Who will be Romney's VP pick? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Who will be Romney's VP pick?


Flintlocker
05-13-2012, 18:54
Here's my guess:

Cathy Mcmorris Rodgers

mike from st pe
05-13-2012, 18:57
NEW YORK CITY'S MAYOR; Michael Bloomberg?
Mitt & Mike 2012!

Just my version of sarcastic humor?

juggy4711
05-13-2012, 19:04
Considering the lack luster support for Romney I actually think his VP pick will be important. There are a lot of folks that claim Palin was the reason they voted for McLame. Now whether that had to do with her politics or her looks who knows. Regardless, if they were telling the truth then Romney should choose wisely.

ChuteTheMall
05-13-2012, 19:21
I think he has a surprise for us all:












.














'






http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/7069/hillaryclintoninsane.jpg

:alex:...........:animlol:

RCP
05-13-2012, 19:33
Hilary would fit well in a Romney administration.

kf4zra
05-13-2012, 20:15
Be careful with that pic,

some of us just ate

evlbruce
05-13-2012, 20:37
Hillary or Bloomberg would make the most sense, given that at this point Romney can count on the base to totally ignore matters of policy.

GLOCK17DB9
05-13-2012, 20:50
Rick Snyder!:dunno:

Restless28
05-14-2012, 05:47
Zombie Reagan.

It's Mitts only shot.

Tvov
05-14-2012, 05:54
So, Romney is the best the Republicans can do? sheesh. I wasn't too impressed with the others either.

Whoever agrees to be the VP pick has to consider carefully. If things don't go well, they lose a lot of political momentum -- I think Palin made a big mistake in agreeing to run with McCain. With this in mind, I kinda don't want a lot of people to run as VP, lol.

No name really jumps out at me. Maybe Giuliani? but he seems to be polarizing to some people, and doesn't seem to have a lot of traction outside of east coast / New England.

Restless28
05-14-2012, 05:58
Jokes aside, if they run a middle aged white guy who is very similar to Romney, he will lose big.

I know it won't happen, and may not help, but Herman Cain or Rand Paul or Jim DeMint would be my picks.

My guess is, the establishment will **** up again.

Restless28
05-14-2012, 05:59
So, Romney is the best the Republicans can do? sheesh. I wasn't too impressed with the others either.

Whoever agrees to be the VP pick has to consider carefully. If things don't go well, they lose a lot of political momentum -- I think Palin made a big mistake in agreeing to run with McCain. With this in mind, I kinda don't want a lot of people to run as VP, lol.

No name really jumps out at me. Maybe Giuliani? but he seems to be polarizing to some people, and doesn't seem to have a lot of traction outside of east coast / New England.

No offense, but that Rudy and Mitt dog won't hunt in the South and Midwest.

Brucev
05-14-2012, 06:10
Jokes aside, if they run a middle aged white guy who is very similar to Romney, he will lose big.

I know it won't happen, and may not help, but Herman Cain or Rand Paul or Jim DeMint would be my picks.

My guess is, the establishment will **** up again.

Let's be serious. HC and RP are dead in the water. One has no integrity and the other is to often in outer space. JD... ah... no. So who? Rubio would be good. Why? Because that's where the votes are... and in the future that is where the votes will be. The days of running two old white men are over.

ChuteTheMall
05-14-2012, 09:27
http://media.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/126/2012/05/08/111403_600.jpg

G19G20
05-14-2012, 10:19
Remember that the VP pick also has to be voted on and approved by the RNC delegates in Tampa. The nominee doesn't just "coronate" someone. Mitt's going to have his hands full just trying to win the nomination with the huge contingent of Paul delegates in attendance so he better be extra careful with his VP pick.

ChuteTheMall
05-14-2012, 11:20
Remember that the VP pick also has to be voted on and approved by the RNC delegates in Tampa. The nominee doesn't just "coronate" someone. Mitt's going to have his hands full just trying to win the nomination with the huge contingent of Paul delegates in attendance so he better be extra careful with his VP pick.


There is absolutely no possibility whatsoever that the RNC delegates in Tampa will fail to approve Romney's choice.

:tinfoil:___:deadhorse:___I guarantee this.

evlbruce
05-14-2012, 11:39
http://media.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/126/2012/05/08/111403_600.jpg

Polling indicates that 90% of R's are supporting Mittens; Romney doesn't need to campaign for your vote as he's already got it. Just as he knows that he could run on a ticket with Van Jones, promise to stack his cabinet with Clintonistas, and still get the "ABO" crowd.

ChuteTheMall
05-14-2012, 11:51
Polling indicates that 90% of R's are supporting Mittens; Romney doesn't need to campaign for your vote as he's already got it. Just as he knows that he could run on a ticket with Van Jones, promise to stack his cabinet with Clintonistas, and still get the "ABO" crowd.

I agree, I'll be voting against Obama no matter who Mitt names as VP.
That's why I jokingly suggested Hillary.:shocked:

Restless28
05-14-2012, 12:09
Polling indicates that 90% of R's are supporting Mittens; Romney doesn't need to campaign for your vote as he's already got it. Just as he knows that he could run on a ticket with Van Jones, promise to stack his cabinet with Clintonistas, and still get the "ABO" crowd.

The dupe put on the electorate was well played. Kudos to the GOP.

series1811
05-14-2012, 12:12
Here's my guess:

Cathy Mcmorris Rodgers

Thanks for letting us know what DU wants.

It's driving you liberals crazy, isn't it?

Well, at least we know it couldn't be anyone with less sense that Biden.

douggmc
05-14-2012, 12:29
Let's be serious. HC and RP are dead in the water. One has no integrity and the other is to often in outer space. JD... ah... no. So who? Rubio would be good. Why? Because that's where the votes are... and in the future that is where the votes will be. The days of running two old white men are over.

Rubio could very well be the male version of Palin. Young and pretty ... But not much behind the makeup and catchy campaign phrases. He can usually strong together seemingly coherent sentences though ... So maybe not he ideal comparison. Rubio has a problem too ... WAY over-embellishing his Cuban hardship background. Borderline lying actually. The Cubans in S. Florida can be a fickle bunch too ... So I wouldn't say he would unequivocally bring Hispanic Florida.

G19G20
05-14-2012, 13:20
There is absolutely no possibility whatsoever that the RNC delegates in Tampa will fail to approve Romney's choice.

:tinfoil:___:deadhorse:___I guarantee this.

Possibly true. Maybe he'll pick Ron or Rand and at least save himself some amount of embarrassment.

czsmithGT
05-14-2012, 13:26
Were I Romney I'd be picking from a list that included John Kasich, Rob Portman, Jeb Bush, and Bobby Jindal.

G19G20
05-14-2012, 13:37
Were I Romney I'd be picking from a list that included John Kasich, Rob Portman, Jeb Bush, and Bobby Jindal.

Sure, if he wants to lose BOTH the nomination and the VP slot he can go ahead and pick another neo-con and expect different results than the last election.

evlbruce
05-15-2012, 09:56
Sure, if he wants to lose BOTH the nomination and the VP slot he can go ahead and pick another neo-con and expect different results than the last election.

He isn't likely to get a result different from the last election, but the GOP brain trust is fixated on winning the "moderate middle."

G29Reload
05-15-2012, 11:18
Possibly true. Maybe he'll pick Ron or Rand and at least save himself some amount of embarrassment.


Those two picks would cause more embarrassment than less.

Ron: Niche popularity, no executive offices held, ineffectual as a congresscritter with only one lifetime bill ever passed.

Rand: Nice guy, good head on his shoulders, but too young and inexperienced. Maybe future though.

Goaltender66
05-15-2012, 11:20
Possibly true. Maybe he'll pick Ron or Rand and at least save himself some amount of embarrassment.

Very creepy the way the cult views Ron Paul and Rand Paul as interchangeable.

Dalton Wayne
05-15-2012, 11:38
Jeb for the win, he needs to win Florida in Nov. Jeb would get him that win.

G19G20
05-15-2012, 16:49
Very creepy the way the cult views Ron Paul and Rand Paul as interchangeable.

It would be creepy if it were true. Im speaking to the political realities of Romney's potential nomination. Either Paul as VP helps Romney. More-of-the-same neocons do not.

It's actually not about the Pauls themselves, it's what Ron and to a lesser extent Rand, potentially brings to the table for Romney if he were to win the nomination. There's no more dedicated army of supporters in this country and is obviously now a large voting block that Romney needs. We're still fighting for Ron to be the nominee and I know a ton of Paulites that won't vote for Romney regardless of who his VP choice is but he could do a heck of a lot worse than a Paul.

@DaltonWayne: Another Bush on the ticket dooms Romney. Please be serious.

Bruce H
05-15-2012, 17:13
Another ********* gladhanding good ole boy insider.

HexHead
05-15-2012, 17:24
NEW YORK CITY'S MAYOR; Michael Bloomberg?
Mitt & Mike 2012!

Just my version of sarcastic humor?

Considering how ani-gun they both are, it would be a marriage made in hell.

HexHead
05-15-2012, 17:29
Rubio could very well be the male version of Palin. Young and pretty ... But not much behind the makeup and catchy campaign phrases. He can usually strong together seemingly coherent sentences though ... So maybe not he ideal comparison. Rubio has a problem too ... WAY over-embellishing his Cuban hardship background. Borderline lying actually. The Cubans in S. Florida can be a fickle bunch too ... So I wouldn't say he would unequivocally bring Hispanic Florida.

How many times does he have to say he's not interested before idiots stop pimping for him?

Besides, he's not eligible to be president because he's not a natural born citizen. Both his parents were immigrants.

Goaltender66
05-15-2012, 17:35
It would be creepy if it were true.

if you are saying it isn't true then you are nowhere near as connected or informed as you present yourself.

Paul doesn't have enough influence to rate VP consideration, either for himself or for his kid. His kid isn't helping things either with earlier missteps about the Civil Rights Act and now with his cynical money trolling for National Pro Life Alliance. Any talk about either of them as VP is sour grapes and grudging admission that Romney will be the nominee and Paul's delegate games are a big waste of time.

czsmithGT
05-15-2012, 17:48
Besides, he's not eligible to be president because he's not a natural born citizen. Both his parents were immigrants.

:rofl:

stevelyn
05-15-2012, 21:34
So, Romney is the best the Republicans can do? sheesh. I wasn't too impressed with the others either.

Whoever agrees to be the VP pick has to consider carefully. If things don't go well, they lose a lot of political momentum -- I think Palin made a big mistake in agreeing to run with McCain. With this in mind, I kinda don't want a lot of people to run as VP, lol.

No name really jumps out at me. Maybe Giuliani? but he seems to be polarizing to some people, and doesn't seem to have a lot of traction outside of east coast / New England.

Nope. We can't have two pieces of elitist east-coast crap on the same ticket. Might as well vote for Odumma and have him finish the job of burying the country.

Romney's best bet is to look west or south for a VP.

G19G20
05-16-2012, 01:37
if you are saying it isn't true then you are nowhere near as connected or informed as you present yourself.

Im no campaign insider. I'm a VERY involved grassroots supporter. There's a lot of stuff going on lately that's confused me about my own campaign.


Paul doesn't have enough influence to rate VP consideration, either for himself or for his kid.

Horseshiz. Ron Paul brings a block of 2 million voters and about 20,000 hardcore activists that Obama only wishes he had. Rand brings an undetermined following of Ron's plus Tea Party cred. Rand can't capture Ron's following btw.
Rubio has identity politics behind him and that's it. Oh and the Israel lobby.


His kid isn't helping things either with earlier missteps about the Civil Rights Act and now with his cynical money trolling for National Pro Life Alliance.

Rachel Maddow, is that you? Shame those state's rights.


Any talk about either of them as VP is sour grapes and grudging admission that Romney will be the nominee and Paul's delegate games are a big waste of time.

Call them games if you want and downplay whenever you get the chance but unless you're suggesting the GOP will outright purge AT LEAST 25% and probably much closer than 50% (and likely more) of the legally elected delegates then I suggest you stop being so grandiose. The GOP is walking a very fine line right now and pissing off the Paulites is a VERY BAD MOVE. A Paul VP pick would help and not hurt. Would I vote for it? Dunno. I'm talking political strategy here, not personal preference.

--------
(Goalie, I am a Paul supporter but I'm also a damn good judge of what's going on and strategizing accordingly. This is a big reason why Paulites are so damn effective! Any one would be smart to be friendly with us instead of enemies. We know our shiz and see the big picture.)

Goaltender66
05-16-2012, 05:51
Im no campaign insider. I'm a VERY involved grassroots supporter. There's a lot of stuff going on lately that's confused me about my own campaign.
You said you are a delegate, and yet you refused to identify which state you're with, even privately, on the grounds that you would be outing yourself. That betrays a certain ignorance about how the process works. Hint: the floor managers are going to know exactly who you are and what your plan is well before the roll call.


Horseshiz. Ron Paul brings a block of 2 million voters and about 20,000 hardcore activists that Obama only wishes he had. Rand brings an undetermined following of Ron's plus Tea Party cred. Rand can't capture Ron's following btw.
Rubio has identity politics behind him and that's it. Oh and the Israel lobby.
See, you just can't quit the anti-semetism, can you? That's why the Ronulans will forever be marginalized.

The reality is the 2 million voters (which is inflated, since a portion of Paul's 1.6 million primary votes represent either Operation Chaos motives or voters in open primaries who don't or won't vote GOP in generals) are those who aren't likely GOP voters. In other words, they don't translate unless Paul is at the top of the ticket, and even then a portion of those go to Obama anyway. The reality is that Paul steals more votes from Obama, not Romney. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/may_2012/three_way_race_romney_44_obama_39_ron_paul_13)



Rachel Maddow, is that you? Shame those state's rights.
You really know nothing about what Rand Paul is doing, do you? You know nothing about what he is supporting by being a shill for the National Pro-Life Alliance? Hint: It isn't State's Rights...in fact, it's Federal Overreach. But it's Rand Paul doing it, so it must be OK even though you know none of the details? Again...cult of personality is cultish.

And vis a vis the Civil Rights Act, sorry but that argument was lost a long time ago. Time to man up, accept it, and move on. No national votes are won by entering a tendentious argument on the subject. But if you guys really want to die on the hill that it's OK to deny service to a black man who wants a sandwich, well, go for it but spare everyone the "Paul Has Lots Of Support" horsehockey.



Call them games if you want and downplay whenever you get the chance but unless you're suggesting the GOP will outright purge AT LEAST 25% and probably much closer than 50% (and likely more) of the legally elected delegates then I suggest you stop being so grandiose. The GOP is walking a very fine line right now and pissing off the Paulites is a VERY BAD MOVE. A Paul VP pick would help and not hurt. Would I vote for it? Dunno. I'm talking political strategy here, not personal preference.
You are pulling numbers out of your butt. How about real numbers...numbers that are actual bound or otherwise pledged delegates?

Romney 811
Paul 60

For there to even be a situation where Romney doesn't capture enough bound delegates on the first ballot, he has to win fewer than 50% of the remaining bound delegates in play, starting with the May 8 primaries. In fact, the Indiana and North Carolina primaries held on that day give us a useful barometer on if there's an Anybody But Romney faction out there. Results: Romney captured all 27 delegates in Indiana and 36 (out of 52) in North Carolina.

The math just doesn't work for you...something we've all been trying to explain to you for months now. The delegate game is just that...a game for Paul to make his dupes feel useful and keep sending in those checks to the Ron Paul Family Retirement Fund (and oh, presidential campaign)


--------
(Goalie, I am a Paul supporter but I'm also a damn good judge of what's going on and strategizing accordingly. This is a big reason why Paulites are so damn effective! Any one would be smart to be friendly with us instead of enemies. We know our shiz and see the big picture.)
Apparently you can't see the big picture, because you don't understand plain-english rules, you wishcast, you are ignorant of basic polling and statistical concepts, and you indulge in double standards. You are also sadly out of sync with what the Paul campaign is admitting. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/15/paul-concedes-nomination-out-reach/)

And with that paragraph, again you overstate your involvement and knowledge of the facts on the ground, I think.

Bottom line, Paul will never be VP, Rand Paul will not have any kind of visible leader role in the GOP (save for a media strawman when MSNBC wants to show how radical Republicans are), any influence the Ronulans have over the GOP platform/rules will be marginal at best, and the GOP will move merrily along without the Ronulans.

QED

ChuteTheMall
05-16-2012, 07:40
There's a lot of stuff going on lately that's confused me about my own campaign.


Obviously.....:crazy::tinfoil:

ChuteTheMall
05-16-2012, 07:41
This is a big reason why Paulites are so damn effective!

Effective at what?:okie:

ChuteTheMall
05-16-2012, 07:45
Goalie, you are missing the point that all of those so-called Romney delegates are really secret Ronulans waiting for the bat-signal to betray their pledges and doff the tinfoil, and thus coronate Ron Paul in Tampa.
:tinfoil:

JohnnyReb
05-16-2012, 08:17
Jindal?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Cavalry Doc
05-16-2012, 10:11
I think it will be a guy, unless it is a gal.

maxsnafu
05-16-2012, 13:05
Jeb for the win, he needs to win Florida in Nov. Jeb would get him that win.

I think we've had enough of the Bush family for one lifetime.

G19G20
05-16-2012, 14:56
You said you are a delegate, and yet you refused to identify which state you're with, even privately, on the grounds that you would be outing yourself. That betrays a certain ignorance about how the process works. Hint: the floor managers are going to know exactly who you are and what your plan is well before the roll call.

None of that has anything to do with giving out my personal information on the internet to strangers, particularly in a contentious election. Yes, Im familiar with the white star hat folks that will be "watching" us.


See, you just can't quit the anti-semetism, can you? That's why the Ronulans will forever be marginalized.

Get real. Even mentioning the well known and powerful Israel lobby makes one anti-semitic? I didn't know that being informed was racist! News to me. I'm well aware of Rubio's first "official trip" immediately after he was elected. He flew straight to Israel.


The reality is the 2 million voters (which is inflated, since a portion of Paul's 1.6 million primary votes represent either Operation Chaos motives or voters in open primaries who don't or won't vote GOP in generals) are those who aren't likely GOP voters. In other words, they don't translate unless Paul is at the top of the ticket, and even then a portion of those go to Obama anyway. The reality is that Paul steals more votes from Obama, not Romney. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/may_2012/three_way_race_romney_44_obama_39_ron_paul_13)


There are still primaries left to vote in, including the two largest states. Do you think Paul will receive ZERO votes in Texas and California and the remaining states? 2 million is a conservative estimate considering his current vote total coupled with the remaining contests.


You really know nothing about what Rand Paul is doing, do you? You know nothing about what he is supporting by being a shill for the National Pro-Life Alliance? Hint: It isn't State's Rights...in fact, it's Federal Overreach. But it's Rand Paul doing it, so it must be OK even though you know none of the details? Again...cult of personality is cultish.

I don't pay attention to the wedge social issues so you may be right. Dunno, it's not what Im in this campaign for so I admit ignorance on whatever Rand is doing. I'm not a big fan of his, actually.


And vis a vis the Civil Rights Act, sorry but that argument was lost a long time ago. Time to man up, accept it, and move on. No national votes are won by entering a tendentious argument on the subject. But if you guys really want to die on the hill that it's OK to deny service to a black man who wants a sandwich, well, go for it but spare everyone the "Paul Has Lots Of Support" horsehockey.

It is a state's rights issue. Oddly, Rand still won after Maddow's smear attempt on the issue. Seems it didn't hurt his ability to win votes.


You are pulling numbers out of your butt. How about real numbers...numbers that are actual bound or otherwise pledged delegates?

Romney 811
Paul 60

Ah yes that good ol AP delegate tracker again. If delegates are "bound" then why have a convention in the first place? This video explains why I'm not concerned about "bound" delegate numbers. Rule 38.

Reality Check: All Republican Delegates Are "Free Agents" and Unbound? - YouTube

Im not going to waste my time with the rest of your post.

jastroud
05-16-2012, 15:03
Alan West?

HexHead
05-16-2012, 15:20
Alan West?

What good will that do? Blacks won't vote for him because he's not promising to give them free stuff.

Goaltender66
05-16-2012, 15:51
None of that has anything to do with giving out my personal information on the internet to strangers, particularly in a contentious election. Yes, Im familiar with the white star hat folks that will be "watching" us.

So based on that, I'm left to conclude that like most other Ronulans, you're full of it. Since you already showed your ignorance at how the convention procedure worked I'm comfortable with my opinion.


Get real. Even mentioning the well known and powerful Israel lobby makes one anti-semitic? I didn't know that being informed was racist! News to me. I'm well aware of Rubio's first "official trip" immediately after he was elected. He flew straight to Israel.
Actually, mentioning Israel at the drop of a hat makes you look like an obsessed conspiracy-theorizing lunatic.

There are still primaries left to vote in, including the two largest states. Do you think Paul will receive ZERO votes in Texas and California and the remaining states? 2 million is a conservative estimate considering his current vote total coupled with the remaining contests.
Given his lackluster vote totals and the polling evidence, 2 million is actually optimistic and, I dare say, wildly overstated. If he had wide support, and this is key, he'd be winning primaries.

I don't pay attention to the wedge social issues so you may be right. Dunno, it's not what Im in this campaign for so I admit ignorance on whatever Rand is doing. I'm not a big fan of his, actually.

Maybe you'd better start paying attention before you start shilling for a guy for VP.

It is a state's rights issue. Oddly, Rand still won after Maddow's smear attempt on the issue. Seems it didn't hurt his ability to win votes.
Because of an inept campaign by his primary challenger.

Regardless, the argument is lost and it's a dead issue. If you want to be supporting the guy who says a black woman may be denied medical care on the basis of her race, as I said feel free, but don't pretend that it's a noble argument.


Ah yes that good ol AP delegate tracker again. If delegates are "bound" then why have a convention in the first place?
It isn't the AP tracker. These are numbers directly from the state GOP reporting. Really, do you have anything other than regurgitated talking points from The Daily Paul?

Bound delegates exist precisely so unethical twerps don't try to thwart the will of the voters in the states vis a vis primary votes. As an alleged delegate I'd have thought you'd understand the responsibilities here. Apparently not.

So no, the math doesn't work, Romney will win on the first ballot, and all you'll be left with are cold tears because of the big bad conspiracy.


This video explains why I'm not concerned about "bound" delegate numbers. Rule 38.
What a perfectly stupid argument." Every state has three unpledged/unbound delegates so the unit rule doesn't apply. Abstentions are not allowed either. By abstaining you aren't voting for the candidate for which you are pledged either.

These kinds of "arguments" just keep making you look uninformed,


Im not going to waste my time with the rest of your post.
Unsurprising because all you have demonstrated so far is wishcasting and denial.

Even the Paul campaign admits they probably have about 300 delegates, stealth or otherwise. Let's be charitable and say they'll have 500 by convention time. That's 500 out of 2,286. That isn't enough to effect changes to the platform, demand a speaking gig, or do much of anything, especially given the low vote totals of Paul. It's one thing when you have 230 delegates based on four million votes (25%) and a host of won primaries. It's another when you only got 11% of the vote and a delegate total out of proportion with that. The latter means you'll be ignored, something you'll find out in Tampa.

Assuming you'll even be there.

creaky
05-16-2012, 16:07
Somebody should adopt this for a sig line.

(maxsnafu's post)


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Firebob2917
05-16-2012, 16:48
Alan West or Gov Jindal

alphacat
05-16-2012, 16:56
Mitt 'n Ron 2012

Bruce H
05-16-2012, 17:34
Maybe he will pick Michelle Obama. that way she can keep taking vacations.

codecowboy
05-16-2012, 22:34
My money says Rubio. But I hope not. My first choice would be Allen West. Scratch that. My first choice would be Allen West for President....not VP.

G19G20
05-17-2012, 01:42
Just for GateKeeper666:

http://ivn.us/2012/05/16/a-first-ballot-rebellion-in-tampa/


According to (http://www.fox19.com/story/18305604/reality-check-why-all-rnc-delegates-are-free-agents-and-unbound) Fox19 Cincinnati’s Ben Swann, citing an article (http://www.fairvote.org/response-to-a-rogue-convention-how-gop-party-rules-may-surprise-in-201#.T7OOs8VVuSo) at FairVote.org, Rule 38 has already been interpreted by the RNC’s own legal council to mean that the national party rules do not recognize state laws or procedures that bind delegates to vote for a particular candidate, but that they are free to vote for their individual preference on the floor of the national convention. The issue came up in 2008 when a member of the Utah delegation wanted to vote for Mitt Romney instead of John McCain, to whom Utah’s delegates were bound. Several weeks before the 2008 Republican national convention, Jennifer Sheehan, Legal Council for the RNC, wrote a letter to Nancy Lord, Utah National Committee-Woman, asserting:
“The RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose, and the national convention allows delegates to vote for the individual of their choice, regardless of whether the person’s name is officially placed into nomination or not.”
If this is the case, and again, this is the RNC’s own interpretation of its own rule, with an established and recent precedent (that ironically happened to benefit Mitt Romney in 2008), then Ron Paul may not need to last until the second ballot of a long-shot brokered convention to let loose his stealth delegates. Though their states may have bound them to Romney, once they’re on the convention floor in Tampa, it will be the RNC’s rules that matter and if Paul’s hand is strong enough he could just win his party’s nomination on the first ballot.

I don't think it's likely to happen but that's very interesting if that's truly the RNC"s own legal opinion.

Goaltender66
05-17-2012, 05:52
Just for GateKeeper666:

http://ivn.us/2012/05/16/a-first-ballot-rebellion-in-tampa/



I don't think it's likely to happen but that's very interesting if that's truly the RNC"s own legal opinion.

You've been criticized for either ignorant reading or posting misleading factoids before...this is yet another example.

The entire quote is discredted by the first sentence:

"According to Fox19 Cincinnati’s Ben Swann, citing an article at FairVote.org...."

That said, the letter cited is missing important context. Did you read the entire letter or follow anything in 2008? Given that you've represented yourself as informed, I can only presume you're being deliberately misleading.

The lawyer was issuing an opinion on whether the delegates of an entire state can be forced to vote with the majority, not on whether they are bound.

And 38 is satisfied because there are no state delegations being forced to vote as a unit. Each state has three unbound at-large delegates.

series1811
05-17-2012, 06:32
Alan West or Gov Jindal

I'd like to see Jindal get it myself. Everytime I see him on TV or read about him, I come away more impressed.

When the last hurricane hit south Louisiana, and Louisiana couldn't get help down to the residents there right away, he got on TV and told them they had his permission to break into any state government facility for shelter and supplies, and to just try and not do any more damage than they had to.

A real practical, common sense solution, kind of guy. That's what we need right now.

Goaltender66
05-17-2012, 07:57
I'd like to see Jindal get it myself. Everytime I see him on TV or read about him, I come away more impressed.

When the last hurricane hit south Louisiana, and Louisiana couldn't get help down to the residents there right away, he got on TV and told them they had his permission to break into any state government facility for shelter and supplies, and to just try and not do any more damage than they had to.

A real practical, common sense solution, kind of guy. That's what we need right now.

I hadn't heard that story. Makes me like the guy even more.

Do you think he's ready to be on the national stage?

1911austin
05-17-2012, 07:59
I would love to see Allen West or Marco Rubio.

1911austin
05-17-2012, 08:00
I'd like to see Jindal get it myself. Everytime I see him on TV or read about him, I come away more impressed.

When the last hurricane hit south Louisiana, and Louisiana couldn't get help down to the residents there right away, he got on TV and told them they had his permission to break into any state government facility for shelter and supplies, and to just try and not do any more damage than they had to.

A real practical, common sense solution, kind of guy. That's what we need right now.

Jindal is also a true conserative and would be a good choice.

1911austin
05-17-2012, 08:10
My money says Rubio. But I hope not. My first choice would be Allen West. Scratch that. My first choice would be Allen West for President....not VP.

West/Rubio would be a great ticket.

heyTJ
05-17-2012, 08:15
Jeb for the win, he needs to win Florida in Nov. Jeb would get him that win.

I agree with this, or even a high profile candidate from Pennsylvania or Ohio. He needs these states to have any chance to win.

RDW
05-17-2012, 15:02
I'd like to Allen West as VP!

RetDet
05-17-2012, 16:52
Why in the world would Romney pick a dyed in the wool loser like Ron Paul? That would be like putting an anchor around his neck before jumping into the ocean.

No, Ron Paul is too much of a lunatic to serve any real purpose at all.

RetDet
05-17-2012, 16:55
So, G19G20, the people who spend their lives trying to prop Ron Paul up would rather have Obama again if they can't have Paul? (which they can't, because he can't beat anyone at anything). Would you please explain how that attitude helps this country out? Paul is a loser who's accomplished absolutely nothing. Why is he so important to people like you?

G19G20
05-17-2012, 18:07
You've been criticized for either ignorant reading or posting misleading factoids before...this is yet another example.

The entire quote is discredted by the first sentence:

"According to Fox19 Cincinnatiís Ben Swann, citing an article at FairVote.org...."

That said, the letter cited is missing important context. Did you read the entire letter or follow anything in 2008? Given that you've represented yourself as informed, I can only presume you're being deliberately misleading.

The lawyer was issuing an opinion on whether the delegates of an entire state can be forced to vote with the majority, not on whether they are bound.

And 38 is satisfied because there are no state delegations being forced to vote as a unit. Each state has three unbound at-large delegates.

You're getting nervous, aren't you? It's ok, don't believe your lying eyes. The letter says plainly that the RNC considers EACH DELEGATE to be a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose and does not recognize state binding rules. IT'S RIGHT THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE.

But since that's not enough for you, let's also take a look at another section of that same link that covers where the Supreme Court of the US has already addressed this and what SCOTUS said.

As IVNís Kymberly Bays recently reported (http://ivn.us/2012/05/14/gov-romney-worry-less-about-rule-38-more-about-whip-operation/), this exact question has already been resolved at the US Supreme Court (http://ivn.us/tag/supreme-court/) level: the national partyís rules take precedence over state laws because as a private organization and free association of individuals, a political party has the constitutional right to set its own rules and state laws interfering with that private process violate a political partyís First Amendment rights.

SCOTUS says the national party rules trump state rules. States enforce the "bindings" on their delegates. The RNC does NOT. It's interesting to consider that this entire "bound delegate" exercise may actually be a ruse and that there's no such thing once delegates hit the RNC floor.

G19G20
05-17-2012, 18:21
So, G19G20, the people who spend their lives trying to prop Ron Paul up would rather have Obama again if they can't have Paul? (which they can't, because he can't beat anyone at anything). Would you please explain how that attitude helps this country out? Paul is a loser who's accomplished absolutely nothing. Why is he so important to people like you?

Seeing how you can't even ask the question without insults and injecting your own opinion into the question itself I don't see this discussion being very fruitful.

Short version. Ron Paul says what a lot of us are thinking and feeling frustrated about. He has a track record of principled consistency and that's why he is a great messenger that people are supporting. He's not a flip flopper. Paul has more conservatism in his pinky than Romney does in his entire body. You do like conservatism, right? I do and my principles aren't for sale to the slickest politician. If it means four more years of Obama then so be it, though I would argue whether supporting Paul has any impact on that. Romney isn't one lick better so at least Obama in office keeps conservatives on their toes, fighting the liberal agenda, instead of rolling over to that same agenda simply because it has an (R) next to it. I see the death of conservatism approaching and electing another RINO just helps it along further. Paul is the messenger for those that still believe in Old Right classic conservatism.

ChuteTheMall
05-17-2012, 18:24
He's not a flip flopper.

If that's true (it isn't) then Ron Paul is in favor of totally open borders.

See below:

G19G20
05-17-2012, 18:35
If that's true (it isn't) then Ron Paul is in favor of totally open borders.

See below:

Is Ron Paul an isolationist or is he an open borders guy? Which one is it? It's hard keeping up with whatever negative characterization you're pushing for the day.

I do think people are entitled to change a policy stance on occasion (like oh once every 25 years). That's not flipflopping. It's sad if that's the only thing out of my entire post you chose to comment on, particularly when Mitt's flips are of epic and repeated proportions.

Cavalry Doc
05-17-2012, 19:41
Just wait for it. We will all see the truth soon enough.

Nothing is certain in life, but G19G20 is likely to be eating some crow after the convention is over.

Time will tell.

Goaltender66
05-18-2012, 05:49
You're getting nervous, aren't you? It's ok, don't believe your lying eyes. The letter says plainly that the RNC considers EACH DELEGATE to be a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose and does not recognize state binding rules. IT'S RIGHT THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE.
I'm not nervous at all, because your argument is untenable. You're latching onto an out-of-context paragraph from RNC counsel on an unrelated issue when the reality is that if the RNC wanted to disallow bound candidates there'd be a plain rule saying so. In the rules there are plenty of mentions of bound candidates. You're trying to say that's all meaningless, when in fact the RNC is just fine with bound candidates. Far from your desperate plea that it's there in "black and white," in reality it's an erroneous conclusion inferred into existence by a faulty and inept ad hoc argument.
This is why you fail. You keep taking isolated snippets when you have to take a whole-picture reading. You did it with polls and now you're doing it with tax-protester-style jailroom lawyer arguments.

So no, no nerves. Things will go along just fine in Tampa, and when they do you'll be back here complaining about the conspiracy.

But since that's not enough for you, let's also take a look at another section of that same link that covers where the Supreme Court of the US has already addressed this and what SCOTUS said.



SCOTUS says the national party rules trump state rules. States enforce the "bindings" on their delegates. The RNC does NOT. It's interesting to consider that this entire "bound delegate" exercise may actually be a ruse and that there's no such thing once delegates hit the RNC floor.

Another misreading. SCOTUS has no jurisdiction to say what rules take precedence over what rules in a private function or proceeding like the RNC. In fact, the sentence you quote is greatly contradictory (how can something at once be held in precedence on the basis of it being a free association? If it's a free association SCOTUS has no say at all....). Did you even read the case you're citing?

That said, you kind of torpedo your entire argument when you say that the RNC doesn't enforce bindings, but the state level GOP committees do. That right there says delegates may be bound. Plus, there's no RNC rule saying delegates may not be bound. Good job refuting your own "argument."

ChuteTheMall
05-18-2012, 06:24
I would love to see Allen West or Marco Rubio.

So would I, but I doubt either would add much to Mitt's electability, other than possibly being the tipping point for fickle Floriduh, and also increasing the percentage of black or hispanic votes. Maybe that would be enough?
Or maybe we can still find a black hispanic female war hero holding elective office in a southern swing state.:whistling:

Let's not let RonBot hijack this thread, it's so rare to have any thread in Political Issues that discusses anything other than Ron Paul (who has absolutely NO chance, whatsoever, of ever becoming Romney's VP pick).

:arg:

Goaltender66
05-18-2012, 08:26
Let's not let RonBot hijack this thread, it's so rare to have any thread in Political Issues that discusses anything other than Ron Paul (who has absolutely NO chance, whatsoever, of ever becoming Romney's VP pick).

:arg:

Agreed and my apologies.

Bob McDonnell is being held out too. I think he'd be a plus, especially since he's term-limited and George Allen has a good shot of winning the Senate seat this cycle. I don't want to see McDonnell fade into obscurity.

ChuteTheMall
05-18-2012, 08:36
Agreed and my apologies.

Bob McDonnell is being held out too. I think he'd be a plus, especially since he's term-limited and George Allen has a good shot of winning the Senate seat this cycle. I don't want to see McDonnell fade into obscurity.

I'm still mad at McDonnell for one thing, limiting the primary ballot to only two names; Romney and that other guy.
So I voted a blank ballot in protest.
Other than that, McDonnell has done a great job, and certainly did a big favor helping Mitt with these primary shenanagins.

Goaltender66
05-18-2012, 08:45
I'm still mad at McDonnell for one thing, limiting the primary ballot to only two names; Romney and that other guy.
So I voted a blank ballot in protest.
Other than that, McDonnell has done a great job, and certainly did a big favor helping Mitt with these primary shenanagins.

I guess the real question then is...how "swing" is Virginia, really? It it close enough that having McDonnell on the ticket would make the difference?

I see very close polling in VA, but this far out if the incumbent is running close to the challenger then there's trouble ahead for the President.

I hope against hope that Romney doesn't choose someone in an effort to gain Pennsylvania. Seems like the GOP spends millions of dollars every year to gain PA, only to keep having it go blue. PA is a tease. :)

G19G20
05-18-2012, 13:48
I'm not nervous at all, because your argument is untenable. You're latching onto an out-of-context paragraph from RNC counsel on an unrelated issue when the reality is that if the RNC wanted to disallow bound candidates there'd be a plain rule saying so. In the rules there are plenty of mentions of bound candidates. You're trying to say that's all meaningless, when in fact the RNC is just fine with bound candidates.

The situation the letter was based on is exactly what's going on right now. A state "bound" it's delegates to a candidate. A single delegate didn't want to vote for the candidate he was "bound" to. The RNC's legal opinion was that the delegate can vote for whoever he wants since binding rules are state rules/laws and the RNC doesn't recognize those state rules/laws. How is that any different than if 20 of 25 delegates don't want to vote for Romney even if they are "bound" by state rules/laws? That single delegate was allowed to vote for Romney instead of McCain. This current situation is no different. 20 of 25 can vote for Ron Paul instead of Romney under that legal opinion.



Far from your desperate plea that it's there in "black and white," in reality it's an erroneous conclusion inferred into existence by a faulty and inept ad hoc argument.

How so? Lots of long winded paragraphs but you don't explain your view of WHY it's faulty, out of context, inept, etc. Throwing perjoratives at it doesn't make it go away. How exactly is the upcoming RNC any different than the 2008 case? The RNC didn't force the delegate to vote for McCain eventhough the delegate was "bound" by Utah rules. State rules go out the window at the RNC and that's the whole point.

(How a state can "force" a delegate to do something is a whole nother can of worms that hasn't been opened yet.)


This is why you fail. You keep taking isolated snippets when you have to take a whole-picture reading. You did it with polls and now you're doing it with tax-protester-style jailroom lawyer arguments.

It's from the RNC's own legal counsel. If you're so confident in your argument then explain how the 2008 case is different than the current situation with tons of Paul supporters winning delegate spots. Explain the difference in detail.


So no, no nerves. Things will go along just fine in Tampa, and when they do you'll be back here complaining about the conspiracy.

We'll see about that.

SCOTUS ruling was very simple. They didn't say what rules take precedence. They said that state laws ("bindings") can't be forced or imposed on a national political organization's private functions, such as the RNC. So the question is how many state's "binding" rules are in state law, which SCOTUS says can't be forced onto the RNC as a private political group.


Plus, there's no RNC rule saying delegates may not be bound.

So there has to be a rule stating what isn't a rule? Huh? :dunno:

Jonesee
05-18-2012, 18:00
I'd like to see Jindal get it myself. Everytime I see him on TV or read about him, I come away more impressed.

When the last hurricane hit south Louisiana, and Louisiana couldn't get help down to the residents there right away, he got on TV and told them they had his permission to break into any state government facility for shelter and supplies, and to just try and not do any more damage than they had to.

A real practical, common sense solution, kind of guy. That's what we need right now.


I've never read or heard that before and I used to live in the area. Can you post a link or news article about him allowing that?

ChuteTheMall
05-18-2012, 18:03
I hope against hope that Romney doesn't choose someone in an effort to gain Pennsylvania. Seems like the GOP spends millions of dollars every year to gain PA, only to keep having it go blue. PA is a tease. :)

I'm afraid he might go with Chris Christie in an effort to get Pennsylvania (maybe NJ too); he's a strong campaigner, he's right on some issues, wrong on others, but I can't see him swaying over many independents from the south and the west. Two yankees on one ticket is too much for flyover country.

G19G20
05-18-2012, 20:25
I thought everyone gave up on Jindal after that horrid SOTU rebuttal a couple years ago.