National Delegate Update
Posted by Andy on April 19th, 2008
The Ron Paulbotz get a big fat fail for there efforts at the 3rd & 7th Congressional District conventions when it comes to National Delegates and Alternates. All 6 remaining Congressional District positions to the RNC were for non-Paul people. Kudos to all them for learning from the mistakes of the 6th CD.
Speaking of CD6. This letter was sent out earlier this week regarding my motion to bind the Paulbotz “to what they said”. (please note that, everyone is getting that one wrong.)
April 20th, 2008 at 12:14 am
‘Paulbotz’ + ‘big fat fail’= all on the same team. Riiight. Nice Andy. Way to foster that ‘togetherness’- wonder why your CD6 delegates felt they needed to ‘fly under the radar’
April 20th, 2008 at 9:50 am
More to the point, what kind of person seeks a position of honor and trust from the party and lies to get it? Whether the question was improper or whatever, it should have been answered truthfully. If you really intend to vote for Ron Paul on the first ballot, aren’t the delegates whose vote you are seeking entitled to that information? If you can’t convince even these dedicated conservatives of the rightness of the Ron Paul cause, how do you expect to make any headway whatsoever with the general electorate?
Andy is right. Even if you intend to vote for Ron Paul at the National Convention, it’s all for nought, but feel free. But if you want to be “on the same team” I want to know that you WILL be supporting ALL Republican nominees, starting with John McCain, after the RNC convention. If you can’t promise that, you’ve got no business running for National Delegate in the first place.
April 20th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
From reading their comments other place (paper etc..), The Ron Paul supporters took the question to mean that if John McCain is the candidate would you support him - to which they all said yes.
Any other meaning of that question by the search committee would be unconstitutional, so that could have been the only meaning.
If the question had been, who do you plan to vote for - then there might be a case that they “lied”.
April 20th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
“Any other meaning of that question by the search committee would be unconstitutional, so that could have been the only meaning.”
What question, exactly would be unconstitutional? It seems it is unconstitutional to BIND the delegates to what they promised, not to ask the question of who they plan to vote for. From there on in, they are bound only by their word and their honor, which apparently the Paulbotz have very little of. Oh, and as for the argument about how they meant to say that they would support McCain AFTER endorsement, I say “hogwash” …… actually I have another word which shouldn’t be used in this venue. They knew exactly what the question meant!
I hope delegates in future years can take something from this mistake, and learn that the privilege and honor of this position should go to those who have worked hard for the PARTY, as this is a PARTY position, not a soapbox to push some personal agenda.
April 20th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Actually, we have the words of one Ron Paul delegate, saying he deeply regretted saying he would support McCain, but felt he needed to say so. In other words, he flat up lied. Until I saw that, I had presumed, as many others have, that they intended to do the sensible and honorable thing and support the endorsed candidate of the Party they were seeking to represent. And regardless of what question they answered, or what they thought they answered, if their intent is not to support Republcans, they ought to resign their National Delegate positions immediately.
April 21st, 2008 at 5:39 am
As I have said, my apprehension about this whole thing is that this is all about Ron Paul, not the Republican party and the candidates as a whole.
It is perfectly acceptable for a Delegation to inquire on how someone intends to vote at a convention intended for endorsing said candidate. Those Delegates are in fact representing that Delegation at the next level. If that is now unconstitutional, every single endorsing convention we’ve ever had is probably unconstitutional by this standard. I’ve been asked about it for races at all levels. Should I have screamed and called foul and claimed unconstitutionality?
April 21st, 2008 at 6:01 am
The “Endorsing” Conventions are now over. Note the word endorsing … the purpose of the conventions was to elect individuals to the Republican National Convention — not to the election booth on November 4th.
That said, it will be interesting to note (and record) the involvement of all the people who sought election as “Republicans”. Much of the turmoil will be forgotten, if all of the delegates who presented themselves to the bodies for consideration step forward over the next six months and actually work to get endorsed Republican candidates elected at every level.