National GOP to Nevada: Go Romney or Stay Home


As Nevada prepares to finally select its delegates to the national Republican Party convention in Tampa this August, they get a stern warning: don't you go thinking about Ron Paul.

As reported in the Las Vegas Sun:

In a letter delivered Wednesday to [Nevada] 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.  

Ron Paul's rEVOLution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired

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.

The letter in question from the RNC, explaining why they need to nominate Romney delegates as per his 50 percent victory in the February caucus vote:

On April 30, 2012, I provided you with an opinion letter explaining why any action to "un-bind" Nevada's delegates to the 2012 Republican National Convention would be impermissible under the national party rules (The Rules of the Republican Party). Specifically, I explained that "[a]ny action taken at the Nevada Republican Convention to alter the method in which delegates are elected, selected, allocated, or bound for the 2012 Republican National Convention from the method described in the [Nevada Republican Party] plan that was timely filed with the Republican National Committee prior to October 1, 2011, in accordance with Rule 15(e)(1), would be in conflict with of The Rules of the Republican Party."

I provide this supplemental letter to emphasize that my opinion applies equally to the binding of delegates and to the allocation of delegates….

In order to effectuate this process and ensure that a delegate or prospective delegate actually supports the presidential candidate he professes to support, an authorized representative of the presidential campaign that the delegate or prospective delegate professes to support should be allowed to confirm whether or not the delegate is an actual supporter. If a prospective delegate's name is certified to the RNC but has not been approved by an authorized representative of the candidate he or she professes to support, grounds for a contest may exist. In any case, to the extent a prospective delegate is purportedly elected in excess of the number of slots allocated to his or her preferred candidate, such delegate will be bound to vote at the national convention for the candidate to whom that delegate was allocated.

As I explained in my last letter, while this opinion is purely advisory and not binding on any committee of the Republican National Committee or of the Republican National Convention, 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.

In the February caucus vote in Nevada, Romney got a bare majority at just above 50 percent, Paul came in third with 19 percent. The indispensable Green Papers site on the rules for Nevada's caucuses, which are indeed supposed to bind delegates proportionally.

I blogged earlier about Paul people punching above their weight in the caucus process and elsewhere. My new book, out soon, Ron Paul's Revolution.

NEXT: Brickbat: Own Goal

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I cant help but say it again….Libertarians will always be a minority. The default mentality of humans seems to be of the statist variety.
    It requires a certain amount of intelligence to be confident that you can make your own decisions correctly, or at least more correctly than others can make them for you. Unfortunately, the majority of people’s intelligence falls below that.
    Still, it is nice to see Libertarianism make some headway.

    As a sidenote, regarding the tounge-in-cheek conversation I had with some of you the other day about making Louisiana a Libertarian state….Paul delegates dominated our caucus. Very few people here identify themselves as Libertarians, but the majority outside of the big cities do live a libertarian lifestyle and have libertarian beliefs.

    1. Well, liberals want someone to control their actions because they don’t trust themselves. They also don’t trust others, so they want their actions controlled too. Conservatives, for the most part, are okay with their own personal actions. They just don’t like what other people do, so they ban practices they don’t like. Basically “leave me alone, but I still reserve the right to control you.”

    2. It’s not about intelligence it’s about knowledge. Ordinary people who have been educated in government run schools just don’t know any better, because they haven’t been taught to know any better.

  2. Your publisher(s) sucks. No Kindle editions for both your new book and for Radicals for Capitalism.

      1. The book is not out yet, but there will be a Kindle edition, see above link.

      2. Thanks, great.

  3. 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.

    I generally define “respect” as “have due regard for”, so — and I may be wrong — I think these Paul folks respect authority about right.

  4. Fuck John R. Phillippe Jr.

    It’s time for libertarians to take control of some sparsely populated county in NV so that they can indict John R Phillipe for interfering in an election.

    1. Indict him for what?

      An officer of a private club sent a letter informing an officer of a chapter of that club about the rules governing an upcoming meeting.

    2. Nye Country is no Ron Paul country, they have taken over the party there.
      If they dont’ fuck things up they will take every seat open for election.

      I wish the Sherrif was up for election.

      1. Nye *county* is Ron Paul country.

  5. Nobody has to know who you support, and while it is against party rules to vote for the wrong guy on the first ballot, it is perfectly acceptable to not vote at all, which has been the Paul plan all along.

  6. I know two Romney delegates in my congressional district. I plan to warn them that any fucking over the Ron Paul delegates (five or six were elected in Penna.) and not allowing them to vote for Paul on the first ballot, is going to seriously piss-off RonPaul voters. If Romney thinks he can win without them, then go ahead and try. If you know any delegates in your state, suggest you clue them in too.,

  7. The rules include the rules for amending the rules.

    1. I wish the Supreme Court was aware of this.

  8. The Nevada state convention in Sparks will be interesting.

    I expect Ron Paul will take near 100% of the delegates.
    We’ll see what the party does with that.
    We have the organization and the numbers.

    In 08 Ron Paul was going to take it, so the chairman shut down the convention, so the Ron Paul supporters got rid of the chairman.

  9. BTW,
    I got this call last night haaaa.…..AS77tD_ZnY

  10. Reality check…

    I like Ron Paul. I’d love to see him in the White House. But seriously, he has absolute zero chance of winning a brutal campaign against a professional politician with absolutely no sense of ethics beyond “whatever I have to say, to win.”

    While I have real issues with the GOP, I can’t blame any political party for not wanting to purposely choose to have its ass handed to it in November.

    1. Barry,

      If the RNC and Romney disregard the Paul contingent, they WILL have their asses handed to them in November.

      Reality check back to you, Romney does NOT have a better chance of beating O’hope than Paul does.

      At least Paul presents the voters with a choice, a difference. Romney presents the voters with a white Obama.

      Unless the RNC does some serious shenanigans RP will take Nevada.

      Romney will have to make some serious concessions to RP, or lose all those votes and the election.

      If Romney makes no concessions to Paul, then the best thing to happen to the party and to the country will be for Romney to lose by about the contingent that Paul carries.

      1. What did I write that contradicted what you said in any way?

        I think you are right.

        And I think Romney could do just that.

        Paul won’t. He can be grating to listen to on the podium.

        Campaigning is a skill, that exists apart from other skills. Maybe it’s a talent. Denial won’t change that fact.

      2. I voted for Ron Paul in the primary in ’08. I voted for Gary Johnson (it was a protest vote since he had already left the GOP, but I’m in an early primary state so he was still on the ballot) this year.

        The biggest problem with the Ron Paul campaign is his supporters. And that most definitely includes you, kwais.

        Republican Party caucus voters overwhelmingly chose Mitt Romney over Ron Paul. Their expectation is that the delegates from Nevada will vote for the nomination of Mitt Romney. The organized plan to give a hearty “FU” to the voters to support a candidate other than the one they chose is regarded by normal people as an extraordinarily dickish move, evidencing such a lack of respect for the voters as to disqualify him from consideration.

        Anyone who thinks that a candidate who won no primaries and no caucuses but managed to get the nomination by manipulating the delegations into refusing to vote for whom voters instructed to would be regarded by the American public as a legitimate candidate, rather than as an usurper who stole the nomination, is in serious need of psychiatric help.

        Your reality check bounced.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.