446 votes

May 10, 2012 Ben Swann Reality Check: All GOP Delegates Unbound at Tampa Convention

Comment viewing options

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


For President Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!

May 15th was the last comment

May 15th was the last comment on this most relevant post....so I bumped it to June 22nd.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.


Due to a problem on another site which was apparently used as a source for Ben Swann's report, it contains an inaccurate attribution of a quote.

Jennifer Sheehan did not actually write the sentence "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.”

To see the actual correspondence between the RNC General Counsel's Office and Mrs. Lord, please visit


Mike Ridgway, Former member of the Utah Republican State Central Committee

So what

States can bind all they want to but answer me this. If I go to the National Convention and I am bound to a candidate and I abstain from voting on the first round then what can the state do to me? If you do not know let me tell you. NOTHING! State GOP does not have the power to do anything. End of story.

Rules are Made to be Broken

You know, you can argue this one till the cows come home, as they say.

A group of people like the RNC, can make and break their own rules as they choose, if enough people in said party will go along with it and whatever tactics they see fit to use to accomplish such a goal. They may wait till the convention and then try to rewrite the rules on the spot, if they can get away with it, and toss out any Ron Paul delegate into the street, using the $50 million worth of legal mafia muscle in their employ to enforce it. At this point, is anyone still surprised at what lengths they will go to to have their day, their way?

But there is a growing presence of Ron Paul republicans within their party, poopin' all over it! And they're not going away without a fight. And those numbers of RP people, can and have been rewriting the history of the party daily and will continue to do so. At some point, they will rewrite the rules of the GOP party and overwhelm it like a tsunami force. Now the old guard can put up a fight. They can call in the national committee and even try to lean on political powers and the justice dept. for rulings that favor them being corrupt as hell and kicking out every single Paul supporter from out their midst.

But one thing they cannot do is stop this movement from being successful in changing politics in America, either with or without the GOP or any other damn party, tea party not excepted. I rest my case.

So then

So I guess Romney's campaign is nothing but Wall Street money & TV ad attacks. No wonder he can't win delegates, he has no actual supporters. I guess they forgot about actual supporters up in their ivory towers. Might as well go for Ron Paul then. Oh, Romney has a few supporters, since he clearly said 'corporations are people' - too bad for him his corporations can't be delegates.

***Feel free to copy/paste/edit/share as you see fit :D

northstar's picture

Judge Napolitano just tweeted the video too

Just a few minutes ago. I tweeted back asking him for his thoughts about the video.

Real eyes realize real lies

We want our country back

Every year is a year for Ron Paul!

northstar's picture

No response yet

I tried :-)

Real eyes realize real lies

We want our country back

Every year is a year for Ron Paul!

denying Romney 1144 = win

even considering states having their own specific rules about this, if we can get to the threshold of denying Romney the 1144, then we're in!

If there's enough Paul backers to hold their ground on the first ballot, then those people WILL NOT be swayed. Even if we have to take it to a 30th ballot, Paul supporters will not back down and the nominee will have to be Paul.

Disappointed by the sheep here

A few people (myself included) have brought up the factual inaccuracies in this report. I was hoping that would spark some level headed discussion. Instead, those posts are voted down and all we get are a bunch of mindless sheep posts talking about how awesome we are and how awesome Ben Swann is.

Here are some facts:

1. Romney won 90% of the vote in the 2008 Utah primary. McCain did not win it by 62% as Ben Swann reports. As far as I know, Ben Swann has made no effort to correct that.

2. Some states have laws about delegate binding. For example, the Revolution News Network posted on Ben Swann's Facebook account Georgia law: O.C.G.A. § 21-2-196, TITLE 21. ELECTIONS, CHAPTER 2. ELECTIONS AND PRIMARIES GENERALLY , ARTICLE 5. PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PRIMARY. If the RNC can override state law (I don't believe that they can) to make all delegates unbound, then the RNC can do anything, including not seating Ron Paul delegates, ejecting people from the convention, or creating new rules to bind everyone's vote.

Everyone should stop patting each other on the back. We have long odds and a dog fight to get anywhere in the RNC. I'm really disappointed that people here are willing to overlook inaccuracies in Ben Swann's reporting when we get upset at inaccuracies on reporting from MSM regarding Ron Paul. I didn't bother watching Ben Swann's report on the NDAA because I don't want to fact check it.

emalvini's picture

Why Should We Believe You ..Where Is Your Proof?

Maybe you ought to PROVE your information is more reliable than Ben Swann's.

I don't believe much of anything until it is proven to me or the person telling me has proven him or herself very reliable in the past.

Can you verify or prove what you are saying?

I'm not an expert or have all the information, but, I like Ben Swann and I believe most of what he says is accurate. He has sighted the rules as proof of what he says..

Some of us are a little naive too trusting, gullible and a little too trusting Ok, but for the most part what Ben Swann has sighted seems very accurate.

You will have to sight proof of what Ben Swann is says is inaccurate..

here is your proof

It isn't difficult to find. Google search "2008 utah primary" There is a wikipedia page with the election results. If you don' t trust wikipedia, the official results are still available. They match those on wikipedia. I checked for myself.

As for srate law, I gave you an example statute. Go check and see what it says. Your post is an example of what I was talking about. Don't sit back and believe everything someone tells you. Check for yourself. Think for yourself.

here is your proof


The RNC doesn't agree with you

“[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.”.
~Jennifer H. Sheehan Legal Council For RNC 2008.

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

Are you sure?

From Reason.com late last night:

That letter notwithstanding, this language from the 2008 "Rules of the Republican Party" adopted in September 2008 does seem to allow for binding according to state Party rules or even state law. See page 18:

Delegates at large and their alternate delegates and delegates from Congressional districts and their alternate delegates to the national convention shall be elected, selected, allocated, or bound in the following manner:

(1) In accordance with any applicable Republican Party rules of a state, insofar as the same are not inconsistent with these rules; or

(2) To the extent not provided for in the applicable Republican Party rules of a state, in accordance with any applicable laws of a state, insofar as the same are not inconsistent with these rules; or

(3) By a combination of the methods set forth in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this rule; or(4) To the extent not provided by state law or party rules, as set forth in paragraph (d) of this rule.

Thus, it seems, deciding whether any state's delegates are bound, by the language above or at least how I'm understanding it, requires looking at that state's laws or party regs, not just the language of a letter from an RNC legal counsel

Adding my comment: Rule #15 from page 18 of the rules are pretty clear and speak about binding of delegates. Rule 38 does not apply as not all delegates from each state are bound (thus no unit rule).

gedankenexperiment.dk views on finance, politics and science

Romney Beat Himself

It matters not...Rule 38 was used by Romney's legal council to gain Romney a delegate in 2008 that was bound to McCain. Of course we can expect the flip flop to flop and flip the ruling...but it is in the books folks. Ron Paul delegates (bound or not) WILL vote for Ron Paul ... trust me. I was one a the precinct level and the feeling in the air is that of defiance against a corrupt establishment bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs and bolstered by the Bohemian Grove (San Fran)club crowd. You know ... this is really getting fun now.

emalvini's picture

Some People Have Trouble With Legalize.. What Are You Saying?

Please speak plainly. I don't understand legalize like you may.. What is the bottom line of what you typed with regard to page 18?

I am saying (as is Reason)

that in fact, Mr. Swann is wrong and that delegates can and are bound as described in the quoted section State party rules, state laws, etc are all mentioned. Rule 38 only applies if those state rules or laws mandate that each and every delegate vote the same way which as we all know by now is not the case.

I have no idea what rules were in effect prior (and applicable) to the 2008 convention.

gedankenexperiment.dk views on finance, politics and science

GoodSamaritan's picture

Link to FairVote.org analysis of GOP Rules re: Delegates

The RNC rules on this were decided in 1964. The RNC legal analysis from 2008 simply reiterated that decision.


Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Thanks for fact checking...

I have also been slightly leery of some of the sheepishness that takes place even here, since it's the very root of the problem against which the liberty movement struggles nationally; I tend to forgive it because it pales in comparison to the manner in and extent to which the rest of the country suppresses facts and logic in order not to disturb the status quo... okay, and also because I am clearly biased.
Either way, I am glad that there are folks like you who are willing to be rugged individuals in a crowd of rugged individuals in temporary sheep's clothes! Would be shocked if supporters of the other campaigns took such great lengths to ensure that their victories not come at the cost of compromising the rules of the game.

Unlearning and self-teaching since 2008. Thanks, Dr. Paul!

Mark Levin clip

Anyone happen to have the clip of Mark Levin admitting defeat??

Max out

So two weeks ago, I bought a $1 scratch off ticket here and Florida, and somehow won the top prize of $4,000 (pictures if needed). I have already donated $500 towards the campaign, so I figured there is no better way to spend my lucky winnings then to donate half ($2,000) to the campaign to max out! This is the first time in my life I have been happy to give away my money, especially since it is free. May 17th, this guy will Max out, and be proud to do it!


buy another ticket :)

Ben Knows

How to keep a job and bread his butter!

Ben dreams this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94IdL3djJVU&ob=av2e

Life deserves liberty and freedom

I think it's good

Been doing some reading and while the 2008 situation was unique, the RNC legal letter was not specific to that situation. State parties determine binding not the RNC. And I think this is where some of the confusion is coming into play determining state party rules from nation. So this letter was essentially saying that sure the states may bind their delegates but the RNC will not enforce, support or recognize such binding considering all on the national convention floor, free agents. It reminds me of the DOMA law which the republicans pushed to reconcile the problems of full faith and credit. Sure the states can pass laws allowing for gay marriage, but if the gay married couple decides to move to a state that does not support gay marriage, that state would not be required to recognize said union under law as they would for traditional marriage. By all means correct this if my assumptions are in error, but I think we are good and can use this 08 RNC letter as validation for delegates to abandon Romney.

emalvini's picture

Once The State Bound Delegates Move On To The RNC :

The RNC will not enforce state binding rules... Consequently, Romney bound delegates can vote for, Romney, or Ron Paul or they may abstain...

(** Caveat **) That's assuming that Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are the only GOP nominees placed the ballot at the the RNC..

To Review : If Romney wins any given primary and he is awarded X amount of BOUND DELEGATES and they go to the RNC, they become unbound in the sense that they may vote for whomever they want, because the RNC will not enforce or restrict those BOUND STATE DELEGATES to vote only for Romney.

Is going to happen?

Unless we get out of the cocoon, we be done...Let the world know about liberty and Ron Paul with an intelligent flavor

Life deserves liberty and freedom

Tenacity Prevails

Still, it's good to be cognizant of the opposing opinion. Brian Doherty, for example at http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/11/are-republican-delegates-b..., says that deciding whether any state's delegates are bound or not requires looking at that state's laws or party regulations. He says: "Rules of the Republican Party" adopted in September 2008 (see page 18) seems to allow for binding according to state Party rules or even state law:

"(1) In accordance with any applicable Republican Party rules of a state, insofar as the same are not inconsistent with these rules; or

"(2) To the extent not provided for in the applicable Republican Party rules of a state, in accordance with any applicable laws of a state, insofar as the same are not inconsistent with these rules; or

"(3) By a combination of the methods set forth in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this rule; or

"(4) To the extent not provided by state law or party rules, as set forth in paragraph (d) of this rule."

In the end, it's probably all a matter of interpretation and -- as in the case of results we've been getting at the district and state conventions -- tenacity prevails.

What state laws

There are no state laws. No one and I mean no one has every been prosecuted for breaking RNC rules. Why? Because there are no laws to break, state or national.

As I've said in a comment to Neverquit - Two sets of rules

In the following comment I make a decent case supporting Ben's conclusions.
Link: http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2450017
If I may?
For your consideration - Some excerpts:

"All States have their own rules, some similar, some not. None are laws, however."

"Furthermore, it doesn't matter what a State's rules declare once you have reached the National Convention, the main Convention's rules supersede and overrule any before it. It must, or there would be far too many ways to undermine the National vote! You do see why that has to be, right?"
"....interpretation of the rules .... has similarities to how our laws are interpreted, with precedent from Case Law and rulings of Counsel. If what Ben read from is a true, verbatim document released by the RNC's own legal counsel, that is the ruling everyone must follow unless it is challenged."
".... let's all concentrate on taking advantage of this opportunity that, I am certain, God has deliberately put in our path."

"Trust, but verify"
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."
- Ronald Reagan