Maine’s slate of pro-Ron Paul delegates to the Republican National Convention have turned down a compromise offer from the state’s GOP chairman that would let them attend next month’s convention in Tampa, Fla., but obligate them to vote for Mitt Romney if Paul doesn’t have sufficient support to be nominated for president.
The compromise from Maine GOP Chairman Charlie Webster came about a week after two Maine Republicans formally challenged the right of 20 of the state’s 21 elected delegates — and 20 of the state’s elected alternate delegates — to be seated at the convention, which takes place Aug. 27-30.
Now, whether Maine’s Republican delegates are admitted to the convention rests with a Republican National Committee panel that meets this week to review challenges to Maine’s and other states’ delegations.
Maine Republicans Peter Cianchette and Jan Martens Staples filed their challenge with the Republican National Committee late last month, alleging that voting irregularities and procedural violations at this spring’s Maine Republican convention led to illegal votes for a slate of delegates who favored Paul over Romney.
Cianchette is a former Republican gubernatorial nominee and chairman for Romney’s campaign in Maine, and Staples is a Romney supporter and Maine’s current Republican National Committeewoman.
The challenge grew out of a May party convention that became a chaotic affair when Paul supporters staged a takeover and elected one of their own as convention chairman. Ultimately, a slate of Paul supporters were elected convention delegates over an alternative slate.
Staples said late last month that her support for Romney had nothing to do with her decision to file a challenge. Instead, she said, she was interested in seeing that the party’s rules and parliamentary procedures followed.
But the Maine delegates disputed that, and said Cianchette and Staples weakened their case by not challenging the entire slate of delegates and alternates. Their challenge left off Gov. Paul LePage and first lady Ann LePage, although they were elected under the same conditions as other delegates, delegate Eric Brakey said recently.
According to the delegates, Webster’s compromise offer would have required that they sign a pledge to support Romney if Paul didn’t appear on the convention ballot. It also would have removed delegation chairman Brent Tweed’s right to serve as spokesman for the group and announce members’ votes. In exchange, Cianchette and Staples’ challenge would be withdrawn.
“It is unreasonable for the Republican Party at either the national or state level, or for any campaign for president, to attempt to pressure the Maine delegation to vote any particular way,” Tweed said in a statement released by the delegation. “We will not be intimidated into signing political deals under threat of being unseated. We are accountable to the Maine Republicans who elected us, not the Mitt Romney campaign.”
Webster on Wednesday said he consulted no one from the Romney campaign before putting together the compromise offer.
“I made a commitment that I would try as chairman of the party to do all I could to get the folks who were elected to have a voice and go to Tampa,” he said.
Webster said he expected his offer would start a round of negotiations with the state’s Republican delegates. But Brakey said Wednesday there was no reason to negotiate.
“We’re the rightfully elected delegates from the Republican Party in Maine,” he said. “It doesn’t really make sense for us to be negotiating to keep the positions that we were rightfully elected to.”
Whether Maine’s delegation is seated could be critical to Paul supporters’ ability to formally nominate their candidate at the convention. If Paul can stand as an official nominee, which would require the support of at least five state delegations, he can address the gathering for 15 minutes.
Convention officials still have not scheduled a speaking slot for Paul.
This is why we need to get rid of as many of all these folks in November as possible. Look at them, the GOP and Tea Party folks can’t even get along with each other. Guess when they’d ever work with Democrats in order to pass meaningful legislation to benefit average American citizens? NEVER! They all gotta go.
Romney, the rich ruler of the GOP’s war chest, is a hypocritical liar, who instituted Obama’s health care plan in Massachusetts, flip-flopped on who knows how many other issues, is worth over 200 million dollars and refuses to release his tax returns–though he did pay a whopping 13.9% return for one year recently:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-tough-new-obama-ad-that—-surprise—-is-accurate/2012/08/02/gJQAuigQSX_blog.html
Have to laugh as the Left knows only to blast Romney for his wealth. Pure Jealousy. Seems it was okay when JFK was president. and he was not poor.
No I blasted him because he is a hypocritical liar, as all honest Republicans know. And he got his money by screwing over anyone in his path.
Plenty of Republicans are blasting Romney for the same things, right?
I guess you’re jealous of anyone with a lot of money, aren’t you?
LOLS. Typical Lib reaction. Calling someone a liar is hard . One thing I can say for Romney is that he is not a puppet like Obama surely is.
Mitt Romney is a wind sock.
Is that all you have? Surely you never got an education.
Education means nothing. Your blind obedience to the GOP shows a total lack of ability to think for yourself. There is a huge difference between education and intelligence. You appear to fall on the lack of intelligence side.
Bill, chill . Education aids intelligence. Honestly I do not take your little minded words seriously. Blind obedience to the GOP is a good one. Thanks. Did I ever say I was a Republican? I think NOT…………….
TROLLLLLLLLLLL!!!
Obviously it takes one to know one. occupy kbpt is old news dude.
Pot calling the kettle black. You’re just as blindly obedient to the Democratic Party. Anyone who hates Romney but votes for Obama is either blind or ignorant. They ARE the same one every conceivably important point from foreign policy to social security. They’re both power hungry millionaires looking to attack civil liberties and centralize more power in the Executive. They both couldn’t care less for The Constitution. They’re arguing over how the bloated monstrosity we call a government could work better, not whether such a thing should exist at all. Also anyone who looks at Obama and doesn’t see how he acted exactly like Bush II (even right down to following Bush’s Iraq “pull out” plan) is blinded to reality.
Maybe you mean”Could work better” (for them)?
Did you even read what he said, or did you just skim through to the end so you could complain about his grammar?
I wasn’t complaining about his grammar.What I was suggesting is that both of them want gov’t to work better for THEM,not for US.I agree with what he said.
Sorry, I was quick to judge, I went back and re-read what both of you said. I must have been looking for a fight or something this morning. Too much coffee! Enjoy the rest of your day!
No worries-it’s all good.Sometimes with this many comments things run together.
Good post, but you and I know it falls on deaf ears.
Is it not all about egos?
You are so funny, Bill! Telling hammock that he has a blind obedience to the GOP when you have the same toward the dumbs. Kettle, you’re black! lol!
” Mitt Romney is a wind sock.”
So those that used to say he can’t beat Pres. Obama, because he is not a real conservative, but now are singing his praises are sock puppets , too.
No seriously, here’s Gingrich even calling Romney a liar:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/01/newt-gingrich-mitt-romney-liar-/1
Do we really care what Gingrich has to say? I think, NOT.
really dude? really? he works within the same paradigm as obama while reporting to the same masters.
The masters are?
The corporations running this country.
Willard Romney not a puppet? Are you out of your tree?
All one has to do is look at Willard’s largest financial supporters. They are the exact same as the ones supporting Obama.
Yeah, and there are no dumbocrats that do this. Geeez, get your head out of the sand.
JFK donated his salary as President.
Yes you are so correct.
” Have to laugh as the Left knows only to blast Romney for his wealth. Pure Jealousy. ”
What else has gotten him where he is ?
Has it been his outstanding and consistently conservative record and his innovative economic recovery plans ?
Should we all be impressed by how well he handles being questioned by the foreign press ?
Please, what else but that he has loads of money does anyone really know about him that is not likely to change, twice, before November ?
Why is the Republican party killing it’s own? Webster’s Venezuela politics has taken over the GOP. This will not end well.
“Why is the Republican party killing it’s own?”
Well, objectively, it is because they have no vision nor any policy plans that have not already been proven not only to not work, but they can’t even win wars,
get OBL, dead or alive, nor avoid world wide economic collapse.
All they know how to do is attack ANY opposition, from any quarter,
to their policies that do not work, anyway. No compromise.
It got them were are and it is all that they have left,
based on the record of any recent GOP National Leadership.
Sorry, but objectively, look at all we see here, and how well what I have suggested explains it.
Yup.. pretty much.. you nailed it. Now, a riddle for you? What will it take to revive the GOP and dump the evangelicals that hijacked the party a decade ago? Actually, two riddles. How do we dump Karl Rove, the warmongering Neocons, and the RINO’s like Collins and her kind? Our best hope is Rand Paul.. but thats a long shot considering the disfunctional world we live in.
“What will it take to revive the GOP and dump the evangelicals that hijacked the party a decade ago? ”
The End coming soon ? The evangelicals do not believe in a future.
They think their life is wasted if the world does not end in their lifetime,
because they deserve front row seats at the Second Coming.
See; Matt. 7 , 21 to 23.
Even their own play book explains it, and them.
That bit come just after Jesus warns his real followers about the evils of
false profits, too. ; )
What I wonder is why fatalistic mystics like that… or those that will not compromise … deserve a seat at the table where policy is being discussed, ever ?
What more than being being hopelessly fatalistic should disqualify you from making policy ?
It is worse than even personal greed.
At least the greedy think about how to keep their grandchild rich.
As to the likes Carl Rove… and the Newt, it would take William F. Buckley raising from the dead, too, to redeem American Conservatism, now.
So , IYO, how do the evangelicals rationalize teaming up with the Mammonists of the Wall St./ international banksters’ “traditional value$ ” wing of the GOP ?
The wash post is about as reliable a source at the BDN. LOL!
Hope that includes Obama. I do not like my tax dollars paying for $90.00 bottles of wine for his entertaining.
If the Dems could be better mannered and stop the blame game, the GOP would not have to constantly use energy and time defending their views. This election is an all time bad circus.
How much does Romney charge for a seat at one of his fundraisers with the rich?
I do not have that fact available. My guess would be the same as Pres. Obama’s. and only the Hollywood and other wealthy can afford to rub elbows with them. The rest of us can eat beans.
The GOP and the Tea Party are not one in the same, and this is why the issue. They don’t get along together any more than dems & reps do. They are a separate party. They need to be recognized as such. Let them stand on their own, sink or swim. Stop lumping them with the GOP. They are as upset with the GOP as much as they are with the dems. Some of you just don’t get it.
What does any of this have to do with the Tea Party?
Did the Tea Party endorese Paul and I missed it somewhere?
Ron Paul started the tea party, it just got taken over by the statists. I hate to break the news to you, but Sarah Palin and Herman Cain didn’t start it.
Neither started anything and I am willing to bet you can’t support that statement about Paul starting the Tea Party. He has nothing to do with the Tea Party and he has never been endorsed by them. The Ron Paulo Cult is a formation of the left’s attempts to create another Perot.
The first tea party was held before the election of George Bush in 2008; very little media coverage of it, but it WAS started by Paul people. If you care enough to research, I’m sure you can track something down. I don’t have the time to do it for you.
I care enough to know the facts, and I know how to tell the spin from fact. The first tea party meeting may have had Ron Paul people there but there are many who were there who were not and are not supporters of that nut job racist. You guys don’t have to pretend you invented the internet too just to head you off on that claim.
No ,the Koch Bros. financed Tea Party took over the Maine GOP, then got the vocal,
NO COMPROMISE, minority in the do nothing House. That is why that no good, too independent thinking, “RINO” , Sen. Snowe retired.Can anyone else remember, her ?
You seem to have a problem with focus. Do you wish to talk about rich people that suppoirt both parties? Do you wish to talk about local politics? Or do you wish to tlak about national politicians. If you could take your meds and develop a bit of focus we might have a meaningful discussion.
”
You seem to have a problem with focus. ”
Compared to people who need only remember “no compromise” , you might have a point.
You do understand that “the tea party” is not for Ron Paul right?
They all gotta go?…. ok hitler.
Legislation is not about benefitting anyone. It is about keeping to strict constitutional rules that keeps the country working as it should. The line between federal and local has been intentionally blurred in the attempt to grab unlimited power. The problem is that far too many people do not understand the country they live in and just want more stuff given to them and will vote in those that give it.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for obama & that’s tragic. Although some of Ron Paul’s ideas have some merit, it’s time for his supporters to say ‘when’ & get behind Romney. This country will not survive obama’s continued attack from within.
Can you seriously tell the difference between obama and romney? I can’t. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Ron Paul, it sends a message that I am fed up with their one party state masquerading as a two party state. I want REAL options on the ballot.
I suggest you research H.Ross Perot . He ran and took too many Republican votes and gave the election to the Dems. This will be history repeating itself.
If Romney loses it is because the GOP pushed a lousy candidate on the ballot. If Ron Paul was on the ballot there is little doubt that he would win. I have been a registered Republican for almost 3 decades. I will not vote for Romney.
Romney is a better person than Obama. Who you vote for is your business.
Romney is no different than Obama. If Ron Paul does not get the nomination, I will be voting for Gary Johnson.
Knew BDN was a lefty coccoon. OMG. Happy Voting.
I am as right as they get.
This is not an issue of Ron Paul or Mitt Romney.
It is a matter of fairness and unfairness.
It is a matter of following the rules, not changing them based on the outcome.
Does this not worry anyone other than Ron Paul supporters?
Do you really believe that if they do this to that segment of the voting public, they cannot [will not] do it to others?
Do you think that the entrenched party officials and connected politicians should be the ones to decide who will and will not run?
Have you ever heard of “consent of the governed”?
Ross Perot WAS RIGHT! If he had been elected then we would be living in a MUCH better America with jobs and prosperity. Remember the sucking sound? Yeah, we heard it. We felt it. We experienced it. We are suffering for it. Viva Perot!
Totally agree with you. I did vote for Perot.
And what good did that do you?
Not much …………..
I was only in 8th grade in 1992 but I was wearing a Ron Paul button to school trying to influence the teachers and kids to talk to their parents about him. :-)
Whoopie Pie for you.
IF (read big IF).
How? Perot’s big issue was the debt. It is all he talked about. Clinton turned the debt into a surplus. He accomplished Perot’s dream. It took George Bush to make it an issue again.
The 1990’s were relatively peaceful so we weren’t spending a lot of money on war. They also saw welfare reform which helped balance the budget.
It was not just Bush who started the war machine and ramped up the police state at home. Republicans and Democrats worked together to set us on this path.
It was also Republicans and Democrats working together that caused the mass exodus of manufacturing jobs (the backbone of the economy) out of the country. Ross Perot was a vocal opponent of the globalization of the economy and free trade agreements.
Ross Perot was socially libertine as well. He knew it wasn’t wise for government to involve itself too much in the private lives of the citizens.
Isn’t that what we want? We want government out of our bedrooms, our of our wallets, and out of our lives unless we need to call the cops, have fire service, send our kids to school, maintain the roads- that is good government. Government sticking their hands down your pants in an airport is bad government. Good government is a watchdog but bad government is a protector for the predator class. I am afraid we have bad government running wild right now and the worst government programs are always “bipartisan.” No, Ross Perot was completely right. You can’t convince me otherwise. Was Clinton better than Bush would have been? Maybe… hard to say. Chances are we wouldn’t have had George W. Bush if Bush had gotten 2 terms.
I have learned not to get too much into the weeds with Paul supporters, but let me say that the foundation for the balanced budgets of the late 1990’s was the budget passed in 1993 that did not get a single Republican vote. Because it slightly raised taxes on the wealthy, the “socialism” and “class warfare” canards were used over and over again. Welfare reform affected a very small % of government expenditures. Paul’s obsession with 1913 and a seeming desire to take us back to the 19th century economically is where I jump off the bandwagon, although I do agree with some of what you said.
Hard to believe honest money is something that would make you “get off the bandwagon”. Imagine that. Money that isn’t constantly depreciating and losing value and drowning in inflation but instead appreciates in value and keeps inflation down. That is what Paul is proposing and THAT is what is driving you away. That doesn’t make any sense.
We got off of the gold standard for a reason, as did the rest of the world in the early 1930’s. The gold standard means nothing unless it is taken up by a majority of wealthy countries simultaneously. All the gold standard does is fix international exchange rates; it does little to nothing to regulate domestic prices. Honestly, I think that most Paul supporters think the idea of a gold standard sounds good and feels secure, but they have no idea about the mechanisms behind it or the historical consequences of it.
And take a chill pill regarding the Fed. Our economy has been much more stable post 1913 than pre-1913. That is not arguable.
Clinton turned the debt into a surplus because the formulas were changed. Before his administration, Social Security was figured in. But his administration separated Social Security out, so while they said it was a “budget surplus,” that was only half true.
The truth was they had a “budget surplus, if you don’t count Social Security.”
Actually what Clinton did, thanks to the Republican reining in his spending, was spend less than he had on the books. The national debt was never touched, it in fact got WORSE during Clinton’s Presidency, just as it has in every presidency since FDR.
Did Perot defeat Bush? First, look at the turnout in 1992. Perot got 19,660,450 votes. The total turnout was more than 13 million higher than in 1988. So, even though Perot got a lot of votes, 13 million of those voters didn’t vote in 1988. Clinton ran 3.1 million votes ahead of Dukakis, but Bush received 9.7 million fewer votes than four years earlier. The two party vote fell by 7 million. So, Perot only took 7 million votes from the two parties combined. If Perot had not been in the race, would those 7 million Perot voters who voted for Bush and Dukakis in 1988 have voted for Bush by a sufficient margin for him to overcome Clinton’s 3.1 million vote lead. Those 7 million Perot voters would have had to favor Bush over Clinton by 5 to 2. Or, even if all 19.6 million Perot voters had voted for one of the major party candidates, they would have had to favor Bush by a 58% to 42% margin to overcome Clinton’s lead and tie the race. Was this likely in view of the fact that the other 84 million voters were favoring Clinton by 7%, 53.5% to Bush’s 46.5%?
Probably not consitering that in the Governor’s races, Perot’s voters cast 18% of their ballots for the Republican candidates; 56% of their ballots for Democratic candidates, 17% for independent candidates, and 8% did not bother to vote for Governor. If Perot’s voters had voted for Bush and Clinton in the same proportion that they voted for the Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor, Clinton’s lead would have increased by 7.5 million votes.
You’re a fool. Obama and Romney are the same snake. Kill your television…
You are so very correct. Thanks for the comment.
Shoot that TV…
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone,
and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never
lost.” John Quincy Adams
WHO IS RON PAUL?
He has NEVER voted to raise taxes.
He has NEVER voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has NEVER voted for a federal restriction on gun
ownership.
He has NEVER voted to raise congressional pay.
He has NEVER taken a government-paid junket.
He has NEVER voted to increase the power of the executive
branch.
He voted AGAINST the Patriot Act.
He voted AGAINST regulating the Internet.
He voted AGAINST the Iraq war.
He DOES NOT participate in the lucrative congressional
pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office
budget to the U.S. treasury every year. This man…with this record…and these ideas could lead us back to what we once were. No ROBOMNY for me…it’s Ron Paul or none at all.
Besides the republican votes Ron Paul would get as the republican nominee…he would get MILLIONS OF DEMOCRAT VOTES AS WELL there’s a whole lot of pissed off progressives out there…combine all those voters…Ron Paul WOULD WIN BY A LANDSLIDE…A LARGER MARGIN WIN THAN THE LAST 20 ELECTIONS
What does Obama have to do with this infighting/ Sure, the Ds love to see this fratricide, but they sure can’t do anything to influence the outcome.
You know what? If Mitt Romney supporters had been a majority at the convention then this wouldn’t even be an issue. They didn’t have the majority so frankly they haven’t a leg to stand on.
I was at the convention and the only people trying to pull dirty tricks were the Mitt Romney supporters. They were the ones stalling things and having multiple revotes hoping to stack the numbers. They were the ones who realized that we had the majority and went to plan B which was to try and screw it up enough to get the whole thing nullified. It’s shameful, disgusting, and it made me feel like I was in a sausage factory.
Nunya
Yes, you are right at theheart of this issue..it is an attempt by Cianchette (chairman of the Romney campaign in Maine)via Webster to fiddle the results of thier own convention. That kind of fiddling is reprehensible. You are right. What was voted at convention is what should stand. You can’t regain control of your party and simply try to erase a huge mistake in party organization by atempting to invalidate nearly every duly elected delegate.
I find deals such as the one Webster Offered ( no doubt not at his own initiativeve but as water boy for Romney Campaign Chair ( Maine), Peter Cianchette) really mystifying..How could Webster or Cianchette think that people wouldn’t see right threw this..Did they think for a minute anyone..especially the elected delegates would think this is a respectable deal?
Scary stuff.. It always makes me queasy to see this kind of thinking and speaking from people at a very level of influence.
Yes, it is extremely disturbing. Not to reference an old cliché but it is just so appropriate. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
We are trying to make this work but there are concerns that the state GOP would rather be completely irrelevant then find common ground with us paleoconservatives. Romney is a terrible choice to go up against Obama and the State party has absolutely NO right being partisan for Romney. It’s like they wanted to tell us that our votes didn’t matter.
Do you know that the rules of the caucus were to keep the votes a secret and not tell the attendees of the caucus what the results of the straw poll were back in February. My town chair released the results anyway and many towns did the same but there were a couple of big counties that did keep their results a secret and nobody knew who won at the event. What an opportunity to cheat! One would hate to think that they would cheat but I saw it with my own eyes. I saw the cheating. I dealt with the nasty accusations and the aggressive behavior by those hostile to our thoughts and opinions.
Frankly, they have no right. Everyone has as much right to participate in the political process and just because they were here first doesn’t give them the right to block us out. In fact, a lot of powerful people in the GOP did NOT want LePage. They would rather run a sure loser like Cianchette than see a guy like LePage in there.
Nunya,
So are you a delegate or were just at the convention?
I am not sure what you are saying about the irregularities or straight out violations of rues/laws that should prevent the seating of 20 of 21 of the delegates. Or are you saying there were irregularities that you observed at convention which tried to prevent what ended up happening and that those irregularities did not prevail.
Are you saying that what is going on know is a continuation of an effort by Romney supporters to thwart any momentum in support of Paul?
Did you see the other article I posted in this same issue…it had a bit more background and especially framed the importance of all this to the National Republican Party. I gather something of this sort is going on in every state what went for Paul because with 5 states his name will be on the ballot so they must be fighting really hard to prevent Ron Pual delegates from being seated in any of these 5 states.
I think the last thing the National Republican Committee wants is for anyone to have choice for someone other than Romney
Nunya,
Just wanted to add this link for context that shows the same thing going on in Lousiana, as I am sure you know. There it is worse..the Republicans just apoointede and annointed sent their own slate of pro Romney delegates bypassing the duly elected Ron Paul delegates.
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/fd46d4cb79414596b11963a1c20fb0f2/LA–Louisiana-Republican-Dispute
The same GOP shenanigans are going on in Oregon.
To me, this makes it unmistakably clear that Peter Cianchette’s actions are the same thing and I don’t believe for a minute that there was no coordination between Webster and Cianchette. It’s all the same attempt to rig the table and all about creating the illusion of unified support for Mitt Romney and keeping Ron Paul delegates in the 5 states from bringing his name onto the floor of the convention.
It is all filthy dirty..nothing dingified, honorable, principled or defensible about any of it.
How can ya trust a compromise proposed by people who said so recently ” NO COMPROMISE, ever” ?
The whole 2012 Maine GOP process was just as queah as a football bat.
It has been a disgrace that should follow the hacks to Tampa.
Re; “Maine Republicans Peter Cianchette and Jan Martens Staples filed their challenge with the Republican National Committee late last month, alleging that voting irregularities and procedural violations at this spring’s Maine Republican convention led to illegal votes for a slate of delegates who favored Paul over Romney.”
That is just an indictment of the current GOP State establishment
who fouled up their own plans to rig the slate for Romney,
now being outraged that others would dare to play their own elitist’s power game against them, too.
The bottom line is why would anyone vote for a political party that is so openly opposed to the democratic process as to try to actively suppress even their own party’s minority … or its own majority, may-be,
given we can never really be sure, now.
That is no way to run even a surplus/damaged good discount store.
Yes, I believe that these people are all taking their marching orders from the same people. Probably the people Romney gets his marching orders from.
I was a delegate at the convention for Ron Paul and I did witness first hand a lot of shenanigans and none of them were coming from us. We just showed up in numbers and it was an amazing experience. Unfortunately, as soon as it was obvious that the Ron Paul secretary won instead of the person that had been nominated by the Romney supporters, everything stalled, they revoted over and over and over. What should have taken minutes took hours. This happened repeatedly until finally they turned the gavel over to Brent Tweed. Then the endless dilatory points of order started rolling in. People started just leaving. They were trying to get enough people to leave to make it so that we didn’t have a “quorum.” The plan from Saturday afternoon on was to just kamikaze the convention and nullify everything. To me that is straight up cheating. Well, if they would cheat at the convention then why should we assume that the Straw Poll results from February were legitimate and that they didn’t cheat then to give one to Romney?
Screw that guy. I’m not going to vote for him.
The “compromise” isn’t a compromise at all! And sausage factory is a perfect description.
It’s like returning a package of stinky, out-of-date hot dogs to the store, and watching the clerk cover them in mustard, repackage and redate them, and try to sell them back to you as “fresh sausages”.
The ‘compromise’ was not a even close to a compromise. It was a demand to go against what the majority of Republicans voted to do. They are trying to remove a duly elected officer from his position to inject one that was bought by the Romney people. If the went for this they would have been stupid. The people we voted for should be the ones going to Tampa.
It was a demand to sell out their votes!
A vote for Romney is a vote for Obama!
You created these monsters. It’s your party that turned compromise into a dirty word.
Compromise? That was not a compromise. That was a castration.
What kind of American proposes “you cannot say anything negative about Person A, and nothing positive about Person B, (especially to the media)” as reasonable?
The inclusion of the parenthetical phrase makes it clear that the squirrel-lipped Webster and his cronies could oust anyone for speaking their mind, and for exercising their God-given rights.
THIS is the “big tent” they used to talk about? THIS is what the GOP thinks is fair?
Really?
It’s the GOP, what do you expect? It’s the party of me-me-me now.
wait a minute..the Repubs are trying block 20 of 21 Maine delegates UNLESS THEY AGREE TO VOTE FOR ROMNEY if Paul doesn’t have enough votes to be president?
You mean Peter Cianchette thinks its fine to seat them if they agree to this stipulatoon but otherwise they should be thrown out because of irregularities in their election?
What does this tell us about Peter Cianchette?
What does this tell us about Repubs?
If it wasn’t for Ron Paul I would likely unenroll and just be an independent.
Charlie Webster made the offer, not Peter Cianchette.
1Casual Observer,
Thanks..perhaps I took liberties connecting the dots.
.given the terms of the official offer, which came via Charlie
Webster in his capacity as Maine GOP chair, and the facts that Peter
Cianchette:
(1) filed a formal challenge to block searing of 20 of 21 Maine GOP delegates(2) is chairperson of Mitt Romney’s Maine campaign(3) is a much more senior personage in the Maine Republican Party than Charlie Webster
I assumed that Peter Cianchette certainly agreed to the terms Webster
offered if not creating them.. It was not specifically reported that
way..but I thought it not only a fair but an obvious assumption.
Do you know for a fact what Peter Cianchette’s position is on Webster’s offer..is he at odds with Webster on it?
I respect the way you connect the dots and can’t find a lot of reason to argue. Except; I listened to Peter explain his position on the Maine in the Morning radio program and found it a principled position. He filed the initial complaint with the National RNC in opposition of both C Webster and the Governor. Upon seeing your comment I felt compelled to correct the detail based on those two things.
I don’t know how he feels about Webster’s proposal.
1Casual Observer,
Thanks for your post ( and your civility)..I hadn’t heard that broadcast or seen anything in print. I’ll track it down..and apologize in advance if my “connect the dots” points a finger at Cianchette unfairly.
You’d have to agree, Cianchette’s interests as Maine Campaign Manager for Romney are very very well served by Websters “offer”.
Here is other coverage on this same story offering more details which just underscore my distaste for this proposal. This other coverage supports your position though as it says Webster claims it was not run by the Romney Campaign in any way.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/12391-maines-pro-paul-delegates-reject-gop-compromise
(moved post to correct position in reply to casualobserver..apologies….)
What inspired Cianchette and Staples to try to take away the voice of Maine republicans. What has he got in the game. Does that mean Me and a friend can object to seating the nominees next convention.
This is the most politicaly corupt State in the country… It allows people on board members to take cash for votes, and they don’t have to report it until the step down.
The tea party has to get rid of these two from the republican party
So who else would they vote for? Gingrich? Perry? Santorum? Bachmenn?
Didn’t Charlie Webster (not to mention Gov. Lepage) already make statements of support for seating all the duly elected Delegates? #just a thought…
When you win outright is it a ‘compromise’ if someone asks you to give up control? Or just an attempted grab?
By law in the State of Maine, if they disqualify the delegates and convention chair, then legally there was no convention. Maine law requires each party to hold a valid convention in order for the names of that political party and its candidates to appear on the general election ballot. The end result is that Romney and every Republican Candidate will be left off the ballot as required by state law. The Democrats win by default.
hmmm…..or maybe then Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson will get enough votes to capture one electoral vote to show that 3rd parties CAN get in play.
If this is true, it is very interesting.
It all comes down to this:
As long as we allow the media to choose our leaders, we will continue to pick the ones they parade in front of us.
A person is only unelectable because either people choose not to vote for them or they are convinced by the media not to “waste” their vote. A wasted vote is really one that is cast for the enemies of our Constitution.
I really could care less about anyones opinion of what legislation should or not be passed. You want something, then the first question to ask is, “Is is Constitutional”, if not, then no.
So long as we all keep fighting for more stuff for me, me, me from the government and refuse to hold our so called leaders to the constitutional fire, we are going to keep going down hill as a nation.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that follows the constitution.
a vote for ron paul is a vote for ron paul…i am sick of the media determining we we get to hear! everyone who choses to run should be heard by the people…
Very true, and at the convention vote for Paul and feel good about it. What all the Paul voters fail to realize is, is that Ron Paul is un-electable as president. I’m not sure who a vote for Paul favors in the national election, Romney or Obama, but the more noise the Paul camp makes, the more they will turn him into Ross Perot, unelectable, but a spoiler.
The polls that put Paul against Obama have him beating him at a higher percentage than any polls have put Romney against Obama. Keep repeating the media mantra about Paul being unelectable if it makes you feel good, it just isn’t true and has no backing in reality.
Lol yea, and the Tooth Fairy will be the next Secretary of State.
Help send a Ron Paul Delegate to Tampa. The town has raised the rates on
everything, and because I’m on the Platform Cmte, I have to be there for almost
TWO WEEKS! We are not going to waver in our support for Ron Paul, no matter
what, so any help you can give with funding my trip will be appreciated! See my
link/msg below.
http://www.cynseerlyyours.blogspot.com/
Romney likely will be the de facto nominee just because there isn’t enough support for Ron Paul, who at least appears to be intellectually honest regarding his political alchemy. Romney, on the other hand, is in the enviable position to trounce the presiding socialist at 1600 PA Avenue, just because he is the anti-Obama candidate. Once again manipulation by the elite takes center stage as conservatives are forced to hold their nose and swallow the unpalatable entree that has been foisted upon them.
Romney does not have the backing to beat Obama. They are trying to blacklist the only candidate who does.
With all the fighting by the Republicans, this is going to turn out to be a win for Obama. If the Republicans don’t get their stuff together it will be all over but the shouting.
Good grief! Hasn’t Webster done enough damage to the state GOP? This bullying buffoon wants his way at any cost, even if it means fracturing the Maine republicans even more. He has effectively ensured that Romney will most likely not pick up votes from any Maine Ron Paul supporters in the national election, after all, Romney and Obama are cut from the same cloth.
Of course Paul supporters turned down the “GOP compromise.” You can’t compromise with corrupt politicians like Webster.
Can we STOP NOW!This old nut bag lost.Get over it.
I have to commend the Maine GOP for at least not breaking the bones of any delegates as happened in Louisiana. However, we are still a LONG way from being open and honest with our election process. As was posted by “Nunya Biznez”, if Romney supporters had actually formed a majority, none of these shenanigans would have been “needed”. One would hope that integrity and honesty would be fundamental character traits of anyone who calls themselves a Republican, but there are always a few who try to give the whole party a bad name through dirty tricks and shady dealing. Let us NOT reward that sort of behavior: The Paul supporters won fair and square and deserve to represent Maine. Don’t let Romney supporters tamper with the results!
Romney excepted $10 million dollars from the owner of a casino in China and Romney funded his company , Bain capital, with $9 million he received from the owners of the El Salvadorian death squads. I don’t expect Romney cares what a few Ron Paul zealots have to say about him.
You need to check facts before you start repeating lies told by those with evil intentions for our country.And it”s accepted,not excepted.Spellcheck much?
My poor spelling didn’t get a Nun’s head chopped off like Romney’s El Salvadorian financiers death squads did.
Romney has the same anatomy as a Ken doll, and with Obama I no longer hope for audacity.
We have no real choice here.
For the first time in history we are facing a global fiscal crisis and the only candidate who is remotely capable of bold thinking is treated by the media like he and his supporters are wearing tin-foil hats.
Our way of life is drifting away like a boat off its anchor and all we can do is watch American Idol.
We need to start officially recognizing a third party in this country. It leans toward Republican, but is not wholely committed to Republican ideals. When this is the case, these fiascos will not happen.
Great by me. Whatever imperils or diffuses the republicans efforts is a good thing.
Obama 2012
In Defense of Ron Paul.
We read that “The problem with the liberal world view is that it doesn’t seem to recognize the inherent flaw in allowing for the existence of giant government bureaucracies which serve merely as mafia-like ‘fronts’ for the corrupt and the greedy.”
I found this when I Googled: “Is Ron Paul an anarchist?” “The problem with the liberal world view is that it doesn’t seem to recognize the inherent flaw in allowing for the existence of giant government bureaucracies which serve merely as mafia-like ‘fronts’ for the corrupt and the greedy.”
After reading this twice I raised an eyebrow because it is the same argument the early Russian communists also had against democracy. — The communists also believed that a democracy would eventually be taken over by the rich and turned into a fascist state with its never ending profit generating wars — a policy which we know could never happen here because you have seen with your own eyes that GWB and Cheney strenuously opposed this kind of thing.
So communists as well as anarchists would also tend to gather beneath the Ron Paul banner, much as those who are opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage but are in favor of tax breaks for the very rich and the dissolution of living wages for working people would naturally vote the Republican ticket.
We’ll be watching our Maine Republican delegates at their national convention to see how many will be astute enough to bring along their own camp stool.
The humble Farmer
This won’t happen again. Just a bunch of kooks.
“Webster’s compromise offer would have required that they sign a pledge to support Romney if Paul didn’t appear on the convention ballot. It also would have removed delegation chairman Brent Tweed’s right to serve as spokesman for the group …
… “I made a commitment that I would try as chairman of the party to do all I could to get the folks who were elected to have a voice and go to Tampa,” he said.
Just as long as they shut up and vote like I tell them.
There is a GOTea Party “compromise” , for ya.
I have just one question. When Ron Paul becomes nominee will Mitt Romney get behind him?
“I made a commitment that I would try as chairman of the party to do all I could to get the folks who were elected to have a voice and go to Tampa,” he said.
He is admitting in this statement that they are the folks who were elected so whats the problem here!