195 votes

Massachusetts Delegates Strike Back

The Massachusetts Delegation has filed a challenge with the Committee on Contests. The 16 challenges were filed in order to restore the elected status of the MA delegation.
The Massachusetts Contestants’ Statement of Position can be seen here, along with all of the proof that will be presented to the RNC.

http://www.malibertycaucus.com/rnc-committee-on-contests/

While we have been admonished for not doing enough here in MA, we have been busy working around the clock on a number of different ways to reseat our delegates. This is a major step to reinstating our people.




Comment viewing options

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

"Then they were misinformed

"Then they were misinformed or just weren't paying close attention to the rules and to what was happening in the election. Even if they didn't know, they should have."

It wasn't until after the caucuses that Paul said he would stop campaigning. Until then supporters believed he was still 'in it to win it' . It is inaccurate to fault the voters for the mixed messages of the campaign.

"So sure, Ron Paul was going to fight up to the convention to get as many delegates as possible."

Key word - 'was' -was still operable at the time of the caucus. Supporters voted for Paul, not Romney.

"I personally think it was pretty clear for a while that the Paul campaign knew this and wasn't seriously thinking they were going to win the nomination, but had defined success in this race differently."

Certainly true for the campaign staff. Not for the grassroots who by and large do not see current goals for Tampa as 'success'.

"He knows that even if they all did break the rules, he'd still lose by a huge amount. There would be no upside, but there would be the downside of him at least partially losing his reputation as a "by the book" guy."

I agree but that is quite different from the campaign assault on those who encourage delegates to consider voting their conscience.

PS: regarding the turnout of non-Paul supporters it was nearly exactly the same this year as in 2008 in at least district (7). Both times Ron Paul supporters took all the seats (initially). In other districts I believe the turnout was higher than in 2008.

Rosie Ruiz? Nice analogy :) .

regardless of what the campaign was saying...

Regardless of the messages coming from the campaign, voters should have known the rules. The primary was to decide who the MA delegation would vote for. Romney won. The caucus was to decide who would go to Tampa to cast ballots for Romney. Many Paul supporters won. If anyone led caucus voters to believe that these meetings existed as a means of invalidating the primary, then they were incorrect and should take some of the blame. It doesn't matter if Ron Paul was still "in it to win it". The delegates were all required to vote for Romney, so everyone there was voting for Romney delegates UNLESS Ron Paul did well enough in primaries/caucuses/conventions in May and June to lead to a brokered convention - in which case they would have become free to vote for Ron Paul.

The current goals for Tampa may not be seen as "success" by some in the grassroots, but there is no possibility of any greater success than what the campaign has laid out. It's somewhat amazing to me that people are so unwilling to accept the reality of the situation and aren't more on board with Ron Paul's plan in Tampa.

Regarding turnout at caucuses, in 2008 the race had been over for a while by the time of the caucus, just like it was this time. I don't know the dates of caucuses prior to that, but in all likelihood, it had been a couple decades since there was a caucus that was truly meaningful in the sense that it helped to decide the nominee. They don't really advertise these and people don't come to them because they have historically been pretty much a formality that didn't make a difference. Also, since delegates are bound in the state, people who do know about the events are less likely to care enough to go. If delegates were unbound and the caucus took place at the end of the primary season, in a race that was virtually tied, I bet a lot more people would show.

"Regardless of the messages

"Regardless of the messages coming from the campaign, voters should have known the rules."

Again, while recognizing the rules RP supporters voted for "Ron Paul" delegates, not delegates who would not only cede the contest to Romney at the convention but become Romney boosters.

It is quite simple. If the campaign, and Ron Paul, made it clear that he was no longer in the race to win most RP voters would not have attended the caucuses.

Not true

1. They are not "Romney boosters." They just said they were following the rules.

2. The campaign was still in the race, but it was (and is) very far behind.

3. You don't speak for most RP voters.

You didn't go to the state committee meeting. Yet, you malign the delegates and the campaign. Stop being a self-righteous hypocrite.

Sorry, again, to a disagree.

Supporting Romney financially is a Romney booster; not criticizing Romney while acting as his delegate is a Romney booster.

Before Paul stopped campaigning his campaign staff had.

Certainly I don't claim to be a spokesperson but I do believe my views are closer to the majority of RP supporters than those who support Romney.

Complaining about the state committee meeting again?

Please try posting without the personal insults.

joeu

Do you pay federal taxes? If yes, then you financially support the federal government, making you a war booster (using your logic). Otherwise, you would follow your conscience and not pay or leave the country. But since you pay (if you do), you have decided that the reason for paying outweighs the harms caused by your paying.

I'm cailling you a hypocrite because you accuse others of a supposed wrong when you are gulity of an actual wrong. You are upset because they intend to vote for romney on the first ballot (which they believe they are obligated to do - like paying taxes). But you didn't attend the state committee meeting where you could have voted for liberty delegates and fair elections (provisional ballot issue).

By the way, are you ready to admit your savior lawyer and his flawsuit were a major error in judgment? You were presented early on with evidence why he was a faliure and harmful to the liberty movment. Gilbert has done more damage to the liberty movment than the votes the bound delegates will be obligated to make.

And there is certainly no denying that you were a Gilbert booster.

Apples and oranges. Though I

Apples and oranges. Though I do support those who refuse to pay taxes to oppose the war just as I support those who engage in anti-war civil disobedience for the same reason. It does not follow, as you suggest, that if we are not able to engage in one act all of our actions are invalid or questionable.

"You are upset because they intend to vote for Romney on the first ballot (which they believe they are obligated to do - like paying taxes)."

I argued that they should not hide their support for
Ron Paul (and by extensions his messages), certainly not give money to Romney's campaign and they should be open to the option of voting their conscience.

Voting for Romney is not a 'supposed' wrong. I believe it is wrong given what he has said he will do as president. If a delegate did vote for him however while making it clear that he/she opposed him,and why, so be it. That is a far cry from what the MA delegates are doing.

Not a Gilbert booster but certainly support(ed)the idea. The 'campaign' should have encouraged conscience voting, not Gilbert.

You absolutely were a Gilbert Booster

And you can be heard on those conference calls. You emailed and called delegates, urging them to listen to Gilbert and join the lawsuit.

You talk about the Mass delegates voting for Romney as if they are all doing it. I only recall one or two brainstorming about it in order to shore up the bone fides of their pledge so they wouldn't get bounced. I think one might have bought a botton or two which was technically counted as a donation.

You like throwing the word "slander" around but you also like to say a lot of harmful things about the Mass delegates that aren't true.

From what I can tell, most of the delegates/alternates who you had the greatest influence over are not going to be seated at the convention and are not going to win any lawsuit. Had the Mass delegates listend to you, they would have all been rejected by the allocation committee and then would have embarrassed themselves, the movement, and Paul buy joining up with that joke of an attorney and his flawsuit - that you promoted!

You don't want them to hide their support for Paul? Well, it was pretty clear to everyone at the state committee meeting who they supported when they were asking that the provisional ballots be counted. Where you there to show your support? No. Why?

Because you are a hypocrite. You demean people for not doing something you don't do yourself.

If you think people are going to forget that you failed to show at the state committee and vote to support fair elections and liberty delegates, you are mistaken.

You have done more practical harm to Paul's campaign this election cycle than most of the people who oppose the liberty movement in the MassGOP.

If it's apples and oranges, it's because there is more of a direct relationship between your action of sending money to the government and the killing of innocents than when a bound delegate votes for a candidate who is going to win the nomination anyway.

“And you can be heard on

“And you can be heard on those conference calls. You emailed and called delegates, urging them to listen to Gilbert and join the lawsuit.”

Mixing up facts and timing of events is not helpful. I encouraged Mass delegates to join the first conference call to find out what the lawsuit was all about. This was stonewalled by those running the Mass delegation who did want any information that might conflict with the official campaign line. Early on I had no idea whether the lawsuit was a good idea or not but anything seemed better than simply lining up votes for Romney.

“You talk about the Mass delegates voting for Romney as if they are all doing it. I only recall one or two brainstorming about it in order to shore up the bone fides of their pledge so they wouldn't get bounced. I think one might have bought a bottun or two which was technically counted as a donation.”

The ‘official’ RP Mass delegate line was/is that everyone would vote for Romney and that everyone should erase all signs of their support for Ron Paul (and his message) from the internet so that they would be seen as Romney friendly.

It was more than a button. At least one person announced a donation to the Romney campaign at a meeting- a statement to which the meeting leaders were noticeably absent in criticizing.

“You like throwing the word "slander" around but you also like to say a lot of harmful things about the Mass delegates that aren't true.”

I beg to differ.

“From what I can tell, most of the delegates/alternates who you had the greatest influence over are not going to be seated at the convention and are not going to win any lawsuit. Had the Mass delegates listen to you, they would have all been rejected by the allocation committee and then would have embarrassed themselves, the movement, and Paul buy joining up with that joke of an attorney and his flawsuit - that you promoted!”

I don’t believe I had influence over anyone. Again, promoting the only option whatever the flaws in contrast to unconditionally supporting Romney was reasonable.

“You don't want them to hide their support for Paul? Well, it was pretty clear to everyone at the state committee meeting who they supported when they were asking that the provisional ballots be counted. Where you there to show your support? No. Why?”

By the time of the committee, perhaps yes, but there was still no support for considering the option of conscience voting and so it was still to be “Ron Paul delegates for Romney” Your question has been answered many times. Give it a rest.

“Because you are a hypocrite. You demean people for not doing something you don't do yourself.

Strange complaint. If I were a delegate I would not have signed the pledge. If I went to Tampa I would not vote for Romney

“If you think people are going to forget that you failed to show at the state committee and vote to support fair elections and liberty delegates, you are mistaken.”

I don’t think anyone who supported Ron Paul for his ideas will or should forget how easily some tossed those ideas overboard.

”You have done more practical harm to Paul's campaign this election cycle than most of the people who oppose the liberty movement in the MassGOP.”

Surely you jest. The biggest nail driven into the Paul campaign was by those who planned to jump into bed, and did so, with Romney for several months.

“If it's apples and oranges, it's because there is more of a direct relationship between your action of sending money to the government and the killing of innocents than when a bound delegate votes for a candidate who is going to win the nomination anyway.”

It is a mistake to make assumptions about an individual who you don’t know.

Too much fatalism there for me. Even if the nomination was to be lost much would have been gained for the RP movement and RP issues if the fight were forcefully taken to the convention. Lots of blame to go around for the coming Romney coronation in Tampa.

joeu

There are so many falsities in your last post that I do not have time to address them all (plus, it seems that the more I repsond to you, the more you lie).

I will say that no one was stopped (or "stonewalled") from listening to the conference calls (and a good deal did listent). I was the greatest voice of opposition to the suit and I certainly don't "run the delegation." Two people actually joined the suit. Were they reprimanded or ostracized? No, because they were free to do what they wanted.

No one was asked to abandon principles. People were only asked (by local leadership) to not engage in behavior that would constitute just cause which would result in their removal by the allocation committee.

The Ron Paul campaign does not control any Mass delegates. They do not take orders from the Ron Paul campaign and they haven't even been given orders by the Ron Paul campaign.

The only request made to any Mass delegates by the RP campaign is that they behave in a civil manner.

I will not put to rest your abandonment of the liberty movement. You are a state committee member. You are free to vote however you want but you didn't even show up to the meeting to help the delegates and the liberty movement. You didn't show and now you're trying go blame others, saying it didn't matter because they weren't doing things they way you wanted them to.

I won't let you get away with lying about the Mass delegates, using false claims to harm their reputation, when you were in an official position to help and you did nothing.

They didn't listen to your bad advice. They didn't join your preferred lawsuit with its joke of an attorney. So you decided to not show up to the state committee meeting and vote for fair elections and liberty-minded delegates. That's not going away. I will tell anyone who's willing to listen about your betrayal.

“There are so many falsities

“There are so many falsities in your last post that I do not have time to address them all (plus, it seems that the more I repsond to you, the more you lie).”

I was thinking the same.

“I will say that no one was stopped (or "stonewalled") from listening to the conference calls (and a good deal did listen). I was the greatest voice of opposition to the suit and I certainly don't "run the delegation." Two people actually joined the suit. Were they reprimanded or ostracized? No, because they were free to do what they wanted.”

Not true. I do not know who you are but at my initial attempt to involve people in the first lawsuit conference call a few key delegate people when out of their way to contact those who I had notified and told them not to join the call. The record is there and it is clear.

“No one was asked to abandon principles. People were only asked (by local leadership) to not engage in behavior that would constitute just cause which would result in their removal by the allocation committee.”

Not true. They were encouraged to hide their past support of Ron Paul and by extension and most importantly his message.

“The Ron Paul campaign does not control any Mass delegates. They do not take orders from the Ron Paul campaign and they haven't even been given orders by the Ron Paul campaign.”

True and not true. True if you want to believe and promote the idea that there are no really ‘Ron Paul’ delegates and so the caucus voters who voted for them as RP delegates were under an illusion and deceived to that fact. And not true, for example, when the Ron Paul campaign by way of Benton and his local spokesperson told delegates to use an alternate pledge to the GOP. Nearly everyone followed this silly advice with the result that time and energy was wasted and the alternate pledge rejected.

“The only request made to any Mass delegates by the RP campaign is that they behave in a civil manner.”

And not to join the lawsuit. Nor be open to conscience voting.

“I will not put to rest your abandonment of the liberty movement. You are a state committee member. You are free to vote however you want but you didn't even show up to the meeting to help the delegates and the liberty movement. You didn't show and now you're trying go blame others, saying it didn't matter because they weren't doing things they way you wanted them to.”

Sigh. Again, voting for Romney delegates for Romney or “Ron Paul” delegates for Romney made no difference to me nor should it have made any difference to anyone who supported Ron Paul and his ideas..

“I won't let you get away with lying about the Mass delegates, using false claims to harm their reputation, when you were in an official position to help and you did nothing.”

No lies stated. The Mass delegates went down a road I did not support.

“They didn't listen to your bad advice. They didn't join your preferred lawsuit with its joke of an attorney. So you decided to not show up to the state committee meeting and vote for fair elections and liberty-minded delegates. That's not going away. I will tell anyone who's willing to listen about your betrayal.”

Your complaint is illogical and inconsequential when stacked up against the betrayal of the grassroots RP supporters by the official campaign.

You are a liar.

All I have to say is that there is nothing substantive that you've said in your last post that is true. Oh, and your lawsuit is a joke and a failure. It's just another example of your poor judgement. At least your name isn't in this one.

Nothing substantive? No,

Nothing substantive? No, there is nothing in the record you can rebut except, apparently, by insults.

Funny

It's quite humorous that Jesse is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. It's also interesting that all of the benton negativity stems from Kokesh and Alex Jones, two paranoid delusional characters who have even questioned Ron Paul himself.

Unstable testimony to say the least. But then again, the armchair quarterbacks know best, don't they.....?

Take a shill

Alex Jones is a shill, many know this by now, sadly enough not his armada of gullible supporters.

For Alex Jones to attack Benton makes perfect sense, it helped in stirring up anger and dividing the movement. That's a good thing for the opponents, Benton being crooked or not. And you haven't seen Jones going to the bottom with Benton or anyone else in the inner circles of the campaign revealing anything substantial to help ridding the inner circles of the campaign of infiltrators. You can be sure that there are more than one therein. The meetings of the Militia Movement in the '90s were crawling with agents and the importance of those are nothing compared to Ron Paul, the most dangerous man in America as far as the establishment is concerned.

No Jones is satisfied with spewing loud mouth disinformation on selected crucial moments and issues mixing this with equally high voiced truths formulated in such a way that no one but his followers listen.

Right...

...We'll just have to hope real patriots intervene to keep his machinations in check.

"Truth is an absolute defense to the charge of paranoia."

I thought there were 17 MA

I thought there were 17 MA delegates?

Across the nation, we all stand with you MA delegates. See you in Tampa

emalvini's picture

M & M : Maine and Mass..."Liberty Strikes Back!

To Tampa and beyond...

For Liberty!

GO MASS!!

Maine is with you!

"Truth is an absolute defense to the charge of paranoia."

sawx75's picture

Go Maine!

MA is with you!

Bumping in anticipation

Of more updates

You mean the MA GOP actually has a rule?!?!

They actually have a rule allowing the "winning" nominee to "certify" the national delegates?!?!
Talk about making the whole delegate/caucus/convention process a meaningless farce.
Why don't they just hang a sign on the front door of the caucus saying "Have fun pretending that you are citizens that actually have a say in electing your government, but don't let it go to your head. The guys on the stage are the only ones that REALLY have anything to say about who our next president will be or what our party platform will say. Have a nice day."?

******************************
The Virtual Conspiracy

Yep

So true. It all comes down to giving delegates spots to the good ol' boy club, so they can get drunk at the RNC with national political figures and try to enhance their careers.

nice work. I'm praying that

nice work. I'm praying that you all prevail.

Dang..

looks like somebody did thier homework !

sawx75's picture

We have been busy

We have been trying to communicate our message to the establishment all along. This seems to be the only way they will listen. This is a coherent, logical, well planned legal challenge.

I thought there were 17?

I thought there were 17?

sawx75's picture

There were.

One case got dropped for strategic reasons.

michael?