Respect for Ron Paul Delegates at the RNC Seems Low

Politico reports that some states with known concentrations of Ron Paul supporters in their delegations--Nevada, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Maine and Minnesota--are getting stuck in the cheap seats at the Republican National Convention that will, apparently, be happening in Tampa, Florida this week.

Various Paul delegates in Tampa for the weekend Paul-oriented festivities tell me that even many Romney delegates or other representatives of the GOP mainstream seem a little put off by the Party's desire to mess with Paul's delegations and change rules to its benefit. Especially aggravating is the rule to make sure no Ron Paul-type insurgent campaign can rack up delegates through intelligent caucusing by binding delegations in the future to preference polls and giving winning candidates say over specific delegate seating. 

One begins to wonder if the "Paul tribute video" promised for Wednesday night won't be marked by GOP powers-that-be as a memorial: Ron Paul Revolution, 2007-12. We loved you Ron! You will be missed! We are very, very sorry that we will never have to hear from you or think about you again!

For his part, Ron Paul never said the name Mitt Romney once in his over an hour talk in Tampa yesterday.

Some past blogging on delegate fight details.

My book, Ron Paul's Revolution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • anon||

    "Waaahhhh! We didn't get good seats!!!"

    And Paulbots wonder why nobody takes them seriously.

  • Randian||

    Fine, then don't whine when you get primaried left and right.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yep.

    It's going to take a sustained effort over many years to take over the R party. But it is possible and the only hope for liberty in the US in our lifetimes.

  • anon||

    Pretty much my point. There's so much more effective shit to do with your time than cry about seating at a convention that's largely irrelevant.

  • sarcasmic||

    Nice ad-hominem. What do you do for an encore? Straw man? Moving the goal posts?

  • anon||

    How is suggesting your time is better spent being productive than crying over bullshit a logical fallacy?

  • sarcasmic||

    You're skirting the issue by calling the person a crybaby.

    Textbook ad hominem.

  • anon||

    Ah, but from my point of view it isn't. Seating isn't the issue for me; them crying about not getting to sit in the front of the bus is.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's a matter of principle.

    They followed the rules, elected their delegates, and now the RNC is choosing their own delegates to substitute for the ones who were elected.

    What's the point in having elections if the results will be overruled when you choose an unpopular candidate?

  • anon||

    What's the point in having elections if the results will be overruled when you choose an unpopular candidate?

    There isn't one. The system is rigged. It needs to be thrown out, forcefully.

  • sarcasmic||

    There isn't one. The system is rigged. It needs to be thrown out, forcefully.

    Wouldn't you think that drawing attention to it by, say, I don't know, complaining about your elected delegates not being seated be a start?

  • anon||

    A start?

    The libertarian movement started 40 years ago. If they're just now starting to complain that the RNC isn't being fair to libertarians, the movement's already dead.

  • Randian||

    The mistake is thinking that our 'home' is in the Republican Party. It isn't.

  • anon||

    I agree with that. Should've let the Republican party die with Bush; unfortunately, finding enough libertarians that -want- political power is nigh impossible.

  • sarcasmic||

    finding enough libertarians that -want- political power is nigh impossible.

    Yup. As a general rule people seek out power to keep and expand it, not to dismantle it.

  • anon||

    It really makes you realize how unique a period in history the American Revolution was. I wouldn't be surprised if another 250 years passed before something similar happened again.

  • Bill||

    250 years from 1776 is 2026. Sounds about right.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Tu qouque.

  • Randian||

    That depends on whether you view this as a discrete act or as part of a larger pattern of the RNC's treatment of Ron Paul.

    Of course, Ron Paul is a Republican and so are his followers, so why they expect decent treatment is beyond me, but fair is fair.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Should the SoCons expect decent treatment when the libertarians are in control?

  • Paul.||

    This does not compute.

  • Randian||

    Should we start planning for the Big Crunch now or next year, do you think?

  • anon||

    That depends on whether you view this as a discrete act or as part of a larger pattern of the RNC's treatment of Ron Paul.

    I don't think anyone could view this as anything other than part of a larger pattern of action within the RNC.

  • Randian||

    I don't think anyone could view this as anything other than part of a larger pattern of action within the RNC.

    Then complaining about it really serves as a proxy for complaining about the larger pattern of action.

    To draw a crude analogy to the civil rights movement, Rosa Parks' symbolic arrest was not about that one seat on the bus, you know.

  • anon||

    Then complaining about it really serves as a proxy for complaining about the larger pattern of action.

    I'll give you that this is a valid point. How many of these Paul delegates are willing to go to jail over this though?

  • Randian||

    Probably more than you would think if they thought it would help. As it stands, they probably figure they don't need to do anything else to marginalize themselves.

  • anon||

    I would suggest that complaining about "this is unfair!" is doing nothing to help them be less marginalized.

  • Randian||

    It sounds like you just want to criticize to be critical.

    Have fun with that.

  • anon||

    Meh, perhaps I am just overly cynical today.

  • Bill||

    Some were arrested and removed from primaries in some states already.

  • Bee Tagger||

    You read that and came to the conclusion that the Paulbots are the ones being childish?

  • anon||

    Sorry, replied at the end rather than right here. See below.

  • sarcasmic||

    Well, duh!
    The Paulbots are totally childish for thinking they can have their duly elected delegates represent them!
    I mean, what do they think they are? Adults?
    No, they are just petulant teenagers, and their parents in the RNC are putting them back in their place.

  • anon||

    No, they are just petulant teenagers, and their parents in the RNC are putting them back in their place.

    Sarc, you know as well as I do that RP's delegates don't mean squat this year; their seating means even less. This one just isn't worth fussing over.

  • sarcasmic||

    If they don't mean squat, why in the RNC putting so much effort into shutting down the Paulbots?

  • anon||

    why in the RNC putting so much effort
    RNC

    I think you answered your own question.

  • Paul.||

    And Paulbots wonder why nobody takes them seriously.

    It's ok, no one takes Romney seriously, least of all, Republicans.

  • anon||

    But... The hair!

  • Paleo-ConAvenger||

    Yep, this and the endless amount of conspiratorial excuses and scapegoats for everything

  • Pro Libertate||

    I had thought about going to the Sundome event, but we're still recovering from our vacation and had some other stuff to do. How was it? I'll read Brian's commentary when I get a chance.

  • sarcasmic||

    Respect for Ron Paul Delegates at the RNC Seems Low

    Paging Captain Obvious! Captain Obvious, please pick up the nearest white courtesy phone!

  • ||

    One begins to wonder if the "Paul tribute video" promised for Wednesday night won't be marked by GOP powers-that-be as a memorial

    One begins to wonder? C'mon Brian. You ain't that slow.

  • anon||

    Yes. Look, I like RP a lot. I agree with him on a lot of issues. I'd far prefer him the Republican candidate than Romney; however, seating means absolutely jack shit. There are some things worth fighting over, and some things that aren't. Maybe if they fought as hard for primary votes as they did every minor aggravation we wouldn't have to vote Obama vs. Obama Lite.

  • anon||

    Woops, that was meant for BeaTagger above.

  • Scotticus Finch||

    Maybe if they fought as hard for primary votes as they did every minor aggravation we wouldn't have to vote Obama vs. Obama Lite.

    You may have a perfectly reasonable answer, but what exactly were you doing while you were waiting for "they" to deliver your ideal candidate on a national, silver platter?

  • anon||

    Voting, working, donating money. You know, being productive rather than crying over every minor perceived offense.

  • Scotticus Finch||

    Wait, so you think "they" didn't vote, work, or donate? It's possible they took on all those mighty efforts and simultaneously got upset about being slighted at the convention.

  • anon||

    It's possible albeit unlikely. Without looking it up, I bet most of the delegates are college students that couldn't articulate libertarianism to save their lives; ie, "useful idiots."

    Yes, I think they're crying because they've probably always gotten their way with mommy and daddy and are upset that they won't be on TV.

  • Scotticus Finch||

    That's an awful lot of assumptions.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    You think it's unlikely that people attending the RNC as delegates voted and donated money?

  • anon||

    I'd be surprised if even half the Paul delegates even voted.

  • T||

    I'm unaware of all state rules, but in Texas, you have to have voted in the party primary to be a delegate. It's one of the few non-negotiable requirements.

  • anon||

    Considering how well Paul polls for 18-35 year olds, and considering his performance, I'd bet money on at least 25% of them didn't vote in the primary, and would not be surprised in the least if half of them didn't vote.

  • Bill||

    Assume away. Then go away.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I'd be surprised if even half the Paul delegates even voted.

    So you're an idiot.

  • anon||

    Far from it. If as many Ron Paul voters turned out to vote as said they would, Ron Paul would've actually won some states. Oh well, that's life.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    You aren't talking about generic Ron Paul supporters. Here, I'll quote you again so you can put down the goalposts.

    I'd be surprised if even half the Paul delegates even voted.
  • anon||

    Not moving the posts. I'd expect the delegates to have the same voting record (or lack thereof) as his supporters.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I'd expect the delegates to have the same voting record (or lack thereof) as his supporters.

    Which brings us back to you being an idiot. They're too lazy to vote, but they're going to become a delegate?

  • anon||

    Sure. Tell me, what's hard about being a delegate and potentially getting paid to take a ride down to Florida?

  • Paul.||

    It seems clear that someone thinks seats are important. Probably people who are scared shitless of an "interesting" convention.

  • anon||

    I'm sure someone cares about appearance on TV. But really, there aren't enough delegates to make an "interesting" convention.

  • Paul.||

    A convention can always be made interesting.

  • anon||

    Yes it could. I could think of several things that could happen at the convention that would really make me cheer for joy; since most of them are highly illegal and I'd prolly go to jail for suggesting one, I'll just leave it at that.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    The convention as a whole isn't worth a hill of beans. The seating issue only serves as an indicator--as if another one is needed--that the Republicans hate libertarians, however much they protest otherwise during election years.

  • anon||

    The convention as a whole isn't worth a hill of beans.

    Ding ding ding! We have a winner.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Did you guys hear?

    Seems that Ron Paul was running for President.

    Oh, and Doherty wrote a book about Paul.

    Just in case you didn't hear about it.

  • Paul.||

    I'm still recovering from Gillespie and Welch's book. So now Doherty wrote one? Who can keep up?

  • Mike M.||

    I do love how back in 2008 it was all like "Newsletters, racism, newsletters, racism!", and now that he's retiring in four months it's all like "Paul, revolution, Paul, revolution!"

  • A Serious Man||

    I'll wait for the movie. Who should play Doherty and Paul?

  • sloopyinca||

    The Unabomber and Ethan Embree, in no specific order.

  • sloopyinca||

    According to theylookalike.com, he looks like a chimp.

    And I have a hard time faulting any site that rightly identifies Henry Waxman as a mole-man.

  • A Serious Man||

    John Turturro as Ron Paul, Danny Devito as Doherty, Joe Pesci as Gillespie, Rainn Wilson as Welch.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    I'm just shocked they aren't putting RP's delegates on the front row and just conceding him victory after his stunning 11% primary showing. For the love of humanity! This is insanity!

  • Randian||

    Hi Tulpa.

  • RBS||

    Wait, CampinInYourPark is Tulpa?

  • anon||

    Pretty sure it's one of the OWS poster-boys trolling.

  • Randian||

    Wait, CampinInYourPark is Tulpa?

    I am at about 99% on this one, yes.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Talking about auditing the Fed and discussing a revival of the gold standard seem to be the bones they're willing to throw Paul and his minions. since all they're going to do is talk about those things, it's a pretty cheap way to potentially court a large number of voters.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "Talking about auditing the Fed and discussing a revival of the gold standard"

    Yeah, those damn political parties just talking and never doing what we want. Why can't they just get things done like we can?

  • Randian||

    Hi Tulpa!!

  • BakedPenguin||

    ...never doing what we want. Why can't they just get things done like we can?

    Tulpa, stop pretending to be a libertarian, and these things will bother you less.

  • Randian||

    It's an interesting bit of H&R dynamics that Tulpa has reached Mary-levels here.

  • RBS||

    I swear, some troll loses their mind every week around here.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "stop pretending to be a libertarian"

    Stop pretending to be the arbiter of motives and being any more effective at obtaining an objective than a wailing 3 year old and I will label you the only true "libertarian"

  • Randian||

    See what I mean guys?

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "See what I mean guys?"

    You have some kind of "Lord of the Flies" complex?

  • Randian||

    Just label me a member of the Axis of Glib and give it up, O Corpulent Contrarian.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    If you think you can match 2 out of 7 billion people on a comment board I'll just label you a fucking moron and move on

  • sloopyinca||

    Seven billion people on a comment board? What is it, a board made up of Obama's twitter followers?

  • SugarFree||

    7 billion? My commenter registration number is in the low 900 millions. I've been here forever.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "My commenter registration number is in the low 900 millions."

    And exactly how does that prevent anybody with a PC and internet access from registering and commenting?
    Of course, since we're all just the same people registered thousands of times, there can't be 900 million either.

  • Randian||

    Cry moar harder, Tulpy-poo.

  • Randian||

    If you think you can match 2 out of 7 billion people on a comment board I'll just label you a fucking moron and move on

    Please note that this is not a denial or a flat refutation, just an implied one.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "Please note that this is not a denial or a flat refutation, just an implied one"

    This is a flat refutation. I've never commented with another name on this board. Fuck off, retard

  • sloopyinca||

    This is a flat refutation. I've never commented with another name on this board. Fuck off, retard

    Perhaps you've never commented with another name, but have you ever commented using another name?

    /paranoid pedant

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "Perhaps you've never commented with another name, but have you ever commented using another name?"

    You caught me. Damn you Reason master sleuths!

  • Gray Ghost||

    On 'who's supposed to be who', I'm holding out for Camping to discuss the merits of peanut butter: chunky vs smooth?

    It's so confusing; are we all supposed to be Mary at this point?

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "It's so confusing; are we all supposed to be Mary at this point?"

    All 900 million. And why would I call something butter with chunks in it. Get real

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Ron Paul never said the name Mitt Romney once in his over and hour talk in Tampa yesterday.

    In respect for the property owner's No Spitting sign?

  • sloopyinca||

    I sincerely hope Mitt Romney offers Ron Paul the SecTreas position in his acceptance speech.

    I'll still be voting for Gary Johnson, but it would at least let me know he's serious about reining in the Fed and willing to give voice to true fiscal conservatism within his (potential) administration.

  • anon||

    sincerely hope Mitt Romney offers Ron Paul the SecTreas position

    HAH! That'd jeopardize his chances at getting elected. We all know there's nothing more valuable to Mitt Romney (or Obama, for that matter) than being elected.

  • sloopyinca||

    Maybe not this year. If anything, RP can clearly explain how fucked up the monetary policy is. If the powers that be at the GOP embraced those ideals (because it's the only way to get the libertarian-leaning members of the party on board), the rest of the GOP would fall in lockstep behind them. Remember, winning is all that matters to Team Red. They'll adopt a policy they don't agree with on an issue they don't understand if it'll swing a few % points their way. Hell, they'll probably claim they wanted it all along.

  • sarcasmic||

    Once elected Romney will act as if Paul never existed.

    Count on it.

  • anon||

    You can pretty much substitute any Republican for Mitt and have the same statement be equally true.

  • Mike M.||

    Paul is retiring in four months. As in he's going to be completely out of government and not running for any more offices.

    In another year or so when Doherty's book sales have dropped down to a trickle, it will essentially be as though he never existed.

  • RBS||

    Make fun of Brian all you want but Radicals for Capitalism was awesome and the footnotes alone are worth more than the purchase price.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    the footnotes alone are worth more than the purchase price.

    Maybe if he put some more effort into his picture captions I'd be more interested in paying for his book captions.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Especially aggravating is the rule to make sure no Ron Paul-type insurgent campaign can rack up delegates through intelligent caucusing by binding delegations in the future to preference polls and giving winning candidates say over specific delegate seating.

    So why don't they just make them all primaries?

    [missing alt-text]

    And outlaw humor while they are at it?

  • Randian||

    Auric, did you end up watching that Toyota commercial again?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Auric, did you end up watching that Toyota commercial again?

    I'll reuse my answer to your previous post:

    When I was at work and nipples started appearing [on the screen]?

    No.

    (Although I actually did start to rewatch it, but then still got to the point that I had to close it halfway through because I'm on a work computer.)

  • sloopyinca||

    Auric, you missed one hell of a fantasy football draft. You would have gone berzerk, however, as people in the first round actually took running backs.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I actually tried to sign up around lunch on Friday, but the league was full.

    And wow, I'm so insane for thinking that a system completely disconnected from the strategy of the actual sport it is emulated might be off.

  • sloopyinca||

    I wish someone would have emailed me. There were a few others that wanted in and I didn't know about it until it was too late.

    Sorry. But I'm thinking about setting up a league pick-em as well. There's no limit to the players in that type of thing, so it would be relatively easy.

    Anyone interested in a weekly pick-em for bragging rights? I'll set it up (and think of a pithy league name in the process!)

  • RBS||

    Sure.

  • sloopyinca||

    I'm in the process of setting it up. Straight pick-em (not ATS), no confidence points and MNF tiebreakers. That way, the more retarded commentators can still participate without putting too much energy into it.

    I'll update as I get it all done.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I hope T o n y runs the table.

  • sloopyinca||

    I hope T o n y runs the table.

    I first read that as "I hope T O N Y runs a train".* I cringed.

    *NTTAWWT

  • ||

    Perfect.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I'd do a pick 'em league for sure. No craziness with irrelevant positions suddenly becoming God and I wouldn't have to worry about crazy amounts of time being sunk into it.

  • Gray Ghost||

    I'm interested. ATS and confidence are good too.

  • sloopyinca||

    See below to join. I figured ATS and confidence would drive off too many of the only moderately-interested posters here.

  • RBS||

    I can just picture Auric agonizing over his picks each week.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    No, this will be really simple and fits in to my current football time budget with little to no research needed.

  • sloopyinca||

    Yeah, just pick the team with the lower rushing YPG in each matchup and count your money!

  • Auric Demonocles||

    That would probably work out better than picking the team with the highest rushing YPG.

    Of course, that's not what I'll do anyway, since doing that would require looking at rushing stats.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Hey Vern, did you hear? Anon is a douche bag.

  • sloopyinca||

    Here you go, people: The Reason H(ampersand)Run Bigorati Pro Football Pick-Em is here.

    Link to the page where you join.

    League ID: 38814
    Password: reason

    Even for people that can't take the time to manage a fantasy team, hate the running game or prefer chowdah over chowder, this is the pro football pick-em group for you.

    Join now and test your wits against some of reason's finest brains...

  • RBS||

    There was a temporary problem with the server. Please try again shortly. (Error #115)
    The password is incorrect. (Error #109)
    The group is full. (Error #107)
    This is not a private group. (Error #147)
  • sloopyinca||

    Something wrong with your computer. Others have joined just fine.

    Make sure you're going to my link. The pick-em is different than the FFL launch page.

  • RBS||

    I like how there is an option to let the commissioner edit your picks. Like I would give that kind of power to someone who gave his wife the first pick in the draft.

  • sloopyinca||

    I know, right? That was such a strange coincidence, wasn't it?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    When did Stern marry the owner of the Hornets? And why is he running your FF league?

  • Mike M.||

    I just hope she didn't pick Tim Tebow.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    She's a woman. I'm pretty sure Tebow is the only football player women are allowed to know exists.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Too bad you already used the "You didn't build that"... "You didn't pick that" would have been great. I'm in anyway.

  • kinnath||

    The chairman of the Iowa GOP and a majority of the central committee are all PaulBots.

    A lot of the new and/or young PaulBots that overran the Iowa nomination process really truly believed they were going to nominate Ron this August. But the people that now control the Iowa GOP knew better.

  • sloopyinca||

    If I'm not around for the PM Links, could one of you post the link, ID and password?

  • The Hammer||

    For what?

  • Alice Bowie||

    I'm a big liberal that will be voting for Gary Johnson...which means I'll be voting for Romney since I'm not voting for Obama. I hate Obama.

    1.He never legalized marijuana
    2.Deported more latinos than any president in history
    3.Continued the wars
    4.Tried to compromise with people that would never compromise for him

    And the BIGGEST reason I hate Obama, he ran for a second term. He should have dropped out and let a white male run. Perhaps progressives would have had a chance. This is probably the END of the progressive party...not that Democrats are progressive.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement