Salon -- RNC Worried About Ron Paul

Salon -- RNC Worried About Ron Paul
Posted on May 3, 2012 by LHR, Jr.

Left-wing media, like right-wing media, are in general shills for the regime. Take Salon.com, which is worried -- like the RNC and Romney -- about what it calls " The Ron Paul convention takeover plot." Oooh, scary. Will Ron "steal" the nomination or just "wreak havoc" in Tampa? Why, some of the Paul peons might even "relentlessly heckle" their betters rather than knuckle their forelocks. Can't have that. It might give other plebs ideas above their station. Keep the scam going, with the usual corporatist Democrat versus the usual corporatist Republican. That way the oligarchs can't lose.

xxx

Thursday, May 3, 2012 02:09 PM EDT
The Ron Paul convention takeover plot
Don't look now, but he's racking up delegates at under-the-radar contests -- and Republicans are officially spooked
By Steve Kornacki

This seems like an odd moment for the Republican National Committee to start worrying about Ron Paul.

Now well into his second campaign for the GOP presidential nomination, he still has yet to win a single statewide Republican primary or caucus, and he'll presumably be trounced by Mitt Romney in the remaining contests on this year's docket. More to the point, the political world stopped paying attention to Paul about two months ago, and the threat of him bolting the GOP and running as an independent – a scenario long feared by Republicans – passed long ago.

And yet, the RNC's chief counsel felt the need this week to issue a warning to the Nevada state GOP about the Paul campaign. At issue is this weekend's Nevada Republican convention, where delegates to the national convention will be chosen. The state's caucuses in February were a truly messy (that's the polite word) affair, but Romney was the clear and overwhelming winner.

On Saturday, though, Paul supporters are expected to flood the state convention and could account for the lion's share of attendees. This is what prompted the RNC's counsel to warn the state party that its delegation might be denied seating in Tampa if it's dominated by Paul-ites.

The RNC isn't just nervous about Nevada. In the past few weeks, as Romney cemented his hold on the nomination and the media turned its attention to the general election, Paul supporters have wreaked havoc at numerous district caucuses and state conventions, producing some startling results. For instance, 20 of Iowa's 28 national convention delegates will likely be Paul supporters – even though the Texan finished third in the state's January caucuses with 21 percent of the vote. And 20 of the 24 delegates selected in district caucuses in Minnesota recently are Paul backers, even though he was trounced by Rick Santorum in the state's February caucuses. Similar stories have emerged from Louisiana, Colorado and Massachusetts, with the list likely to grow.

This is possible because of the GOP's multi-tier delegate selection process. In many caucus states, the "official" results that most people saw this winter were from nonbinding straw polls conducted in conjunction with precinct-level caucuses. But when it comes to choosing national convention delegates, the real action is at district caucuses and state conventions. In the past, this distinction hasn't mattered much, but for the Paul forces – who lack the numbers to win statewide primaries but have the devotion to pack any room, anywhere, at any time – it has offered an inviting loophole. When turnout is small and no one is looking, the Paul folks can win, and that's what's been happening in a number of states.

To Paul die-hards, this will all culminate in a surprise for the ages in Tampa, with the political world suddenly realizing that Romney actually doesn't have the 1,144 delegates needed to win the nomination, thereby allowing Paul to extract major concessions or even steal the nomination for himself.

This isn't going to happen, but the actual number of delegates that Paul will control is a real mystery at this point, and the final number could be a lot bigger than anyone has expected. Besides the pledged delegates he's won so far and the extras he's collecting through caucuses and state conventions, Paul will also have some supporters disguised as Romney delegates. To understand how this works, just consider his campaign's mischief in Massachusetts, where Romney won 72 percent of the primary vote -- and with it, a monopoly on the state's pledged convention delegates. But to determine who would fill those pledged delegate slots, the state GOP held caucuses recently, and the Paul crowd came out in force, gobbling up 16 of the 19 available positions. In how many other states will this happen, or has it already happened?

And then there are the pledged Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum delegates, which are still committed to each of them, since they only "suspended" their campaigns. Are some of these delegates actually Paul backers too? And what will they do if and when they are formally released by Gingrich and Santorum?

From an official standpoint, there's still probably not much that Paul could do at the convention even with a significant chunk of delegates. With plurality support from five state delegations, he could have his name placed in nomination. That would give Paul and his supporters a little more time at the podium, presumably in a non-primetime hour, but the roll call of states would still be a formality, with Paul falling short. He could also push for (and maybe even force floor votes on) platform planks covering his pet issues, but again, his side would simply be outvoted. And anyway, it's likely that Romney is already planning to accommodate Paul with speaking time and some platform concessions anyway, for the sake of unity.

The threat of an outsize Paul contingent isn't about platform planks, though. It's about disruption. National conventions long ago stopped being about official party business and became slickly produced infomercials. But Paul's supporters aren't, generally speaking, party loyalists. For them, Tampa won't be a vacation -- it will be a mission. With the right numbers, they could slow the convention down with procedural distractions, messing with the party's careful scripting of the event. More alarming for Romney is the prospect of Paul delegates loudly and derisively jeering speakers, and maybe even Romney himself, creating an image of chaos and disunity. To understand this threat, just look at what happened at the recent Alaska state GOP convention, where Paul supporters relentlessly heckled two U.S. senators.

Delegate selection for Tampa will continue for the next two months. If the RNC's warning to Nevada is any indication, national Republicans (and the Romney campaign itself) are finally waking up to what the Paul campaign has been up to, and realizing that every delegate he grabs is potential trouble for them.

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/03/the_ron_paul_convention_takeover_plot/singleton/

RNC to NV GOP: Don’t let Ron Paul delegates take over national convention slots or don’t bother coming to Tampa

RNC to NV GOP: Don't let Ron Paul delegates take over national convention slots or don't bother coming to Tampa
By Jon Ralston
Wednesday, May 2, 2012 | 9:18 p.m.

In a letter delivered Wednesday to GOP Chairman Michael McDonald, the RNC's chief counsel said if Ron Paul delegates are allowed to take too many slots for the national convention, Nevada's entire contingent may not be seated in Tampa.

John R. Phillippe Jr. said that while his letter is not binding, "I believe it is highly likely that any committee with jurisdiction over the matter would find improper any change to the election, selection, allocation, or binding of delegates, thus jeopardizing the seating of Nevada's entire delegation to the National Convention."

Clearly, the RNC fears that mischief at the Sparks convention this weekend could result in Ron Paul delegates taking Mitt Romney slots and then not abiding by GOP rules to vote for the presumptive nominee on the first ballot in Tampa. So they are trying to force McDonald to ensure that actual Romney delegates fill 20 of the 28 national convention slots, thus removing any mystery of who they will vote for.

This could be even more fun on Saturday because ­ and I may be wrong ­ I don't think these Paul folks respect authority too much. And now the new chairman, who is close to some of the Paul folks, has to be the enforcer.

Too delicious.

The letter is at right.

• See RNC letter at right

http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralstons-flash/2012/may/02/rnc-nv-gop-dont-let-ron-paul-delegates-take-over-n/

Re: Since bin Laden’s death

"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." -- Friedrich Nietzsche


At 04:09 PM 5/3/2012, you wrote:

Glenn Greenwald:  Take your pick.....
 

 
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 2:31 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 12:12 PM EDT

Since bin Laden's death

The War on Terror and its various civil liberties assaults have escalated, not been reversed or even slowed down

By Glenn Greenwald

In the wake of Osama bin Laden's summary execution one year ago, many predicted that the War on Terror would finally begin to recede. Here's what has happened since then:

*With large bipartisan majorities, Congress renewed the once-controversial Patriot Act without a single reform, and it was signed into law by President Obama; Harry Reid accused those urging reforms of putting the country at risk of a Terrorist attack.

* For the first time, perhaps ever, a U.S. citizen was assassinated by the CIA, on orders from the President, without a shred of due process and far from any battlefield; two weeks later, his 16-year-old American son was also killed by his own government; the U.S. Attorney General then gave a speech claiming the President has the power to target U.S. citizens for death based on unproven, secret accusations of Terrorism.

* With large bipartisan majorities, Congress enacted, and the President signed, a new law codifying presidential powers of worldwide indefinite detention and an expanded statutory defintion of the War on Terror.

* Construction neared completion for a sprawling new site in Utah for the National Security Agency to enable massive domestic surveillance and to achieve "the realization of the 'total information awareness' program created during the first term of the Bush administration."

* President Obama authorized the use of "signature" drone strikes in Yemen, whereby the CIA can target people for death "even when the identity of those who could be killed is not known."

* The U.S. formally expanded its drone attacks in Somalia, "reopening a base for the unmanned aircraft on the island nation of Seychelles."

* A U.S. drone killed 16-year-old Pakistani Tariq Aziz, along with his 12-year-old cousin, Waheed, three days after the older boy attended a meeting to protest civilian deaths from U.S. drones (another of Tariq's cousins had been killed in 2010).

* NATO airstrikes continued to extinguish the lives of Afghan children; in just the last 24 hours, 5 more Afghan children were killed by the ongoing war.

* The FBI increased its aggressive attempts to recruit young Muslim-American males into Terror plots which the FBI concocts, funds, encourages, directs and enables, while prosecuting more and more Muslims in the U.S. for crimes grounded in their political views and speech.

Does it sound like the War on Terror and its accompanying civil liberties erosions are ending, or going in the opposite direction? The morning after the bin Laden killing, I wrote that the killing of bin Laden would likely re-ignite American excitement over militarism and would thus likely further fuel, rather than retard, the War and its various implications. As always: combatting Terrorism is not the end of the War on Terror; the War on Terror is the end in itself, and Terrorism is merely its pretext.

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/01/since_bin_ladens_death/singleton/

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

 

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="crackpot.jpg"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="crackpot.jpg"
X-Attachment-Id: f_h1s911290

Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="Moonbat1..jpg"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Moonbat1..jpg"
X-Attachment-Id: f_h1s9112d1

Re: Since bin Laden’s death

Glenn Greenwald:  Take your pick.....

 

 

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 2:31 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 12:12 PM EDT
Since bin Laden's death
The War on Terror and its various civil liberties assaults have escalated, not been reversed or even slowed down
By Glenn Greenwald

In the wake of Osama bin Laden's summary execution one year ago, many predicted that the War on Terror would finally begin to recede. Here's what has happened since then:

*With large bipartisan majorities, Congress renewed the once-controversial Patriot Act without a single reform, and it was signed into law by President Obama; Harry Reid accused those urging reforms of putting the country at risk of a Terrorist attack.

* For the first time, perhaps ever, a U.S. citizen was assassinated by the CIA, on orders from the President, without a shred of due process and far from any battlefield; two weeks later, his 16-year-old American son was also killed by his own government; the U.S. Attorney General then gave a speech claiming the President has the power to target U.S. citizens for death based on unproven, secret accusations of Terrorism.

* With large bipartisan majorities, Congress enacted, and the President signed, a new law codifying presidential powers of worldwide indefinite detention and an expanded statutory defintion of the War on Terror.

* Construction neared completion for a sprawling new site in Utah for the National Security Agency to enable massive domestic surveillance and to achieve "the realization of the 'total information awareness' program created during the first term of the Bush administration."

* President Obama authorized the use of "signature" drone strikes in Yemen, whereby the CIA can target people for death "even when the identity of those who could be killed is not known."

* The U.S. formally expanded its drone attacks in Somalia, "reopening a base for the unmanned aircraft on the island nation of Seychelles."

* A U.S. drone killed 16-year-old Pakistani Tariq Aziz, along with his 12-year-old cousin, Waheed, three days after the older boy attended a meeting to protest civilian deaths from U.S. drones (another of Tariq's cousins had been killed in 2010).

* NATO airstrikes continued to extinguish the lives of Afghan children; in just the last 24 hours, 5 more Afghan children were killed by the ongoing war.

* The FBI increased its aggressive attempts to recruit young Muslim-American males into Terror plots which the FBI concocts, funds, encourages, directs and enables, while prosecuting more and more Muslims in the U.S. for crimes grounded in their political views and speech.

Does it sound like the War on Terror and its accompanying civil liberties erosions are ending, or going in the opposite direction? The morning after the bin Laden killing, I wrote that the killing of bin Laden would likely re-ignite American excitement over militarism and would thus likely further fuel, rather than retard, the War and its various implications. As always: combatting Terrorism is not the end of the War on Terror; the War on Terror is the end in itself, and Terrorism is merely its pretext.

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/01/since_bin_ladens_death/singleton/

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

**JP** THE NAME OF "ALLAH"

Assalamu'alaikum Wa Rahmatullah e Wa Barakatuhu,
 

 

 

--

Thanks & Best regards,
 
Imran Ilyas
Cell: 00971509483403

****People oppose things because they are ignorant of them****

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197