Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Segami
Segami's Journal
Segami's Journal
July 10, 2012
"...Appearing on MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show on Monday night, Ron Paul supporter and former Massachusetts Republican Party delegate Evan Kenney explained how the party’s “elite power brokers” actually made their own rules up on the spot in order to keep him and other Paul supporters out of the Republican National Convention in August...."
" After Kenney, an 18-year-old, was elected to represent Massachusetts Republicans at the national convention, party officials suddenly began requiring a written affidavit swearing to vote for Mitt Romney “under pain and penalty of perjury” — a move they’d never tried before. “My reaction was like, ‘Well, okay,’” Kenney told Maddow. “I didn’t know the rules. I was ready to swear to vote for Mitt Romney until my mom pointed out to me… ‘You can’t swear under pain and penalty of perjury to do something in the future, because it would never hold up in court.’”
“So I thought, you’re right, maybe I should be careful,” he explained. “After consulting with the Mass Liberty caucus, we decided to send in an affidavit that says we’re gonna follow your rules, we’re going to follow Massachusetts general law, and we’re going to follow GOP rules, which means we’re going to vote for Mitt Romney on the first ballot. But that was not enough, even though I got it in on time.”
Three days later, he claims the Massachusetts Republican Party’s chairman sent him a letter that explained Romney for President, Inc. had “just cause and irrefutable evidence that I would not vote for Mitt Romney on the first ballot. But I had a legally notarized affidavit, two of them, as well as a verbal pledge. All that was required was the verbal pledge. So, I pledged three times to vote for Mitt Romney.”
Kenney went on to blame leadership within the Massachusetts Republican Party. “These are only a few corrupt power brokers in the leadership who want to keep the party to themselves,” he said. “They don’t care that it’s 11 percent voter registration, and shrinking, in Massachusetts in the Republican Party. They just want to keep the power to themselves.”
watch video:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/10/ron-paul-delegate-romney-republicans-changed-the-rules-to-keep-me-out/
.
Ron Paul Delegate: Romney Republicans CHANGED THE RULES To KEEP Me Out
"...Appearing on MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show on Monday night, Ron Paul supporter and former Massachusetts Republican Party delegate Evan Kenney explained how the party’s “elite power brokers” actually made their own rules up on the spot in order to keep him and other Paul supporters out of the Republican National Convention in August...."
" After Kenney, an 18-year-old, was elected to represent Massachusetts Republicans at the national convention, party officials suddenly began requiring a written affidavit swearing to vote for Mitt Romney “under pain and penalty of perjury” — a move they’d never tried before. “My reaction was like, ‘Well, okay,’” Kenney told Maddow. “I didn’t know the rules. I was ready to swear to vote for Mitt Romney until my mom pointed out to me… ‘You can’t swear under pain and penalty of perjury to do something in the future, because it would never hold up in court.’”
“So I thought, you’re right, maybe I should be careful,” he explained. “After consulting with the Mass Liberty caucus, we decided to send in an affidavit that says we’re gonna follow your rules, we’re going to follow Massachusetts general law, and we’re going to follow GOP rules, which means we’re going to vote for Mitt Romney on the first ballot. But that was not enough, even though I got it in on time.”
Three days later, he claims the Massachusetts Republican Party’s chairman sent him a letter that explained Romney for President, Inc. had “just cause and irrefutable evidence that I would not vote for Mitt Romney on the first ballot. But I had a legally notarized affidavit, two of them, as well as a verbal pledge. All that was required was the verbal pledge. So, I pledged three times to vote for Mitt Romney.”
Kenney went on to blame leadership within the Massachusetts Republican Party. “These are only a few corrupt power brokers in the leadership who want to keep the party to themselves,” he said. “They don’t care that it’s 11 percent voter registration, and shrinking, in Massachusetts in the Republican Party. They just want to keep the power to themselves.”
watch video:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/10/ron-paul-delegate-romney-republicans-changed-the-rules-to-keep-me-out/
.
July 10, 2012
ThinkProgress:
" Utah Representative Jason Chaffetz (R), a top-tier surrogate for the Mitt Romney campaign, told The New Yorker’s Washington correspondent Ryan Lizza that Mitt Romney shouldn’t have to release his tax returns, and that critics of the candidate’s decision to hide his vast fortune in overseas bank accounts should “get over it.”
Lizza, a panelist on CNN’s Starting Point program, asked Chaffetz to respond to fellow Romney surrogate Haley Barbour’s comment yesterday that he felt Romney should release his tax returns.
LIZZA: What’s your position on that? Should Governor Romney release all those tax returns? Right now he’s in a very unique position for a presidential candidate, he’s only released one year and a summary of 2011.
CHAFFETZ: Governor Romney has paid 100 percent of his taxes that are owed, he’s complied 100 percent what the law requires, um…
LIZZA: No I’m sorry Congressman, I was just asking if you think he should release them, not if he’s complied with the law. Should he release his tax returns?
CHAFFETZ: I think he has released the tax returns.
[Laughter and crosstalk]
LIZZA: Just yes or no, should he release them or not.
CHAFFETZ: No! No, I don’t…He’s been very successful, he’s released everything that he’s required to release, including paying more than 16 percent of his income to charitable givings. I think it’s a diversionary tactic. Most people, they don’t care about this. Governor Romney’s been very successful, get over it. It’s a reality.
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/10/513597/surrogate-critics-get-over-it/
.
Romney Surrogate On WITHHOLDING TAX RETURNS: Tells Critics To ‘GET OVER IT'
ThinkProgress:
" Utah Representative Jason Chaffetz (R), a top-tier surrogate for the Mitt Romney campaign, told The New Yorker’s Washington correspondent Ryan Lizza that Mitt Romney shouldn’t have to release his tax returns, and that critics of the candidate’s decision to hide his vast fortune in overseas bank accounts should “get over it.”
Lizza, a panelist on CNN’s Starting Point program, asked Chaffetz to respond to fellow Romney surrogate Haley Barbour’s comment yesterday that he felt Romney should release his tax returns.
LIZZA: What’s your position on that? Should Governor Romney release all those tax returns? Right now he’s in a very unique position for a presidential candidate, he’s only released one year and a summary of 2011.
CHAFFETZ: Governor Romney has paid 100 percent of his taxes that are owed, he’s complied 100 percent what the law requires, um…
LIZZA: No I’m sorry Congressman, I was just asking if you think he should release them, not if he’s complied with the law. Should he release his tax returns?
CHAFFETZ: I think he has released the tax returns.
[Laughter and crosstalk]
LIZZA: Just yes or no, should he release them or not.
CHAFFETZ: No! No, I don’t…He’s been very successful, he’s released everything that he’s required to release, including paying more than 16 percent of his income to charitable givings. I think it’s a diversionary tactic. Most people, they don’t care about this. Governor Romney’s been very successful, get over it. It’s a reality.
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/10/513597/surrogate-critics-get-over-it/
.
July 10, 2012
In late 2007 early 2008 there were two financial stalwarts Chase/J.P. Morgan and Barclays. Last month Chase had the so-called whale problem and now Barclays is accused of fixing LIBOR; the underlying interest rate that much of the world’s business community uses to base borrowing and lending. LIBOR rates are set daily by a panel of the world’s leading banks in London. It is suppose to represent especially the three month dollar LIBOR rate (the most important one), what a bank would pay to borrow dollars for three months from other banks on the date that rate is set.
The LIBOR problem unlike the problem at Chase has significant global, financial and political ramifications. In some sense there is a historic feeling to it almost a “Let them eat cake moment”. A sense that after all the problems of 2007/2008 global financial institutions still do not need to worry about rigging the game to their benefit. In many ways the alleged fixing of LIBOR is more damaging then the mortgage/housing crisis of 2007. Banking is based on credibility and trust, and when that credibility is shaken at one of its core points the system is in danger.
Politically here in the United States, if, and more likely when, the LIBOR scandal touches the major U.S. banking institutions by definition it will becomes a major problem for the Romney campaign.
- How do you run against government regulation when non-regulation has the possibility of bringing the system down?
- How do you run as the candidate against Dodd-Frank when it now appears that Dodd- Frank only protects against the tip of the iceberg?
- And certainly how can you blame government for creating lack of confidence in the business community when as we see, as in 2007, it is the unregulated business community itself that is generating a lack of confidence.
It world be an interesting strategy for Romney to get a head of this problem by issuing a statement that in the Romney Administration, all business that touches the United States must play by the rules. Unfortunately, the current version of Mitt Romney appears to be more trust as in 1900s financial term then trust buster.
http://rumorsandnews.com/edward-goldberg-libor-romney-and-tr-some-quick-thoughts/
.
Edward Goldberg: LIBOR, Romney and TR: Some quick Thoughts
" First Lehman, then all the other intervening events of the last four years and now Libor and Barclays; can there be any shoes left to drop in the financial world?In late 2007 early 2008 there were two financial stalwarts Chase/J.P. Morgan and Barclays. Last month Chase had the so-called whale problem and now Barclays is accused of fixing LIBOR; the underlying interest rate that much of the world’s business community uses to base borrowing and lending. LIBOR rates are set daily by a panel of the world’s leading banks in London. It is suppose to represent especially the three month dollar LIBOR rate (the most important one), what a bank would pay to borrow dollars for three months from other banks on the date that rate is set.
The LIBOR problem unlike the problem at Chase has significant global, financial and political ramifications. In some sense there is a historic feeling to it almost a “Let them eat cake moment”. A sense that after all the problems of 2007/2008 global financial institutions still do not need to worry about rigging the game to their benefit. In many ways the alleged fixing of LIBOR is more damaging then the mortgage/housing crisis of 2007. Banking is based on credibility and trust, and when that credibility is shaken at one of its core points the system is in danger.
Politically here in the United States, if, and more likely when, the LIBOR scandal touches the major U.S. banking institutions by definition it will becomes a major problem for the Romney campaign.
- How do you run against government regulation when non-regulation has the possibility of bringing the system down?
- How do you run as the candidate against Dodd-Frank when it now appears that Dodd- Frank only protects against the tip of the iceberg?
- And certainly how can you blame government for creating lack of confidence in the business community when as we see, as in 2007, it is the unregulated business community itself that is generating a lack of confidence.
It world be an interesting strategy for Romney to get a head of this problem by issuing a statement that in the Romney Administration, all business that touches the United States must play by the rules. Unfortunately, the current version of Mitt Romney appears to be more trust as in 1900s financial term then trust buster.
http://rumorsandnews.com/edward-goldberg-libor-romney-and-tr-some-quick-thoughts/
.
July 10, 2012
Eliot Spitzer: The LIBOR SCANDAL
July 10, 2012
RawStory:
" Ari Berman, who covers voting rights for The Nation and Rolling Stone magazines, said Monday that voter ID laws in Texas and other states could help Republicans win the presidency in 2012.
“It could throw the election,” he told Amy Goodman of Democracy Now. “As you mentioned earlier in your introduction, the states that have passed restrictive voting laws account for 214 electoral votes, nearly 80 percent of what is needed. We’re talking about very, very significant swing votes—swing states, like Pennsylvania, like Florida, like Wisconsin.”
Republicans in state legislatures have pushed for more restrictive voting laws to combat alleged voter fraud. But Democrats claim the new laws are merely an attempt to suppress voter turnout. They note that groups more likely to vote for Democrats — including minorities, the poor and elderly — are less likely to have the proper photo-ID now required to vote in many states.
cont'
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/09/ari-berman-voter-id-laws-could-throw-the-election/
.
Ari Berman: Voter ID Laws 'COULD THROW THE ELECTION'
RawStory:
" Ari Berman, who covers voting rights for The Nation and Rolling Stone magazines, said Monday that voter ID laws in Texas and other states could help Republicans win the presidency in 2012.
“It could throw the election,” he told Amy Goodman of Democracy Now. “As you mentioned earlier in your introduction, the states that have passed restrictive voting laws account for 214 electoral votes, nearly 80 percent of what is needed. We’re talking about very, very significant swing votes—swing states, like Pennsylvania, like Florida, like Wisconsin.”
Republicans in state legislatures have pushed for more restrictive voting laws to combat alleged voter fraud. But Democrats claim the new laws are merely an attempt to suppress voter turnout. They note that groups more likely to vote for Democrats — including minorities, the poor and elderly — are less likely to have the proper photo-ID now required to vote in many states.
cont'
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/09/ari-berman-voter-id-laws-could-throw-the-election/
.
July 9, 2012
Time to raid the collection box Dave....
" A Washington, D.C. judge has ordered an anti-LGBT preacher to pay MSNBC host Rachel Maddow’s attorney’s fees after he filed a $50 million lawsuit for allegedly defaming him.
Over the weekend, the blog Bradlee Dean Info first reported that Dean and his You Can Run International ministry had 30 days to pay $24,625.23. Dean had sued Maddow last year after she aired a segment from his radio show where he said that Muslims were “more moral than even the American Christians” because they were “calling for the execution for homosexuals.”
The radio host claimed that Maddow’s report was an attempt to undermine the presidential ambition’s of his personal friend, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN). Dean lawyer is Larry Klayman told CBS radio that the anti-LGBT’s preacher’s life was in danger because of the MSNBC report. “His life has been threatened,” Klayman said. “His family has been threatened. And this is outrageous. Rachel Maddow’s career is over.”
Lawyers for Maddow, NBC and MSNBC filed a motion in in D.C. Superior Court to have the lawsuit dismissed on the grounds that it was being used to stifle free speech. The District of Columbia passed legislation in 2010 to curb the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) that are designed to intimidate or silence critics.
To get around the anti-SLAPP legislation, Dean asked for a voluntary dismissal of the suit so it could be re-filed in federal court. In April, Maddow’s lawyer’s filed an anti-SLAPP motion to also have the lawsuit thrown out of federal court.
“One, the broadcasts truthfully reported on Dean’s May 15th statements. Those broadcasts re-played original audio of Dean speaking on the May 15th radio show,” the motion said. “Dean bears sole responsibility for the consequences of his words, however much he may try to distance himself from the backlash.”
“Two, the commentary or rebuke Maddow offered about Dean’s statements was classic opinion and rhetorical hyperbole, and thus, cannot be actionable as a matter of law. As Dean is entitled to his opinions, however objectionable, so too is Maddow entitled to hers.” The motion continued:
“Three, the fair comment privilege protects Maddow’s commentary. The broadcasts featured Dean’s actual statements and clearly indicated the source of those statements.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/09/court-orders-anti-lgbt-preacher-to-pay-maddows-legal-bills/
JUSTICE: Court Orders ANTI-LGBT Preacher To PAY Maddow’s Legal Bills
Time to raid the collection box Dave....
" A Washington, D.C. judge has ordered an anti-LGBT preacher to pay MSNBC host Rachel Maddow’s attorney’s fees after he filed a $50 million lawsuit for allegedly defaming him.
Over the weekend, the blog Bradlee Dean Info first reported that Dean and his You Can Run International ministry had 30 days to pay $24,625.23. Dean had sued Maddow last year after she aired a segment from his radio show where he said that Muslims were “more moral than even the American Christians” because they were “calling for the execution for homosexuals.”
The radio host claimed that Maddow’s report was an attempt to undermine the presidential ambition’s of his personal friend, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN).
Dean lawyer is Larry Klayman told CBS radio that the anti-LGBT’s preacher’s life was in danger because of the MSNBC report. “His life has been threatened,” Klayman said. “His family has been threatened. And this is outrageous. Rachel Maddow’s career is over.”
Lawyers for Maddow, NBC and MSNBC filed a motion in in D.C. Superior Court to have the lawsuit dismissed on the grounds that it was being used to stifle free speech. The District of Columbia passed legislation in 2010 to curb the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) that are designed to intimidate or silence critics.
To get around the anti-SLAPP legislation, Dean asked for a voluntary dismissal of the suit so it could be re-filed in federal court. In April, Maddow’s lawyer’s filed an anti-SLAPP motion to also have the lawsuit thrown out of federal court.
“One, the broadcasts truthfully reported on Dean’s May 15th statements. Those broadcasts re-played original audio of Dean speaking on the May 15th radio show,” the motion said. “Dean bears sole responsibility for the consequences of his words, however much he may try to distance himself from the backlash.”
“Two, the commentary or rebuke Maddow offered about Dean’s statements was classic opinion and rhetorical hyperbole, and thus, cannot be actionable as a matter of law. As Dean is entitled to his opinions, however objectionable, so too is Maddow entitled to hers.” The motion continued:
“Three, the fair comment privilege protects Maddow’s commentary. The broadcasts featured Dean’s actual statements and clearly indicated the source of those statements.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/09/court-orders-anti-lgbt-preacher-to-pay-maddows-legal-bills/
July 9, 2012
Strategic Health Care says that it regularly throws themed parties where lobbyists and people in the health industry can mingle with Capitol Hill staffers. This event’s theme, however, drives home an image of high-paid Washington lobbyists gathering to snicker at low-income, white Americans. And the event particularly stings because health care lobbyists at Strategic Health Care profit from pharmaceutical companies that make their money on expensive drugs that low income Americans of all races frequently have to turn their pockets inside out to pay for.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/07/09/513181/white-trash-reception/
Lobbying Group Holds ‘WHITE TRASH RECEPTION’ On Capitol Hill
" Washington may seem dead in the Summer, but there is one event happening on Capitol Hill next week that will cause at least a bit of a stir. The health care lobbying group Strategic Health Care will be holding a “White Trash Reception” on July 19th:Strategic Health Care says that it regularly throws themed parties where lobbyists and people in the health industry can mingle with Capitol Hill staffers. This event’s theme, however, drives home an image of high-paid Washington lobbyists gathering to snicker at low-income, white Americans. And the event particularly stings because health care lobbyists at Strategic Health Care profit from pharmaceutical companies that make their money on expensive drugs that low income Americans of all races frequently have to turn their pockets inside out to pay for.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/07/09/513181/white-trash-reception/
July 9, 2012
After ignoring the Affordable Care in 2010, Democrats have begun using it as a political weapon this election....
" The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the campaign arm of House Democrats, is launching a new set of ads hitting seven Republican lawmakers ahead of the House GOP’s scheduled vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act Wednesday. Today’s DCCC campaign, which comes on the heels of an earlier round of ads targeting 10 Republicans last week, highlights a woman named Carla whose life was saved by a breast cancer screening and warns that Republicans want to repeal popular provisions of the law that could help her, such as free preventative health care screenings for women.
“Democrats continue to be on offense as House Republicans vote this week to protect the profits of their insurance company campaign donors instead of consumer protections for patients and lower prescription drug costs for seniors,” DCCC Chairman Steve Israel, a Democratic Congressman from New York, said in a release.
The aggressive campaign from House Democrats on healthcare stands in stark contrast to their approach just two years ago, when Democrats were often reluctant to highlight Obamacare — many even touted their opposition to it.“ The difference between 2010 and 2012 is the difference between night and day,” a Democratic aide on the Hill told Salon. “In 2010, Democrats were trying to pass the health insurance reform bill but on defense defending it to the American people. In 2012, Democrats are on offense as Republicans do more of the same political games to protect insurance companies instead of creating jobs and protecting consumers.”
So what changed? Herseth Sandlin, Bright and Edwards tell part of the story. All three of them lost. The election results dispatched with the notion that being a Democrat who opposed the law was a recipe for political success — of the 30 Dems who voted against the Affordable Care and then stood for reelection, 17 lost anyway. Their wipeout also means that there are simply fewer Democrats who voted against the law today than there were two years ago, which makes the party more united in its support of the law than ever before. The Supreme Court’s ruling also certainly plays a role, affirming for good that the law is constitutional and providing a potent weapon for Democrats to use against Republicans still intent on repealing it.
cont'
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/09/dems_finally_defend_obamacare/
DEMS Finally DEFEND Obamacare
After ignoring the Affordable Care in 2010, Democrats have begun using it as a political weapon this election....
" The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the campaign arm of House Democrats, is launching a new set of ads hitting seven Republican lawmakers ahead of the House GOP’s scheduled vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act Wednesday. Today’s DCCC campaign, which comes on the heels of an earlier round of ads targeting 10 Republicans last week, highlights a woman named Carla whose life was saved by a breast cancer screening and warns that Republicans want to repeal popular provisions of the law that could help her, such as free preventative health care screenings for women.
“Democrats continue to be on offense as House Republicans vote this week to protect the profits of their insurance company campaign donors instead of consumer protections for patients and lower prescription drug costs for seniors,” DCCC Chairman Steve Israel, a Democratic Congressman from New York, said in a release.
The aggressive campaign from House Democrats on healthcare stands in stark contrast to their approach just two years ago, when Democrats were often reluctant to highlight Obamacare — many even touted their opposition to it.“ The difference between 2010 and 2012 is the difference between night and day,” a Democratic aide on the Hill told Salon. “In 2010, Democrats were trying to pass the health insurance reform bill but on defense defending it to the American people. In 2012, Democrats are on offense as Republicans do more of the same political games to protect insurance companies instead of creating jobs and protecting consumers.”
So what changed? Herseth Sandlin, Bright and Edwards tell part of the story. All three of them lost. The election results dispatched with the notion that being a Democrat who opposed the law was a recipe for political success — of the 30 Dems who voted against the Affordable Care and then stood for reelection, 17 lost anyway. Their wipeout also means that there are simply fewer Democrats who voted against the law today than there were two years ago, which makes the party more united in its support of the law than ever before. The Supreme Court’s ruling also certainly plays a role, affirming for good that the law is constitutional and providing a potent weapon for Democrats to use against Republicans still intent on repealing it.
cont'
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/09/dems_finally_defend_obamacare/
July 9, 2012
" Conservative pundit Pat Buchanan — who was recently fired from MSNBC after penning a racist book bemoaning the “end of white America” — reinforced his sexism during an episode of the McLaughlin Group on Sunday. Asked when the country would elect its first female president, Buchanan predicted “2040 or 2050” — well after his expected lifespan. And when host John McLaughlin pressed, “that late?” the 73-year-old Buchanan quipped, “let’s hope so” and broke out in laughter. McLaughlin added that “Hillary Clinton owes it to her gender” to run.
.
Pat Buchanan Hopes The First Female U.S. President Won't Be Elected Until After He's DEAD
" Conservative pundit Pat Buchanan — who was recently fired from MSNBC after penning a racist book bemoaning the “end of white America” — reinforced his sexism during an episode of the McLaughlin Group on Sunday. Asked when the country would elect its first female president, Buchanan predicted “2040 or 2050” — well after his expected lifespan. And when host John McLaughlin pressed, “that late?” the 73-year-old Buchanan quipped, “let’s hope so” and broke out in laughter. McLaughlin added that “Hillary Clinton owes it to her gender” to run.
.
July 8, 2012
The executive director of the state Republican Party, Jordan McGrain, told Nebraska Watchdog in addition to its usual sergeant at arms committee, the party hired additional security for the first time in convention history, to his knowledge. Party officials are preparing for potential for trouble caused by Paul supporters. The libertarian Texas Congressman quit campaigning for president in May, but his supporters have circumvented primaries and caucuses by winning delegates at conventions in Iowa, Nevada, Minnesota and Louisiana with an eye toward sending as many as possible to the national convention in Tampa.
In Louisiana, Paul garnered about half the state’s delegates and chaos broke out, with several delegates arrested and the convention chairman reportedly getting thrown to the ground by police. McGrain said Nebraska Republicans are preparing for the potential for “some pretty rowdy guests” at the convention – noting that other states experienced “all-out anarchy” at their conventions because they weren’t ready for a ruckus. “We’re just not going to tolerate any disruptions,” McGrain said. “This is not going to be a free-for-all.” In Nebraska, about half the delegates went to Paul supporters in Douglas and Sarpy counties, with Paul supporters claiming rules were violated in Dodge County and retreating to a rump convention in Fremont. Then the Paul-Tea Party movement appeared poised to get their candidate elected chairman of the party – over the wishes of Gov. Dave Heineman – until chairman Fahleson pre-empted that fight this week by announcing plans to stay in his position until his term ends next year.
And so ends the battle for the chairmanship, but the battle for delegates continues. It would be an embarrassment for Heineman – the first governor to endorse Romney – to have his state’s delegates vote for Paul at the national convention. Heineman has been mentioned as a contender for a Romney cabinet post. McGrain said Romney and Paul supporters have been “burning up the phone lines” – making calls to delegates to ascertain who they’re committed to before the state convention. He accused Paul supporters of claiming to be from the state GOP or refusing to say who they are. A leader of the Paul movement said those calls are being made by the Paul campaign. McGrain said Paul’s supporters are trying to “take by party rules what they couldn’t on election day.” He has been warned by Republican officials in Nevada and Louisiana to be prepared for “Paulistas” to try to seize control of the convention through endless votes, amendments, re-votes and parliamentary delays aimed at wearing out establishment Republicans. That’s why McGrain intends to make sure the agenda is “tight” and ballots counted in an orderly and efficient way, with rented ballot-counting machines. He said the battle for delegates has become a “political sideshow that’s not helpful.”
cont'
http://nebraska.watchdog.org/23602/exclusive-security-doubled-at-gop-convention-in-anticipation-of-ron-paul-insurgency/
.
Exclusive: SECURITY Heightened at Nebraska GOP Convention In Anticipation Of Ron Paul INSURGENCY
" Security at the state Republican convention has been tightened this summer in case turmoil breaks out as it did in other states where Ron Paul and Mitt Romney supporters clashed over control. Even though the state Republican chairman Mark Fahleson decided this week to stay in his position to prevent a Paul supporter from winning his seat, there’s still potential for fireworks at the state convention on July 14 in Grand Island.The executive director of the state Republican Party, Jordan McGrain, told Nebraska Watchdog in addition to its usual sergeant at arms committee, the party hired additional security for the first time in convention history, to his knowledge. Party officials are preparing for potential for trouble caused by Paul supporters. The libertarian Texas Congressman quit campaigning for president in May, but his supporters have circumvented primaries and caucuses by winning delegates at conventions in Iowa, Nevada, Minnesota and Louisiana with an eye toward sending as many as possible to the national convention in Tampa.
In Louisiana, Paul garnered about half the state’s delegates and chaos broke out, with several delegates arrested and the convention chairman reportedly getting thrown to the ground by police. McGrain said Nebraska Republicans are preparing for the potential for “some pretty rowdy guests” at the convention – noting that other states experienced “all-out anarchy” at their conventions because they weren’t ready for a ruckus. “We’re just not going to tolerate any disruptions,” McGrain said. “This is not going to be a free-for-all.” In Nebraska, about half the delegates went to Paul supporters in Douglas and Sarpy counties, with Paul supporters claiming rules were violated in Dodge County and retreating to a rump convention in Fremont. Then the Paul-Tea Party movement appeared poised to get their candidate elected chairman of the party – over the wishes of Gov. Dave Heineman – until chairman Fahleson pre-empted that fight this week by announcing plans to stay in his position until his term ends next year.
And so ends the battle for the chairmanship, but the battle for delegates continues. It would be an embarrassment for Heineman – the first governor to endorse Romney – to have his state’s delegates vote for Paul at the national convention. Heineman has been mentioned as a contender for a Romney cabinet post. McGrain said Romney and Paul supporters have been “burning up the phone lines” – making calls to delegates to ascertain who they’re committed to before the state convention. He accused Paul supporters of claiming to be from the state GOP or refusing to say who they are. A leader of the Paul movement said those calls are being made by the Paul campaign. McGrain said Paul’s supporters are trying to “take by party rules what they couldn’t on election day.” He has been warned by Republican officials in Nevada and Louisiana to be prepared for “Paulistas” to try to seize control of the convention through endless votes, amendments, re-votes and parliamentary delays aimed at wearing out establishment Republicans. That’s why McGrain intends to make sure the agenda is “tight” and ballots counted in an orderly and efficient way, with rented ballot-counting machines. He said the battle for delegates has become a “political sideshow that’s not helpful.”
cont'
http://nebraska.watchdog.org/23602/exclusive-security-doubled-at-gop-convention-in-anticipation-of-ron-paul-insurgency/
.
Profile Information
Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AMNumber of posts: 14,923
