's 2008 campaign. Does Ron Paul fancy that Ryan has never considered the role of the Federal Reserve? Ron Paul is an ideologist- NOT a practical planner, like Ryan. Ideology has its value but it is useless without practical strategies, for which Ron Paul comes up short. Although the Ron Paulers like to perpetuate the slogan that Romney is Obama, Paul shares as much with Obama as anybody- including a complete lack of executive experience and a big liability for any governing ability in the form of a gigantic ego.

As far as auditing or getting rid of the federal reserve is concerned- it has to pass in the House and the Senate and then be signed into law by the president. Obama is not going to sign it into law because Obama's economic and budget policy is to use the federal reserve to print up some dough whenever its needed. Paul knows he is not a contender for the presidency- that is unless his ego is even larger than I am aware of. Romney has praised Paul for his efforts to audit the federal reserve. If a bill to audit or get rid of the federal reserve were to pass in the House and the Senate, chances are that if Romney were president he would sign it. The choice of Ryan as vice president shows that Romney is serious about running a fiscally responsible administration.

Paul's continuation in the Republican race helps Obama.The Ron Paulers mantra that Romney is another Obama helps Obama and so while Paul's rhetoric is for auditing and getting rid of the federal reserve, his actions are not. Paul sponsored the bill in 2009 when Obama was president and his continued candidacy on the Republican ticket serves the re-election of Obama, dooming the possibility that any bill concerning the federal reserve will ever be signed into law. Since Obama uses the federal reserve to print money- why would he want to have it audited? That's not Obama's MO. If Paul were really serious about auditing or getting rid of the federal reserve he would drop out of the REPUBLICAN race and endorse Romney. In a Romney administration, he could then sponsor the bill again with a much greater chance of it passing in the House and the Senate and being signed into law. Anyone who cannot understand how to actually achieve an ideological end in the practical world is not presidential material.

TPP. No I didn't know that,thank you.
But this is what I do know.
He isn't going to be president.
I do not think he ever wanted to be President.
At this point he won't be the candidate for the R party.
His speech will not in the end change anything in Tampa unless he does what he should do and say thank you
vote for Romney and let's defeat Obama!
Which is what he should have done when he suspended his campaign !

Bruce,

I do hate to be a nit pick, but Ron Paul never suspended his campaign.

Then just what did he do that had all the RP's in such a dither?
He did something so explain it, not suspend , stopped on road ,acknowledged something what is it?
If it is something different then gettng the prime time speech slot.
Let us get real the average person will not change their mind due to anything that is said seen or reported about the conventions , both parties.

The last convention I can say I remember anything about is when Barry Goldwater would give everyone hell !
This whole thing has been turned into a major distraction not a constitutional crisis or anything approaching that and is apparent what RP wanted.
Given his chance of obtaining the nomination much less the presidency!
Actually he has thrown his own followers under the bus.

His own followers have thrown the only viable alternative to an Obama presidency under the bus. They are more about spreading the absurd mantra that Romney is another Obama, than actually promoting Paul. Paulers have turned "Anyone but Obama" into "Anybody but Romney" all based on things Romney said or did in the past and completely occluding the substance of Romney's current presidential campaign. Whatever comparisons you can make between Ronmey in Obama are the ONLY thing that matters about Romney in the minds of the Ron Paul cult- The multitude of differences is occluded and wiped clean from the minds of the cult members.

Meanwhile there are abundant comparisons to be made between Ron Paul and Obama- and that is with current campaign policies and an election strategy which is dependent on running a smear campaign against Romney- but if none of the difference between Romney and Obama are to be considered by this cult , then why do they reverse that with Ron Paul- where in none of the similarities between Obama and Ron Paul are to be factored in and only the differences ?

Ron Paul gets a lot of attention campaigning on an issue that he single handedly brings into the campaign dialogue- the federal reserve - but he can do that as he has never had any chance of winning- he runs to bring attention to the issue. The other candidates should not run on such an issue even if they concur with Paul because it is not a prioritized election issue in the minds of the general public. It is ill advised to bring up issues that are not currently prominent in the public's mind during a campaign season- if you are in it to win it. Paul's campaign made it more practical and viable for Romney to publicly state support for Paul's audit the fed efforts- and that is a good thing- but all told Paul is doing greater harm to Romney's election efforts, which as I pointed out in my previous post does not help this country to achieve the ideological purpose for which Ron Paul supposedly runs in the presidential primaries to elevate the public's attention there of.

Alright, let's say that the Federal Reserve is audited, and they say, "you know what? Ron Paul is 100% correct. It's a total cluster f." Well, then what? Do we get rid of it? Do we replace it with something else? Do we go back to the gold standard? I've never heard Ron Paul say what his plan is after we get "audit" the Fed.

Mackenzie very good.

AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) - Negotiations aimed at brokering a compromise between the Ron Paul delegates elected at the Maine Republican Convention and party mainstreamers who are challenging those delegates are continuing.

The outcome of discussions that were going on Wednesday in Tampa, Fla., could determine whether 20 members of Maine's 24-member delegation will be seated at the convention. The talks could also determine what share of the 24 delegates will go to the libertarian-leaning Texas congressman and how may to putative Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

http://www.wlbz2.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=211723

Well, it looks like they are trying to come up with a split on the delegates. Paul gets some and Romney gets some. But you know what I think Tweed and Brakey are going to say to that?

"Paul gets some and Romney gets some."
Given that I am new at this and attended my first convention....I believed the republicans at the convention chose/elected the delegates. There have to be some written guidance as to how that is accomplished.....so....why have any rules?... and why should I expect to vote and select delegates next time...or any time in the future. Anyway; WHO decides the "some" I wonder....my expectations are not being met, but thats my issue.

Apollo, my sense is that you are very careful to avoid criticizing the mainstream Republican views so be careful:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/aug/20/romney-s...

When Ron Paul advocates something, you disagree with it because he said it, and then it becomes the main stream view is that like a paradox for you? How do you know whether to like it or not?

Sorry, I couldn't resist a little ribbing. To answer your question, Paul has stated that he would not abolish the Fed, at least not anytime soon. The obvious reason is that doing so would cause chaos. Unfortunately, once a State apparatus has its tentacles everywhere, it can be very difficult to go back. Romneycare and Obamacare should be equally fun to dismantle, should we ever be presented with candidates who can and will do it.

Paul has stated that he would appoint an Austrian economist to as the Chair of the Fed. He recently stated whom his choice would be and I can no longer recall the name he mentioned. He would then work to champion competing currencies of the kind Hayek advocated. Long term, green backs probably couldn't survive such a move, unless they required paying taxes in them. But it would provide a workable, incremental transition mechanism to sound money.

The more direct and obvious answer is that if the audit reveals corrupt practices the corrupt can go to jail and the practices can be reformed. And if it is revealed that wildly unpopular practices are taking place, like bailing out foreign banks on an even larger scale than we already know about, then the American people would have the opportunity to make their will known.

" and why should I expect to vote and select delegates next time...or any time in the future."

Good idea. Time to go to a primary and eliminate this foolishness.

That is interesting TPP thanks for the answer.

I read the article in the PPH this morning, and according to the article, Willard has over 1,500 delegates committed to him for the nomination, which is more than the 1144 needed for the nomination.
So why the hell are the 2 people who filed the complaint worrying about 20 delegates if Willard has the nomination wrapped up???

Classy response and I did take your question seriously... now I feel bad for poking fun :)

Time to go to a primary and eliminate this foolishness.

Sanity at long last.

A caucus rewards candidates whose supporters are more excited and energized. Since no one seems all that excited about Romney, the primary will no doubt seem "fairer" to Romney supporters. But I think the caucus system is a much better safeguard for democracy. Let's not forget who else is not very excited or energized about candidates (in general) and will tolerate only a more minimalistic interaction with the political system... the hordes of welfare recipients out there. These people are "political" in the sense that they know nothing about politics, but it is ensured that they know enough to show up and vote for the right person. That is the extent of their political life. A primary rewards that mentality.

I don't mean to compare Romney supporters to welfare recipients! It's obviously quite the opposite. But there is a continuum here. If we move the system towards the lowest common denominator of requiring less real effort to participate in candidate selection, the results may come back to haunt us.

Time to go to a primary and eliminate this foolishness.

Unfortunately, a primary by itself is not going to fix this. Party rules have to change to bind the delegates to the results of the primary. Even then, when you’ve got people who sweep aside the rules, like the Paul posse did in Maine, there will still be issues.

A caucus rewards candidates whose supporters are more excited and energized. Since no one seems all that excited about Romney, the primary will no doubt seem "fairer" to Romney supporters. But I think the caucus system is a much better safeguard for democracy.

Says TPP, who has apparently overlooked the fact that Barack Obama essentially clinched his nomination by skillful exploitation of the caucus system, and has been skillfully safeguarding democracy ever since.

But I think the caucus system is a much better safeguard for democracy.

That's just about the biggest load of horse manure I've seen posted in a long time, for the exact reasons posted above. The will of the people at large should reign supreme over the machinations of zealots in a convention center.

Pat Riot: Your post is spot on.

JUST IN - RNC RULES AGAINST MAINE'S DELEGATES

Copy added by AMG Editor

WMTW Image
PORTLAND, Maine —

There has been a shake-up for the Ron Paul delegates who are planning to represent Maine at next week's Republican National Convention.

State GOP chairman Charlie Webster told News 8...the RNC contest committee stepped in and told the Paul and Mitt Romney camps...they will split 20 delegates evenly.

"They’re the judge and jury. They look at it were the rules broken and they all agreed that these rules were not obeyed,” said Webster.

AMGsource