54 votes

Important information from the opposition about stealth delegates.

In many a battle, it is important to know what the opposition is planning, thinking, and saying. This is one of those cases. We all know about the stealth delegate strategy, and unfortunately, so does the opposition. It is important for us to know their strategies for foiling our strategy, so that we can foil theirs. No one ever said this would be easy, and it is important to know as much as is possible, every challenge facing us. Here is an article from the opposition regarding the stealth delegate strategy and some of the tricks they intend to use to attempt to foil it.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Vote to get delegates unbound at state convention.

You can change things by voting this weekend at state convention. Don't let them take over and turn off the lights like last time. Get up, stand up and make change. The opportunity is staring y'all right in the face at state convention.

What a horribly, piss-poor

What a horribly, piss-poor written article. Horrible punctuation, terrible capitalization, and paragraph after paragraph of run-on sentences.

Are we really struggling to compete against these uneducated people?

We have no excuse for not being able to destroy the arguments of anyone who can't even formulate a proper sentence.

I can't even pretend to take that article seriously.

What do you expect from a music teacher?

He only knows how to write treble clefs. Yes, he is a music teacher.

A motion to suspend the rules

A motion to suspend the rules can be approved by a two-thirds vote of the group. If Romney can't get 51% of the group to vote him in the first round, how the hell is he going to get 2/3s of the group to agree to suspend the rules? Also until the rules are restored, only discussion can occur; no decisions can be made.

So go right ahead and propose that motion, I dare ya.

Re: A motion to suspend the rules

"A motion to suspend the rules can be approved by a two-thirds vote of the group. If Romney can't get 51% of the group to vote him in the first round, how the hell is he going to get 2/3s of the group to agree to suspend the rules? Also until the rules are restored, only discussion can occur; no decisions can be made.

So go right ahead and propose that motion, I dare ya."

While this does go according to the rules, some else here did make a good point:


Sounds like we need to get Delegates unbound...

at the State Conventions. Can't states like Louisiana, where we will have the majority of delegates, vote to unbind their delegates to the National Convention?

What a fantastic idea!

Do you think it's really possible? I think it sounds right- It's just changing the rules... Any lawyers here with any input- or just a real expert on Parliamentary rules- or Robert's?

It appears that they use..

House of Representatives rules, not Parliamentary rules. The Green Papers writer seems to have gotten it wrong (maybe on purpose).

Win or Lose

There is one thing to remember that makes this convention different than all the state and local conventions. It will be broadcast live on national television. When the ruckus breaks out, it will be all over the news.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams

This could work in our favor notice who ever makes the first

motion is more or less first come first served so we need to get our motion heard first and the correct motion plus be ready to call for diversion just in case right?
so it isn't who yells loader. So let us have Precedence of Motions.

"If you know anything about Parliamentary Procedure, you know it is all about 'Precedence of Motions'- a hierarchy of procedure under which motions are ranked, meaning: while a given motion is being considered by a body operating under such Parliamentary Procedure (whether we're talking about a Party's National Convention, a meeting of a Ladies' Auxiliary or one of the two houses of the Congress of the United States) any motion higher in rank than the motion then being considered is "in order", while any motion lower in rank than that being considered is "not in order" or "out of order" (and it is the Chair of the meeting in question that so rules).

There are four kinds of motions in basic Parliamentary Procedure:

1. the Main Motion (aka the Main Question): this being the principal issue of moment generally under discussion- and being considered- by the body so meeting (this could be, say, a bill- having already been introduced and reported out of committee- now being debated on the floor of the United States Senate or the U.S. House of Representatives or either house of a State Legislature; it could also be the Ladies' Auxiliary deciding whether or not to set up a gardening club; or it could be a Party nominating its candidate in the General Election for President of the United States!);

2. Subsidiary Motions: subsidiary because these are directly related to the Main Question itself-- these would be (in order from lowest rank to highest [but these all rank above the Main Question itself, thus any and all of these are "in order" during debate/discussion on the Main Question per se]): to Postpone Indefinitely; to Amend; to Commit; to Postpone to a Set Time; to move the Previous Question; to Table [or Take from the Table])...

for example: let's say that, during debate on the Main Question, a motion is made (and seconded) to Commit (that is: to refer the Main Question of moment to a committee [the motion to Commit being the source of the very term "committee"] for further consideration off the floor of the body meeting itself)-- such a motion would be "in order" because it ranks above the Main Question itself...

now, let's also say that, during debate on this motion to Commit, a motion is then made from the floor to Amend the Main Motion-- such a motion to Amend would be (or, at least, should be) ruled "out of order" by the Chair because a motion to Amend ranks lower than a motion to Commit (even though, were the Main Question being debated at that time, such a motion to Amend would certainly be "in order");

3. Incidental Motions: incidental because these are not necessarily related to the Main Question itself-- these would be (again: in order from lowest rank to highest [all of these, again, ranking above the Main Question itself]): to Withdraw a Motion; to Read Papers (that is: to read a paper not already entered into the record of the meeting or to have a paper re-read); to Suspend the Rules; to Object to Consideration; to Appeal to the Chair (usually to "rise to a Point of Order");

and, finally, 4. Privileged Motions: privileged because they are considered of such import as to stop all other business at the meeting in question pretty much in its tracks-- these are: Orders of the Day (fixing or changing the Calendar of the meeting); a Question of Privilege (aka a "Point of Personal Privilege"); to Adjourn or Recess; to Fix a Time to Which to Adjourn.

It can be seen, from the above list, that a Motion to Suspend the Rules is a fairly high-ranking Incidental Motion...

and it has also already been used- quite recently, in fact- during a Major Party's National Convention to formally nominate that Party's presidential candidate, too!:

back in 2008- at the Democratic National Convention in Denver that year- the Roll Call of the States re: Presidential Nomination was suspended (on motion by then-Senator Hillary Clinton herself) so that then-Senator Barack Obama could be nominated by Acclamation: and this motion was made before the number of delegates necessary to nominate a candidate for President had been cast for Obama...

yes, we all know that this was all "choreographed", if you will, beforehand in an attempt to defuse tensions between all too many of the respective supporters of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama still in evidence at the Convention (tension that is still, at least somewhat, in evidence today, by the way!: for I personally know at least a few persons who favored now-Secretary of State Clinton's nomination for President who are still- in late April 2012, mind you!- rather pissed off that now-President Obama had gained that nomination instead of Mrs. Clinton) and, thereby, better unite the Democrats behind Mr. Obama's candidacy that Fall... but this does illustrate that such a Suspension of the Rules, even right smack dab in the middle of the conducting of the Roll Call of the States re: Presidential Nomination itself, is acceptable under basic Parliamentary Procedure.

So, back to our "hypothetical" 2012 Republican National Convention for purposes of this particular piece (one in which Romney is seemingly on the verge of failing to gain the presidential nomination because just enough of those delegates bound to vote for him are, instead, abstaining during Roll Call [here assuming, of course, that such a thing would even get to that point in the first place!]):

a motion would, at some point during said Roll Call, be made to Suspend the Rules and Nominate by Acclamation-- it would almost surely be seconded (by many a Romney delegate not so abstaining [and also not all that happy just then])-- the Chair (presumably Speaker of the House John Boehner- who, by the way, has already endorsed Mitt Romney) would ask for a vote viva voce (that is: it would be a vote by voice) by declaiming "All those in favor signify by saying 'Aye'... All those opposed say 'No'... In the Opinion of the Chair, the 'Aye's have it and the motion is agreed to: Governor Romney is hereby nominated by this Convention by Acclamation!" (bang gavel once dramatically-- cue the balloons).

Point is- and the hypothetical scenario above is, indeed, "worst case" (highly unlikely to even take place [again: if only because any such otherwise ostensibly Romney delegates really behind, say, Ron Paul would have had to have already "shown their hand" in caucus before Roll Call])- there is no way a Republican National Convention at which Mitt Romney is the consensus presidential nominee is going to permit such "stealth delegates" to deny the former Massachusetts Governor that very nomination... no way!... and there are, indeed, plenty of parliamentary maneuvers available deep within the pages of, say, Robert's Rules of Order and the like well short of the 'worst case' "hypothetical" I have posited above to make damn sure of same!"

Plus we win California and Texas outright mittens can't even come close to having the magic number go Ron Paul.


from what I've read so far in the comments on this page, it appears that the RNC actually doesn't use Parlimentary procedure.

House Rules?

Didn't someone say that the GOP uses the rules of the House, rather than Robert's Rules to run meetings. I'm not sure what the difference is, but I'm throwing it out there so it can be considered.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

It's NOT going to be easy

A rather disappointing dialogue here:


For Liberty but for Romney, even knowing full well that Romney publicly supports NDAA Indefinite Detention, Obam-ney Care, etc. They want to "try" to make a "difference". I have learned one thing in life: Anytime you negotiate, you lose more.

One person replied "grow a backbone". I WHOLE-HEARTEDLY AGREE.

Stealth delegates are on both sides, but I support only one. And it certainly is NOT this one:


"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Thanks for dedicating a

Thanks for dedicating a thread for that link!

I have seen it posted elsewhere and I have posted in in discussion but everyone does need to see this. Especially our great Liberty Delegates!

Front Page Bump People this is important for the movement!

To arms! To arms! The Redcoats are coming!

Regardless, I'm glad that this discussion was initiated.

For comment and reserarch. Another part of the intellectual revolution. The more we know, the stronger we are. Prepare for victory!

optimystic's picture

Just like State conventions, control the Chair

We will have to replace the chair before any shenanigans can take place. It should be the first order of business. Boener or any other shill is not automatic. THEN we will have a fair convention. Every vote counted.

front page


# 1 : Only a 2/3 majority can

# 1 : Only a 2/3 majority can suspend the rules of order, this is no way suspends the RNC call ie bylaws themselves. If Romney doesn't even have half no way will he get 2/3

# 2 : A candidate can only win by acclamation if no other candidate vying for the nomination has a plurality of the delegation from 5 states.

We have 5 states already I believe and many more to come.

The green papers has always been a piece of $hit propaganda website.

Voice Vote Nullifies 2/3 Majority

The point the author of the article is making is that a voice vote nullifies the rule of 2/3rds since it is up to the chairman to decide if 2/3rds of the delegates said aye. Doesn't matter if not a single person says aye; he can claim he heard 2/3rds and that's it. Its a dirty trick used by the establishment to ensure they win even when they lose. Also, remember the body makes the rules, if the body wants to nominate a candidate with taking a vote, they can. The rules can be suspended at any time. What we need to do is remove this arrow from their quiver before they can use use it. But I implore you all not to talk about specific strategy on open forums like these so we don't end up shooting ourselves in the foot by giving Romney all our ideas up front.

One last point, there are too many good people on this forum who assume the rules will be followed. Fact is the establishment will not follow the rules so lets quit giving them that much credit. We must plan our strategy based on the tactics we have seen them use successfully in other prior battles. As well, we must learn our enemy more intimately so we can anticipate their new tactics. I am not saying we need to break the rules to do this either. I'm just saying the establishment will not fight fair, and if we know they're gonna kick us in the balls, then lets put on a cup and hit him upside the head with the bat hidden behind our back!

Voice vote of 2/3 required. So?

Please advise. I thought that with a voice vote, if there is suspected under/over assessment by chair, that was the reason for the "Division" call. (requiring a hand-couny for clarity)
Would that not work?(along with the megaphone of course)
Please explain this if anyone can. Thanks.

See GA delegate election video..

Sorry, don't have the link but, there is video evidence of establishment officials ignoring calls of division and even adjourning illegally. This is why its so important that no matter how this nomination turns out; we have to become the establishment to ensure the rules are followed for future elections.

rules can be suspended at any time.

well thanks for that
I never even considered it
it just seems silly.

but there it is and must be dealth with so great you posted it.

so many little pot holes to trip over.


I thought it seemed odd

I thought it seemed odd myself! Thanks for the info. I am sure this was written in response to the recent rise of talk here at the Daily Paul about our liberty delegates abstaining.

It seems we really do have the Romney Hacks and the OLD GOP establishment running scared.

A Note to you Romney Hacks and OLD guard reading this:

You might as well give up!
Liberty WILL prevail!
WE THE PEOPLE will continue to oust you in every state!
Your time is OVER!

Thanks for reading!

See you all at THE BATTLE OF TAMPA

To arms! To arms! The Redcoats are coming!

Vote by "acclamation," aka a

Vote by "acclamation," aka a voice vote - do everything in our power to prevent it...

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

Who is this guy and why do we care?

Who is this guy and why do we care?

The Cliff Notes version of his rambling essay is that the chairman in Tampa could pull an illegal stunt like the temporary chair tried to do in St. Charles Co. Missouri.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

Romney HACK

Romney HACK

To arms! To arms! The Redcoats are coming!

no need to...

you just did!!!

Don't hate the player, hate the game!!!

"All those in favor signify

"All those in favor signify by saying 'Aye'... All those opposed say 'No'... In the Opinion of the Chair, the 'Aye's have it and the motion is agreed to: Governor Romney is hereby nominated by this Convention by Acclamation!"

If there actually are a lot of stealth candidates for Ron Paul, the Nay's could be pretty loud. If they fail to pass such a motion, wouldn't that open the door to a Ron Paul takeover of the entire convention?

I'm curious to see how the campaign will overcome the fact that they won't be in control of the A/V. Last time the RNC organizers simply turned off Ron Paul supporters mics and that was that.

Bring Megaphones

Simple, if they turn off the mics, then the delegates pull out megaphones. A thousand megaphones will drown out any audio equipment they have. Just need to coordinate the effort so a single "chant" leader gets everyone chanting for a roll call or whatever else.