Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul supporters capture majority of Nevada’s national delegates
Las Vegas Sun ^ | 05/06/2012 | By Anjeanette Damon

Posted on 05/06/2012 5:07:18 PM PDT by redreno

Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul captured the majority of Nevada’s national delegates early Sunday, overwhelming likely nominee Mitt Romney with an organized contingent who easily took control of the state convention.

Paul’s supporters won 22 of the 25 national delegate slots up for election at the state convention in Sparks on Saturday. Romney won three.

Another three automatic delegates are expected to support Romney, meaning Romney will have six supporters in the delegation and Paul will have 22.

(Excerpt) Read more at lasvegassun.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; US: Nevada
KEYWORDS: larouchies; nevada; paulestinians; ronpaul; spammonkeys
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-74 last
To: Impy

“....I think the aim of the Paul people is to influence the GOP platforms, state and national.”

I agree.


51 posted on 05/07/2012 9:08:44 PM PDT by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain

GIven that Paul people won 22 out of 25 delegates, it is hard to believe it was Romney’s team that was tricking people — he actually won 50% of the support in the original caucuses, so his team would have to be remarkably incompetent to actually cheat their way from 50% down to 12%.

Oddly, I read several reports here at FR that sounded exactly like your report, except it was Paul people passing around lists that were supposed to be Santorum and Gingrich lists, except most of the names were actually Paul delegates.


52 posted on 05/07/2012 9:22:57 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain

As I said, all the Senate candidates were able to easily get the signatures they needed. And we’ve had the large signature rules for years, and this was the first year there were so many incompetent campaigns.

Of course, it appears that the campaigns mostly refused to get help from the committees, or to help each other out — I think each one was hoping they could collect the signatures, while their opponents would fail.

Romney had no trouble, because he actually had an organization in the state, and paid attention. Ron Paul had no trouble collecting signatures. In 2008, multiple candidates did it.

Your only “evidence” for something being wrong is that we happen to have 4 incompetent campaign organizations this year. These 4 campaigns actually missed the opportunity to collect signatures AT A GENERAL STATEWIDE ELECTION, which is the easiest thing to do. In contrast, the senate candidates just did their collections during the presidential primary, which had extremely low turnout. And yet one candidate collected 21,000 signatures, another over 17,000 signatures, and the other two were able to collect more than enough valid signatures.

BTW, Herman Cain was collecting signatures in the november election, and I bet he had enough signatures to make the ballot. All the other candidates needed to do was to place their petitions on the table next to the Cain ones — the collection at my precinct was being done by the committee volunteer, not a dedicated Cain guy — it was just Cain was the only candidate to ask.

In the aforementioned Senate campaign, Bob Marshall runs entire delegate campaigns with a VOLUNTEER staff — He is a state delegate, but in his second federal senate run, was able to collect over 17,000 signatures. His campaign contacted volunteers on the phone, and was able to collect signatures across the state. Money is one way to get signatures, but you can also simply appeal to the voters.

Perry could have easily gotten 15,000 signatures. He had 11,000 including invalid ones — it would have been easy to get vounteers to collect 4000 more.


53 posted on 05/07/2012 9:32:04 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

GIven that Paul people won 22 out of 25 delegates, it is hard to believe it was Romney’s team that was tricking people — he actually won 50% of the support in the original caucuses, so his team would have to be remarkably incompetent to actually cheat their way from 50% down to 12%.

Oddly, I read several reports here at FR that sounded exactly like your report, except it was Paul people passing around lists that were supposed to be Santorum and Gingrich lists, except most of the names were actually Paul delegates.


As I said, the Romney nefariousness was caught on video and photographs in Nevada and Maine. It is not something for you to believe or not believe. It simply is.


54 posted on 05/07/2012 9:56:23 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

“As I said, all the Senate candidates were able to easily get the signatures they needed. And we’ve had the large signature rules for years, and this was the first year there were so many incompetent campaigns.”


Except that the rules were changed sometime in November or December to up the amount required from 10,000 to 15,000, and also fixed it to where if you get above 15,000 your signatures will not be checked. There are also many other ridiculous nuances to consider in the entire way the state GOP of Virginia handles it.

There’s no real reason why major candidates shouldn’t be getting on a ballot. The only conclusion is that either the GOP of Virginia is incompetent, which is probably the case, or they’re corrupt. I’m happy with either option, especially when they tried pulling the loyalty oath nonsense as well.


55 posted on 05/07/2012 10:59:34 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

hockey is more exciting


56 posted on 05/08/2012 1:50:53 AM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (and we are still campaigning for local conservatives in central CT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain

I watched one of the Maine videos that supposedly “showed” this. They had a “similar delegate list” which didn’t mention Ron Paul anywhere, and which followed a standard form for delegate lists, and happened to start with the Governor like Ron Paul’s list did. Because it was in the same “format” the video asserted it was a trick. Oddly, the Ron Paul list didn’t mention Ron Paul anywhere — which some would say was itself a trick to not let people know who the delegates were supporting.

The video then found some random guy passing out his own slate, and asserted with no evidence that the guy was a Romney supporter. The problem with this 3rd list was that it had Ron Paul people on it who hadn’t actually agreed that they wanted to go be delegates. Later, the woman making the video says someone nominated her from the floor, and she had to run out and decline.

No possibility existed in her mind that someone who knew her might think to nominate her, or that someone might have known some people he thought would be good nominees and pass out his own list.

And of course, for those who argue conspiracy (as you seem to be doing here), there is nothing in any video I’ve seen that precludes these fake lists actually being from the Ron Paul campaign, which they then report as being from other campaigns in order to cause trouble and get sympathy.

Of course, anybody can do anything at a convention, so it is possible that someone who wanted Romney to win, and who had heard about previous Paul lists at earlier conventions, might have decided to try payback. What is most unlikely is that Romney, having actually won the Nevada delegate votes, and therefore not needing to care about who actually went to the convention, would actually sanction fake lists, and then do it so badly that he lost the delegate fight anyway.


57 posted on 05/08/2012 10:34:47 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain

First, I do agree with you that Virginia’s rules leading to eliminating viable national candidates in a presidential primary are ill-conceived and should be abolished. I even wrote an article about that, and sent it to all my representative contacts in government to try to get them to pass emergency legislation to get people back on the ballot.

But having a rule that shouldn’t be used is a different matter than claiming that there was a plot to keep people off the ballot. I know some of the players in our party organization, and they are all honorable men and women who worked hard to get republicans elected, and I don’t like seeing them smeared with baseless charges of malfeasance.

For example, you are completely wrong about your assertion that the “rules were changed”. The rules about the number of valid signatures have been in place for a long time. 10,000 valid signatures from registered voters, with 400 from each congressional district.

The “15,000” number isn’t a rule, it was part of the procedure for verifying the 10,000 signature rule. The RNC had gotten beat up (a court case) for not taking sufficient steps to verify signatures. In response, the new chair wrote up a procedure to be used.

In that procedure, noting that we have never found more than 33% of the signatures on a petition were faulty, it was decided that if you submitted 50% more signatures than needed, the counters would not do a signature-by-signature verification. Note that there is a presumption that people hwo are actually running for PResident of the United States, and being seriously considered for the position, wouldn’t actually stoop to widespread forging of signatures.

So, if you managed to submit more than 15,000 total signatures, the signatures were counted (with a cursory check that addresses were given), and if you also had 600 signatures from each congressional district, they presumed that 10,000 of your total would be found valid.

Ron Paul actually submitted 14,100 signatures. So every one of his signatures was checked. And he came in above the 10,000 mark — another case where a detailed check didn’t eliminate more than 33% of the count.

Heck, we assumed that Perry had enough, except too many of his didn’t even have addresses, and too many weren’t registered voters. Gingrich was on the edge, and then it turned out he hired people to collect signatures, and one of them DID forge signatures (note it wasn’t the campaign, and Gingrich reported the forgery — showing that a candidate is unlikely to forge signatures on their own accord).

As to the “rediculous nuances” — what are they? They do require a standard form, and each signature has to be witnessed, and each page notarized. It’s a bit tedious, but they do seem to have eliminated some of the more annoying rules like requiring signatures to be separated by county.

The same 10,000-signature rule existed in 2008, and most candidates were able to meet the number. I collected signatures for a couple of them; Fred Thompson made the ballot OK. Of course, the candidates all seemed to get the party apparatus involved, unlike this time around.

Again, I agree with you about the ballot. Signature rules are intended to keep frivoulous candidates off your ballot, by making candidates show they have some level of support in the state.

But in a federal election, there are other ways to show that a candidate is serious, even if they don’t have a good organization within a state. Virginia couldn’t eliminate candidates from the primary, all they could do is prevent Virginians from being able to VOTE for candidates — that was what is wrong with the process.


58 posted on 05/08/2012 10:49:09 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

“I watched one of the Maine videos that supposedly “showed” this. They had a “similar delegate list” which didn’t mention Ron Paul anywhere, and which followed a standard form for delegate lists, and happened to start with the Governor like Ron Paul’s list did. Because it was in the same “format” the video asserted it was a trick. Oddly, the Ron Paul list didn’t mention Ron Paul anywhere — which some would say was itself a trick to not let people know who the delegates were supporting.”


I’m not sure why you continue to resist me on this. This level of apologetics for Romney is definitely undeserved. You aren’t looking hard enough and I am not aware of any delegate slates that were captured on photo or video that were ambiguous. There were two slates. Both of them with the Ron Paul logo. That is not disputable. One with Ron Paul’s delegates, the other with Mitt Romney delegates and a few misspelled Ron Paul delegates who were likely the better known. It’s pretty clear. You cannot dispute this. I even saw this on live video from what one of the Paulbots who were streaming the caucus.

This link has a photograph as an example: http://www.dailypaul.com/231180/romney-camp-distributes-fake-ron-paul-delegate-slate-at-nevada-convention-cnn-censored

I have seen several, none are ambiguous, and none match your description, so I have no idea what you’re looking at. Maybe you’re reading or watching something from a few months ago.


59 posted on 05/08/2012 1:14:02 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

“In that procedure, noting that we have never found more than 33% of the signatures on a petition were faulty, it was decided that if you submitted 50% more signatures than needed, the counters would not do a signature-by-signature verification. Note that there is a presumption that people hwo are actually running for PResident of the United States, and being seriously considered for the position, wouldn’t actually stoop to widespread forging of signatures.

So, if you managed to submit more than 15,000 total signatures, the signatures were counted (with a cursory check that addresses were given), and if you also had 600 signatures from each congressional district, they presumed that 10,000 of your total would be found valid.”


You’re singing a different tune than you were earlier. So they (the rules) really weren’t the same for years and years like you suggested. You also reveal that it certainly isn’t an uncomplicated affair. The fact is the rules were changed in November or December, and they were rules that were much harder to comply with. Had they not been changed, or if the verification procedures had not been changed, there would have been no way for any of the other candidates to fail to get on the ballot. The fact that only two men, one supported by the GOPe and the other who had no chance of winning, is certainly evidence of major dysfunction in that state of yours. Even Mark Levin realized it was party shenanigans going on. If it isn’t corruption, it’s certainly incompetence in the State GOP of Virginia.


60 posted on 05/08/2012 1:14:14 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
I think there's only one rule the Republican party could implement to stop Ron Paul from disrupting the proceedings.

See The Simpsons Stonecutters episode, where the Stonecutters changed their name to The Ancient Mystic Society of No Homers to keep Homer Simpson out.

Do I hear the "Republican National No-Ron-Pauls Convention?"


61 posted on 05/08/2012 1:37:51 PM PDT by JediJones (From the makers of Romney, Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger 2016. Because the GOP can never go too far left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Collect 15,000 signatures and we’ll assume you won’t get more than 1/3rd rejected, so you’ll be on the ballot (we’ve NEVER had more than 1/3rd of the signatures found to be bad, so the rule makes sense).

The rule makes sense until you realize Ron Paul's gang probably wrote in Mickey Mouse 15,000 times and you didn't check. "b. Deception and Misinformation - use any means necessary to divide and conquer our opponents."

62 posted on 05/08/2012 1:45:30 PM PDT by JediJones (From the makers of Romney, Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger 2016. Because the GOP can never go too far left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain

Santorum and Gingrich were pretty minor shoestring campaigns at that point, so it’s not really surprising they didn’t make the ballot. Perry is kind of unfathomable though. I wonder if the GOP insiders didn’t try to keep a lot of competent people from joining the other campaigns through threats in order to help Romney. I’m sure they pulled every string behind-the-scenes that they could for Romney.


63 posted on 05/08/2012 2:11:19 PM PDT by JediJones (From the makers of Romney, Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger 2016. Because the GOP can never go too far left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain

I was discussing the “Maine” video, not the Nevada picture. The Maine video at least gave verification that they were actually at the event and there were real people passing things out, but was as I described.

As I mentioned in another part of my post which you didn’t quote, the Nevada question is that, if you postulate “shenanigans”, you can’t tell whether it was a Romney operative passing out a false slate, or a Ron Paul zealot making up a “Romney” fake slate to complain about, or just some random guy who showed up at the convention and wanted to be cute, not sanctioned by either nominee. You’d need a video showing a person passing out the Nevada delegate slate, and identify them and then tie them definitively to a campaign.

I’m not “resisting you”. In fact, it’s funny that you used the term “resist me”, it sounds like the Borg “resistance is futile”, which so much painted me a picture of Ron Paul’s supporters that you certainly didn’t want me to have.

I hate conventions, because people play all sorts of tricks. In fact, I started this by pointing out that multiple posts and several reports have mentioned Ron Paul supporters pulling tricks with delegate slates at lower levels, or offering themselves as supporters of other candidates so they could get to the next level and vote Paul-supporters into the national group.

Nevada seems to prove that to be the case — because 50% of the people at district supported Mitt Romney, but we are to believe that those same 50% CHOSE to vote so many Ron Paul supporters on to the next level that Ron Paul had full control of the delegate slate. Who knows why, but it is more plausible that this was something Ron Paul did, than that Mitt Romney was actually trying to trick people and yet this happened anyway.

But you can believe what you want. The point I have been making is that I do not find it conservative to cheer on the idea of thwarting the actual votes people cast, simply because the process allows for the possibility. For whatever reason, 50% of the people who showed up for the Nevada Presidential Caucus voted for Romney, and 40% voted for other people than Ron Paul. And yet, at the national convention, if it makes it to a second round, Nevada’s voters, 90% of whom wanted someone else, will be “represented” by a near-unanimous slate of people voting for Ron Paul, somebody almost NONE of the people in Nevada actually wanted.

How anybody can say that this is a good thing, I don’t know. It certainly isn’t representative democracy. When we vote people to represent us, we expect them to faithfully do so, not misrepresent themselves and do something we don’t want as soon as we turn our backs.


64 posted on 05/08/2012 3:03:50 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain

You misunderstand the meaning of the word “rules”, you confuse the rules with the procedure used to enforce the rules, and you misrepresent what I said. Not very good.

The RULES are the same as they have been for a long time — for a statewide candidate to be on a ballot, they must get the signatures and addresses of 10,000 registered voters, of which 400 must be from each of the 11 congressional districts.

That is the only rule, and it was the rule in force in 2008, and in 2012. It didn’t change in “november or december”, it hasn’t changed in years. It’s not “harder” now than in 2008, it’s the SAME RULE.

The procedures for verification have “changed”, in that before it was an ad-hoc process, and now they actually wrote up the procedure they would use. This happened in October. As part of that procedure, in order to not waste time, they said that if there were 15,000 counted signatures, and 600 from each district, they would ASSUME that there were enough valid ones to meet the 10,000/400 rule, and so they wouldn’t individually verify the names and addresses.

There has never been a case where more than 33% of the signatures for a candidate were rejected, so this seems like a rational procedural step. Why waste the time of your volunteers — in this case, forcing them to count through the Christmas holiday), when it is a virtual certainty that the signatures will be sufficient. As I said, Ron Paul submitted 14,100 signatures, and his were all checked, and he passed the 10,000/400 threshold with no problem.

The fact is that only two candidates submitted signature petitions that met the requirements of Virginia law. The 15000/600 procedure didn’t keep anybody OFF the ballot. If the argument is that the RPV should have ignored the law, and not checked signatures for validity, I reject that argument — if the law is wrong, change it, don’t ignore it.

The problem in Virginia was the inability of most of the candidates to put together campaign teams that could get signatures. I can’t comprehend what Perry’s problem was — he had a major player as his campaign chief of staff, who should have been able to collect signatures.

Every Senate candidate collected enough signatures. It’s not trivial, but it isn’t that hard. I can’t help it that Mitt Romney had an actual campaign organization (they have been here since 2007, they collected enough signatures that year, and they had the lists of people to contact to do it again. And I don’t have to explain Ron Paul’s organizational skills).


65 posted on 05/08/2012 3:19:29 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

I know McDonnell ended up endorsing Romney, but not until Perry dropped out. I still believe that if Perry had submitted enough signatures to get on the ballot, McDonnell might have endorsed him then.

I don’t understand Perry. He was here in September at the RPV luncheon, and they didn’t collect signatures. He had Jim Gilmore as his campaign chief — the former Governor and prior Presidential candidate, who certainly understood the process and knew how to make it happen.

We had a general statewide election, they just had to put people at the republican-strong polling places and ask for signatures. You’d know their districts, you’d know they were registered voters. We had hundreds of thousands of republicans vote that day. And yet at my precinct, the only form was Herman Cain’s.

I assumed Perry had it taken care of, because they wouldn’t return my e-mails, and they didn’t seem to be doing anything. I think that was my biggest dissappointment with the Perry group, when they failed to make our ballot.


66 posted on 05/08/2012 3:24:36 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Mtner77
Welcome to Nazi germany cica 1931

I'm not much of a Paul fan given his stance on the military, but I do genuinely dislike Romney.

Still, I am curious. In what way are adherents of a smaller and limited federal government, constrained by the U.S. Constution like that of the Nazi party? Were the Founding Fathers brownshirts for meeting as a Congress and using British rules of parliamentary procedure in that body against the Tories?

Thank you in advance for your learned and illuminating response.

67 posted on 05/08/2012 3:50:37 PM PDT by Sirius Lee (When we cease to be good we'll cease to be great. Be for Goode.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

“As I mentioned in another part of my post which you didn’t quote, the Nevada question is that, if you postulate “shenanigans”, you can’t tell whether it was a Romney operative passing out a false slate, or a Ron Paul zealot making up a “Romney” fake slate to complain about, or just some random guy who showed up at the convention and wanted to be cute, not sanctioned by either nominee. You’d need a video showing a person passing out the Nevada delegate slate, and identify them and then tie them definitively to a campaign.”


Pffft, you’re splitting hairs here. The only reason why I even brought it up to begin with was because you were accusing the Paulistas of an organized effort to steal the delegates through such fraudulent tactics. And this you did with no evidence either. And when faced with photographs of the same thing, but from Romney guys, like a good defense attorney you throw out all you can to raise doubt about the Romney campaign’s dishonest behavior. This is the Mitt Romney who ran the nuke/deception campaign against fellow candidates, not enemies like Obama, but you’d rather accuse the Paulbots before you’d accuse them? It’s a double standard, for sure.

That said, your comments are still valid. We don’t know if it was just some random schmuck or closet Paul-bot at two different conventions at the same time passing around fake slates promoting Romney delegates just for fun.

They DO have a photo of the guy at Nevada, so hopefully, if any of the media picks up on this, they’ll identify him soon. Any mud on Romney’s face is a happy day for me.


68 posted on 05/08/2012 8:28:52 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

“You misunderstand the meaning of the word “rules”, you confuse the rules with the procedure used to enforce the rules, and you misrepresent what I said. Not very good.”


You were specifically accusing Newt, Perry, and the other candidates of being incompetent since the rules had always been the same and they “knew” about it beforehand. When in reality, the rules were changed one month before the deadline, when before they were in compliance and would have been on the ballot, until that fateful change which, coincidentally, aided the Big Money Candidate and the other one who had a fan base with lots and lots of spare time on their hands with no day jobs. Sorry, doesn’t pass the smell test.


69 posted on 05/08/2012 8:29:22 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain
when before they were in compliance and would have been on the ballot,

That is false. There was no rule in the last decade under which they would have made the ballot. The rule, based on the law of Virginia, requires, and has required, 10,000 valid signatures of registered voters, with 400 in each congressional district.

Two conservative candidates failed to even collect 10,000 signatures. Two other conservative candidates failed to collect 10,000 valid signatures.

You can keep SAYING that the rules changed, but it is false.

70 posted on 05/08/2012 10:49:49 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain

I’d find you the links that were posted here in previous months, but I don’t know which threads they were, and you can’t easily find them on the web, because one thing Paul’s supporters are very good at is google-spamming, so that you can find hundreds of references to the supposed Romney actions in Nevada (where Paul, having one 10% of the support of the state, somehow won all the delegates).

You have to give them that, the Ron Paul supporters are very dedicated and know what they are doing. It just isn’t very representative of the will of the voters, or respectful of the process.

The conservative movement will be in sad shape if the republican party is overtaken by the Ron Paul supporters, as it seems it is happening now. Fortunately, they are highly unlikely to actually do the job of running the committees they have taken over, so once the nominations are done, things will probably get back to normal.


71 posted on 05/08/2012 10:58:21 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

BTW, I find it kind of depressing doing any searches with the name “Ron Paul”. As soon as you put “Ron Paul” in a search, all you get are hundreds of repeated stories from the dailyPaul or RonPaulRevolution.

That they are so good at making it impossible to find any unbiased information about Ron Paul is disconcerting.

Also is the number of threads from Ron Paul supporters talking about getting Rachel Maddow to help them out.


72 posted on 05/08/2012 11:14:09 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

“That is false. There was no rule in the last decade under which they would have made the ballot. The rule, based on the law of Virginia, requires, and has required, 10,000 valid signatures of registered voters, with 400 in each congressional district.”


Except that, from what I have read, if they made 10,000 raw signatures, they would not have been verified at all.

“...prior to the 2012 elections it was Republican party policy in Virginia to simply deem any candidate that brought in ten thousand raw signatures as having met the primary ballot requirements under Virginian state election law. So, for example, Alan Keyes (a popular negative example for people making the ‘any competent campaign’ argument) apparently did not actually have his petitions checked in 2000 and 2008; absent going back and looking at the paperwork (assuming that it even still exists), there’s no way to tell whether he would have survived the scrutiny of 2012. And that’s true of every other candidate who has appeared on the primary ballot in Virginia. None of them qualify for an apples-to-apples comparison – and this remains true no matter how many signatures were collected. If you know that your signatures will not be checked if you get above 10K, you are simply operating in a fundamentally different environment than one where you know that your signatures will be checked.”

http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2011/12/26/did-the-va-gop-change-the-rules-on-primary-ballot-access-in-november-2011/

Now either this is BS, and everything I’ve read on the subject is BS, or the rules did radically change one month prior to the deadline.


73 posted on 05/08/2012 11:48:19 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

“I’d find you the links that were posted here in previous months, but I don’t know which threads they were, and you can’t easily find them on the web, because one thing Paul’s supporters are very good at is google-spamming, so that you can find hundreds of references to the supposed Romney actions in Nevada (where Paul, having one 10% of the support of the state, somehow won all the delegates).

You have to give them that, the Ron Paul supporters are very dedicated and know what they are doing. It just isn’t very representative of the will of the voters, or respectful of the process.

The conservative movement will be in sad shape if the republican party is overtaken by the Ron Paul supporters, as it seems it is happening now. Fortunately, they are highly unlikely to actually do the job of running the committees they have taken over, so once the nominations are done, things will probably get back to normal.”


And this is relevant to your double standard... how?


74 posted on 05/08/2012 11:50:05 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-74 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson