Liveblog Discussion of Election Results will officially begin at 10pm EST Tuesday night.

Races to Watch

Likely Wins
Ted Cruz (TX-Senate)
Justin Amash (MI-3)
Steve Stockman (TX-36)
Tom McClintock (CA-4)
Chip Cravaack (MN-8)

Key Races
Jessica Puente Bradshaw (TX-34)
Don Volaric (MI-9)
Kerry Bentivolio (MI-11)
Dan Sebring (WI-4)
Jeff Flake (AZ-Senate)
John Koster (WA-1)
Dan Halloran (NY-6)
Lee Byberg (MN-7)

Longshots
Thomas Massie (KY-7)
Barry Hinckley (RI-Senate)
Kurt Bills (MN-Senate)
Delia Lopez (OR-3)
Eric Knowles (MD-3)
John Raese (WV-Senate)
John Dennis (CA-9)
Chris Fields (MN-5)

Early this morning, after a long struggle with cancer, Russell Means went to join his ancestors from his family’s ranch in Porcupine, South Dakota. Russell was an inspirational leader, not just for Native Americans but for those of all races and backgrounds who believe that life demands that we be free. As a writer, an activist and as an performer Russell touched many people and leaves behind a unique legacy in those he inspired to live free. His message that what government has done to his people would one day be the fate of all people if government was not checked was prophetic and must be remembered.

“Increment by increment…you have allowed your country to implement Indian law in the United States of America. American government since the inception of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1824 has been busy practicing and perfecting its policies on us and then exporting them to the world and bringing them home to roost ont he backs of the American people.”

Russell Means was born on South Dakota’s Pine Ridge Sioux Reservation in 1939. His family moved to California where he graduated from San Leandro High School. He then attended Oakland City College and Arizona State. Russell became involved with the American Indian Movement after meeting co-founder Dennis Banks while working as the Director of Cleveland’s American Indian Center. During the early 1970s he led AIM to stage many protests, the most prominent of which was the 71 day occupation of Wounded Knee in 1973. He also took part in “The Longest Walk” march in 1978 to protest anti-Indian legislation including the forced sterilization of Indian women. This lead to the passage of a resolution in Congress declaring that Indians had the right “to believe, express and exercise their traditional religions, including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites.”

Russell went on to write inspirational books, record two collections of protest songs, speak all over the country and appear in a number of movies including Last of the Mohicans and Pocahontas. He was active in the Libertarian Party and served as South Dakota coordinator for the Republican Liberty Caucus. Russell became the face of the Indian rights movement in America and an advocate for liberty for all peoples of all nations. The Los Angeles Times described him as the most famous American Indian since Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse.

His spirit will stalk the land like a giant so long as we remain strong in our belief in liberty and continue to take the fight he championed to the halls of power in every state and in the nation’s capital.

 

“Sanctions are affecting the entire country, but it is the people that bear the brunt and have the least ability to protect themselves from this pressure.” Trita Parsi, President of the National Iranian American Council

In the wake of heavy sanctions from the United States and the European Union, Iran’s economy is very near to failing. The Iranian rial hit an all-time low this morning, trading at 32,000 per U.S. dollar, a drop of more than 9% since last Monday.

The rial has been dropping steadily in value over the last nine months as more and more sanctions have been imposed. Iranians are dealing with food and medicine shortages while the E.U. and the U.S. prepare to impose even tougher restrictions.

Earlier this week the Iranian government established a new three-tiered currency system and opened “exchange centers” in an attempt to stabilize the failing currency. The system allows importers of high priority goods like meat and grains to buy dollars at the official “reference” rate of 12,260 rials to the dollar.

Those who import other basic goods are allowed to buy dollars at a “non-reference” rate 2 percent less than the open market value of the rial. Last Thursday, Iran’s central bank stated that the rate was 23,927 rials to the dollar.

However, this move doesn’t seem to have done anything to uphold the value of the rial. In fact, the effort seems to have backfired, contributing to the current market drop. According to an article on arabianbusiness.com, the open market appeared to be “resisting” the change.

Mahmoud Bahmani, Iran’s central bank governor, believes that the resistance will end if people see that the rial is backed by strong currency. However, this is the same central banking system that has recently been accused of mismanagement of the situation by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Iranian legislators continue to be optimistic. Some are not trying to play the”blame game” with the E.U. and the United States. Legislator Ezzatollah Yousefian stated that international sanctions were not a major cause of the economic crisis in Iran.

“The first approach today is that authorities accept their mistakes and failures, second, that they not blame their mistakes on others, and third, that they invite all the pundits and experts to find a way to solve the problems of the economy,” said Yousefian.

According to an article in the Jerusalem Post, Iran’s oil losses could be devastating. By the end of the year, Iran may have lost 45-50 billion dollars in oil sales.

Israel’s Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, warned that continued sanctions could create an uprising in Iran, much like the one in Egypt last year that removed Mubarak from power. In an interview with Haaretz, a Israeli newspaper, Lieberman said that he believed that Iranians would stage their own version of the Tahrir revolution.

“The situation in Iran, and the feelings of the man on the street, is one of economic catastrophe,” he told Haaretz.  “Just this week there was another devaluation of the Iranian rial …. There’s a shortage of basic goods, a rise in crime, and people are trying to flee the country, sending money abroad.”

“The young generation is sick of being held hostage and sacrificing their future,” Lieberman said.

The Iranian people are the ones who feel the brunt of sanctions. In the past year, the value of the rial has fallen more than 75%, and food prices have skyrocketed more than 50%. A bad harvest coupled with tougher restrictions has left many facing the fear of grain shortages. Over the summer, queues were formed for government subsidized chicken. As reported by Reuters, one cleric suggested that Iranians meet their protein needs with egg soup if they could not afford meat.

Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, said that the situation now is much different from the war between Iran and Iraq in the 1980′s, when similar shortages were faced. “They (the government) will certainly attempt to recreate this narrative of Iran versus the world, but at the end of the day far more Iranians care about the price of chicken than they do enriched uranium.”

Speaking to the United Nations last Thursday,  Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, called for international “red lines” in regard to the nuclear program in Iran and urged U.S. officials to do the same.

Netanyahu, in his speech, said, “For nearly a decade, the international community has tried to stop the Iranian nuclear program with diplomacy.

That hasn’t worked.

Iran uses diplomatic negotiations as a means to buy time to advance its nuclear program.

For over seven years, the international community has tried sanctions with Iran. Under the leadership of President Obama, the international community has passed some of the strongest sanctions to date.

I want to thank the governments represented here that have joined in this effort. It’s had an effect. Oil exports have been curbed and the Iranian economy has been hit hard.

It’s had an effect on the economy, but we must face the truth. Sanctions have not stopped Iran’s nuclear program either.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, during the last year alone, Iran has doubled the number of centrifuges in its underground nuclear facility in Qom.

At this late hour, there is only one way to peacefully prevent Iran from getting atomic bombs. That’s by placing a clear red line on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Red lines don’t lead to war; red lines prevent war.”

An anonymous official told Haaretz that Israel has stepped up its efforts to put pressure on the European Union to impose further sanctions on Iran.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told CNN that he hoped talks would be more productive after the U.S. presidential election. “We have seen during many years that as we approach the United States presidential election, no important decisions are made,” Ahmadinejad in an interview that was published Saturday.

“Following the election, certainly the atmosphere will be much more stable, and important decisions can be made and announced.”

Ahmadinejad intimated that meetings over Iran’s nuclear program with the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, plus Germany, will result in “a very important decision” following the November election.

“We have set forth proposals, we are holding dialogue,” he said in the CNN interview.“We do hope to be able to take some steps forward.”

Iran continues to deny any attempts to produce nuclear weapons and says that their intent is peaceful and for civilian purposes. The West is adamant that Iran is developing weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, the Iranian people are starving and dying because of lack of medicine. Where do we, as Americans, draw our “red line” on the acts against other countries under the guise of humanitarianism?

“Iran’s leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment. I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.”

Barack Obama

Its an exciting time to be a Republican.  Americans have called on the Republican Party to return to it’s basic principles of protecting liberty, promoting individual responsibility and confining government to its constitutionally mandated duties. Limited government is always undermined by those in both major political parties who seek to eliminate our choice as consumers, to sacrifice our liberties and to invade our personal lives.  There are many in both parties who recklessly spend tax money and borrowed funds to curry favor with narrow interests and to protect entrenched establishments. That’s why a group of concerned Republicans have decided to form the Republicans Liberty Caucus of Colorado.  At a time when so much new energy has infused the Republican party we, who stand for liberty and against more spending, have an opportunity to transform the party and our government. But we must organize to win in the electoral system. As a state chapter of the national Republican Liberty Caucus, we represent a growing movement within the Republican Party that is dedicated to limited government, fiscal sanity, the rule of law and the freedom to choose.

• Working within the State Republican Party and with conservative organizations to identify, recruit and support candidates for state and local government who hold to our principles.
• Monitoring legislative activity to make elected Republican accountable to the principles on which they campaigned.
• Encouraging our members to participate in the Republican party organization and promoting membership in RLC among party leadership.

This can be a time of growth and renewal for the Republican Party.  Many unaffiliated voters and disaffected republicans share the values of Republican Liberty Caucus but have had very few elected officials to speak on their behalf.  Through our efforts, we will provide them with a political home and make their voices  heard.   Wehope you’ll join us!

Recently, news came out that Mitt Romney’s effective tax rate was 14%. While that is higher than 97% of the American people, the universal outcry from the left was that Romney didn’t pay enough in taxes. Not so, Romney really ought to have paid no taxes at all. How could I say such a thing? Well, almost all of his income was from investment returns, and there should be no taxes on investments. The capital gains and dividends tax rates should both be 0%. Taxing capital gains and dividends is double taxation. A corporation’s earnings were already taxed — usually at a 35% marginal rate. Profits paid in the form of dividends  paid directly to investors were already taxed. Taxing it again is double-taxation. Profits not paid out as dividends increases a company’s value and is reflected in a company’s stock price.  So, as stock prices go higher, that too is also based on after-tax earnings — so capital gains are also double taxed. Either way, an investor bears the cost of taxes on corporate profits. In Romney’s case, he invested money  into various companies. That money was used to grow those companies and that growth was taxed through corporate taxes. Then, Romney was taxed once again through capital gains and dividend taxes. His 14% effective tax rate ignores the taxes he paid through corporate taxes. Beyond the fundamental unfairness (I love turning that leftist phrase against them) of taxing earnings twice , it’s just bad for economic growth. Economies don’t grow without capital investment, and we should remove every artificial barrier that discourages capital investment. If we want more jobs, we need profitable businesses and new innovation. To get that, we need capital investment to provide the real economic resources to fuel new ventures and expansion. And the higher the capital gains tax rate, the more it discourages risk taking and the less economic growth and innovation we get. Mitt Romney’s investments created jobs and new products and services that benefit consumers. We should cheer his investments instead of taxing it multiple times. We need to encourage more investments like that by eliminating the capital gains and dividends taxes entirely. While it’s tragic that Mitt Romney had to pay so much in taxes, the real loser in this deal is us. We could have enjoyed more new innovative products, more jobs, and a better standard of living had those investments not been taxed twice.

(This resolution proposal originated from a working group of RLC delegates and precinct chairs, but does not represent an offiical statement of the RLC or any of our chapters unless they choose to pass it as such. The intent is for it to be acted on by individuals through their local Republican parties, not necessarily as an official initiative of RLC chapters)

By now I would hope that most people reading this are very familiar with the abuses of process, fraud and violations of party rules which marred the Republican National Convention in Tampa. From the start of the committee meetings to the final gavel there was a pattern of behavior from the party leadership which made very clear that control of the party had been taken away from the body of members and the delegates representing them at the convention and seized by a small cadre acting on behalf of the Romney campaign and powerful special interests. They sacrificed the best interests of the party and the rights of party members to take control of the convention and restructure the party rulesto reduce the influence of the grassroots and of state parties in the future.

The national media gave this story of what went on behind the scenes at the convention very little coverage, but you may have followed some of the developments here on this site. If you didn’t follow the story or wanted to know what was behind some of the protests you may have heard about, the best way to catch up on what went on is to read our archive or view the outstanding video reports from Ben Swann on WXIX in Cincinnati.

The result of these events is that a convention which should have been designed to build unity behind the presidential nominee instead helped to unify grassroots Republicans against the small group of opportunists who seem to have taken over the party. The events at the convention finally made many average Republicans realize that what was going on was not an attempt to stop Ron Paul supporters from being disruptive, but a much larger powergrab directed against all of the traditional constituencies of the party except for a small group of insiders. Republicans are starting to realize that after Tampa it is no longer our party, but one controlled buy powerbrokers who plan to use the party and use us for their own ends.

In response it is essential that the base of the party reassert itself and that we demand a return to bottom-up organization where authority derives from the members through their county and state parties and is not imposed from above by the dictates of a small elite. The first step in doing that is to assert clearly that we do not accept what happened in Tampa, that we condemn the methods used and we reject the rule changes which resulted.

The way to do this is for Precinct Chairs nationwide to take a resolution to their county parties condemning the abuses at the convention and making very clear their rejection of the new rules and new structure of the party. A working group of Delegates and Precinct Chairs has drafted a proposed resolution, and we hope that it or something like it will be passed by as many County Executive Committees as possible, sent on and passed by State Republican Executive Committees and ultimately make its way to the Republican National Committee before it meets in January.

Here is the text of the resolution. If you are active in your local Republican Party, please take it to your Count Executive Committee or your Precinct Chair and urge them to pass it and act on it.

Whereas, the management of the Republican National Convention in Tampa displayed a blatant disregard for the rules under which the convention committees and convention’s general business session were supposed to be conducted;

Whereas, national party leaders and agents of the Romney campaign worked to disenfranchise legitimately elected delegates, silence dissent and disregard legitimate motions and the results of votes during the national convention;

Whereas, fraud and coercion were used to pass new rules which reduce the power and autonomy of state and local party organizations, allow future rule changes without proper oversight by the body of the party and impose a top-down structure of governance in place of the party’s traditional bottom-up structure;

Whereas, most of the factional problems at the convention could have been resolved through reasonable negotiation in ways which promoted unity and cooperation, but were instead dealt with by a heavy handed incompetence which has led to greater divisions, a weakening of the party and loss of support for the presidential nominee;

Whereas, responsibility for the mismanagement and abuse of process at the national convention ultimately rests with the national Chairman;

Whereas, it is to the benefit of the party to protect the rights and interests of party members and preserve the traditional and unique practices of the state parties;

Therefore be it resolved that:

We call for the immediate resignation of Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus;

We reject the validity of all of the revisions to the party rules passed at the Tampa convention and consider the 2008 rules to remain in effect;

We assert the primacy of the state parties in determining policy for conducting party elections, nomination of candidates and apportionment of delegates within their states without the interference of the national committee or any campaign or outside entities.

We urge our State Republican Executive Committee, our State Chairman and our Republican National Committee representatives to act on this resolution and vote to return control of the party to the state parties and the body of party members.

Remember, this resolution needs to be passed by as many county and state parties as possible before the end of the year so that it can be sent on to the RNC in January.

Drawing on the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, the US District Court of the Southern Region of New York has granted a permanent injunction against the exercise of the indefinite military detention powers claimed by the United States government in section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act.

The 112 page decision goes into great detail on how the threat of indefinite detention without due process of law imposes a chilling effect on the free speech rights of critics of the government, as exemplified by the plaintiffs who include prominent government critics and radicals like Noam Chomsky.

During the Congressional debate over the passage of the NDAA many in Congress claimed that the bill did not contain provisions for the indefinite detention of civilians in violation of their Constitutional rights. The proponents of the bill went to some lengths to rearrange the text and obscure the presence of those provisions to give them grounds for denying their existence. As demonstrated in the video accompanying this article, some supporters of the bill like Rep. Allen West (R-FL) were insultingly dismissive of those who complained about the NDAA. The court’s ruling definitively refutes any contention that the NDAA does not include these provisions, confirming the opinions of many civil rights lawyers and explaining in detail how section 1021 of the NDAA could be used to deprive citizens of their liberty at the whim of the Executive Branch.

At the time the NDAA was being debated groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Republican Liberty Caucus went to great lengths to provide legislators with detailed and up to date information on the dangerous content of the bill and organized extensive write-in and call-in campaigns opposing its passage. These efforts were coordinated with the efforts of legislators like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) who spoke up against the bill in Congress.

There is really no excuse for those legislators who voted for the NDAA. The flaws in the content were too well known and well publicized for them to plead ignorance. Voters are unlikely to find the self-serving arguments of the bill’s authors that terrorism is such a threat that we need to give up our basic civil liberties to be persuasive now that the court has issued this injunction.

Those who claimed the NDAA did not include this provision should read the detailed explantion of the content of the bil in this ruling and at the very least they should publicly apologize. It would not be unreasonable for some of the more outspoken advocates of the bill like Rep. West to resign. The ruling is absolutely unequivocal that the NDAA does give the President the power to suspend due process and allow the military to arrest civilians and hold them indefinitely without charges or trial.

If you have time to read the ruling, the summary of the arguments made by lawyers from the Justice Department is eye-opening. Their presentation of their position is so arrogant and they seem to be so callous in their disdain for the rights of citizens that they raise questions about their fitness and public servants and the failure of Attorney General Eric Holder to uphold his responsibility as the chief advocate for the people and their rights. He seems to have forgotten that he is the people’s lawyer and become nothing but a mouthpiece for the government.

The ruling concludes:

“Military detention based on allegations of “substantially supporting” or “directly supporting” the Taliban, al-Qaeda or associated forces, is not encompassed within the AUMF and is enjoined by this Order regarding § 1021(b) (2). No detention based upon § 1021(b) (2) can occur.”

In granting an injunction the court not only makes clear that the NDAA contains these powers, but also blocks their exercise, protecting the rights of citizens. It is a travesty that we should have to rely on the courts to protect us from such a clear violation of our rights. Our elected representatives ought to be looking out for our interests and should never have passed the NDAA in its current form. Far too many of them failed in this basic responsibility to their constituents.

For the time being we are free of this gross abuse of government power, but it is likely that Attorney General Holder will appeal the ruling and attempt to reclaim this power, and it’s probably inevitable that the Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee of Senatorial malfeasance, John McCain (R-AZ) and Carl Levin (D-MI) will look for new ways to incorporate indefinite military detention powers in the NDAA when it comes up for review next year.

On Tuesday the Rules Committee at the Republican National Convention will meet to work out final details of proposed rules changes which were produced over the weekend and widely greeted with outrage by the grassroots of the party.

We have provided extensive coverage of this situation (see our News and Opinion sections) and between our efforts and those of other groups and activists the media has taken a strong interest in the situation.

As a result a compromise proposal has been offered by party insiders in the Rules Committee, which only partially addresses some of the concerns raised in the Minority Report.

This small compromise is not a sufficient response. It leaves the RNC with the ability to change rules at will between elections and still imposes onerous top-down restrictions on state parties which reduce grassroots participation. It is like a thief offering you a slice of the loaf of bread he stole from you and expecting gratitude.

At this point there seems to be no good reason for the delegates to back down and accept a compromise. If they want their media showcase convention then the party elite cannot afford the negative press which would come from prolonging this confrontation.

If we can persuade delegates and committee members to stand firm the opposition will back down.

At this link you will find a PDF file with the phone numbers and emails of the members of the committee. Please take a few minutes in the morning to call or email the ones from your state or any others you might wish to reach out to and urge them to vote to withdraw all of the proposed rule changes.

Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas board member Jeff Larson gives his first-hand report of events in the Credentials Committee at the Republican National Convention in Tampa during their main meeting Friday of last week. Accompanying video includes a short interview with Jeff from a local TV station.

Short version, the good guys lost all three today: Maine, Oklahoma, and Oregon.

Karin (Credentials Committee member from Maine) was prevented by RNC rules from voting on her own case. The Credentials Committee voted to allow her to speak, though.

The format was, first, counsel for each side got 30 minutes (or 25 minutes plus 5 minutes for rebuttal). Next, Credentials Committee members could question counsel or their witnesses. Finally, counsel and witnesses were excused, and Credentials Committee members could make whatever motions they wanted. Each of the over 100 Credentials Committee members could speak twice to each motion.

The Chair moved to allow the Vice-Chairs to speak. All the Vice-Chairs were also members of the Committee on Contests, which had pre-heard each of the three cases and had ruled against us each time. Mike (Credentials Committee member from Virginia) objected on the grounds that this would allow the Vice-Chairs to prejudice the Credentials Committee in favor of accepting the Committee on Contests reports (which were all against us). A vote was taken, and the Credentials Committee overwhelmingly voted to allow them to speak.

There was a motion to limit debate to 2 hours. Although it wasn’t clear what the motion applied to, it passed overwhelmingly.

Counsel then presented for Maine. The Challengers (the bad guys) claimed the convention was an utter mess, with people wandering in off the street and voting, people being issued other people’s credentials, etc. The Respondents (the good guys) claimed that aside from a few hiccups, the convention was well run and that all the delegates won by huge margins.

One of the questions was, “If credentials was such a mess, how did you know you had a quorum?” Respondent’s counsel answered that there were 1800 votes cast in the delegate’s races out of 2700 registered in attendance, which pretty well ought to be a quorum.

After over an hour of questions, Mike from Virginia asked just what the 2-hour limit applied to. The Chair said he thought it meant presentations+questions+motions and debate, but he’d let questions continue anyway. Someone then called for the orders of the day, which automatically cut off questioning. In my opinion, the questions hadn’t quite become circular, but had gotten to the point where little new ground was being covered.

There was a motion made to accept the report of the Committee on Contests, which would have tossed half the Paul delegates and replaced them with Romney delegates appointed by the Committee on Contests.

Mike from Virginia made a motion to amend the report to strike all the Romney delegates and replace them with the duly elected Ron Paul delegates. Karin from Maine seconded the motion, but there was an objection because she was one of the challenged delegates. (Kelly?) from Iowa provided a second, solving the problem.

The Committee on Contests had interpreted RNC rule 23 to mean, “We can do whatever we want to fix a problem with a delegation”, which is how it justified striking half the elected Paul delegates and replacing them with Romney delegates. Respondent’s counsel argued they were ignoring RNC rule 17, which allowed a delegation to elect to replace any vacant seats. This would have allowed the 5 uncontested delegates from Maine to pick the replacements. A Credentials Committee member from New Hampshire made a lengthy argument in favor of the Committee on Contest’s interpretation of rule 23. I didn’t think it had much substance.

Stavros Mendros, Credentials Committee member from Maine, made an excellent speech introducing much factual information about the Maine convention and the background. In my opinion, it had the information that Respondent’s counsel should have provided in their presentation. Stavros got an ovation from the other Ron Paul committee members and from the spectator’s gallery.

This report is not an exhaustive list of everyone who spoke to every motion, but hits some of the highlights. A committee member from Louisiana spoke against the amendment (in favor of the Committee on Contests), and the other committee member from Virginia (the lady) spoke in favor of the amendment.

A committee member from Washington gave a speech that was very hostile to Ron Paul. It was the first genuinely anti-Paul speech I’d heard that day, as opposed to one that was merely against Mike’s amendment.

Karin from Maine gave a very emotional speech, claiming that the Challengers had deliberately tried to sabotage the Maine convention, and when that didn’t work, they then filed the challenge. She used the phrase that I’m sure was on a lot of people’s minds, claiming the challenge was just an example of Sour Grapes.

Karin got applause for her speech, which was followed by a voice vote. To my ears, Mike’s amendment went down by about a 2:1 margin.

Mike then made a second motion, to amend the Committee on Contests report to strike all the disputed delegates, and to allow the 5 undisputed delegates (which included the Governor) to elect replacements.

A committee member from Minnesota made a good speech, reminding the committee that although the Republican Party was supposed to be the party of the grass roots, allowing an RNC committee to hand-pick the delegation instead of allowing Maine to select their own delegation was concentrating all the power at the top, to the detriment of the party.

Stavros Mendros from Maine then made another great speech, this one in favor of Mike’s second amendment. He mentioned that the results of the previous vote defeating his first amendment had been tweeted back to Maine, with the result that the Governor had affirmed he would not be attending the convention. Stavros begged the committee to not embarrass his state any more, and to allow them to elect their own delegates. Again, he got applause, only the 3rd time of the day for anyone.

A voice vote was taken, heavily against Mike’s 2nd motion. Mike from Virginia called for a standing vote. 12 committee members, all from states like Virginia, Nevada, Iowa, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and the Virgin Islands, all stood (I hope I didn’t miss anyone, Maine was not allowed to vote). In opposition, the entire rest of the room stood. Cries of “Shame on you!” and “Shame!” erupted from the gallery. The Chair ordered the Sergeant at Arms to remove anyone disrupting the meeting, and he escorted a couple of people out. Afterward, a few people cried “Shame” once, then immediately left the room.

Business returned to the main motion. Since both amendments had failed, the motion was to adopt the Committee on Contests report, striking half the elected Maine delegation and replacing them with Romney people. The motion carried without much opposition. (I’m pretty sure there were 12 no’s.) Thus, the Maine Ron Paul delegates under dispute were not seated. We still get half the original strength as part of the Committee on Contests “compromise”.

The Credentials Committee stood at ease, so I went out into the hall to break the bad news to some of our people. I was talking to a delegate from Arkansas, when a curious thing happened. An RNC staffer approached, and told him he had to go with her. She told me I had to come, too. I asked why, and was told that I couldn’t be here, that my guest credential had been issued in error. She said that Credentials Committee members couldn’t have guests (contradicting what they’d been told in their orientation briefing), and that only RNC members could have guests.

I made a fuss about retrieving my property from the meeting room before getting the bum’s rush, and another staffer escorted me in so I could get my hat. (It’s my special hat.) Inside, I met a Ron Paul-friendly Credentials Committee member who was hanging out in the guest area during the break. I explained the situation to him, and he got nearly as upset as I was, and followed me up to the security checkpoint where I was told to wait while the first staffer straightened things out.

To understand how absurd this all was, there were nearly two dozen guests of Credentials Committee members in the guest area of the meeting room. Yet only I and the Arkansas delegate were being asked to leave. Neither of us had been the least bit disruptive, although he looked “out of place” (hair dyed red and casual clothes). I was in a suit and tie.

The first staffer and my friend on the Credentials Committee went down the hall toward the meeting room while I was left to stew at security. A few minutes later, she came back, told me it was all a big misunderstanding, apologized, told me she hoped I hadn’t thought I was singled out because that was not the case. I was willing to let it all go at that.

EXCEPT that a few hours later, I got the other half of the story. The Credentials Committee member lost track of her for a few seconds, and when he found her again, she was talking to a couple of RNC types, asking them what to do about me. He heard one of them say, “Is he a Paul guy?” At which point the Committee member inserted himself into the conversation, and was told he was intruding on a private conversation. He begged to differ, expressed his outrage at the whole thing, and so I was allowed back in. The red-haired Arkansas delegate was allowed in, too.

Moral of the story…apparently, you can get thrown out of an RNC committee meeting just for talking to someone who looks like an obvious Ron Paul supporter. And you can get right back in if you have friends on that particular committee…but possibly not if you don’t have those friends. I’m not interested in running the experiment.

Next up was Oklahoma. The Challengers (the good guys) claimed the establishment slow-rolled the convention until taking roll-call votes was an issue, blew voice votes where delegate seats were at stake, and refused the roll-call votes that would have exposed the lie. The Respondents (the bad guys) claimed they bent over backwards to give the Paul people several breaks that weren’t in Robert’s Rules, put on a fair convention, and are the victim of sour grapes as the Paul folks lost several delegate votes 75-25 or so.

My take on it is that regardless of the merits of the Challenger’s case, the presentation of that case was very weak. My understanding is that Challenger’s counsel was not a trained attorney, and it seemed to show. In all the other challenges, everyone used the full 25+5 or 30 minutes allotted to them. After 15 minutes, Challenger’s counsel rested. The Chair asked him if he had anything else, any witnesses, anything. He passed. The other side used every minute of the time allotted to them, called one of the convention officials as a witness, and creamed them.

The case by Oklahoma Challenger’s counsel boiled down to, “They didn’t follow the rules! They didn’t follow the rules! They didn’t follow the rules!” In my opinion, a glaring omission was any explanation of why not following the rules thwarted the will of the Oklahoma convention. This is especially so in light of the Respondent’s counsel’s claim that the votes went against the Paul people by 75-25.

A Credentials Committee member from California moved to adopt the report of the Committee on Contests, which would seat the Romney delegates elected at the convention, and not seat the Paul delegates elected at the rump convention. Eric Opiela from Texas seconded the motion.

The voice vote was a massacre. I only heard one voice, possibly a second, vote nay. Even the Ron Paul Credentials Committee members who had fought so hard for Maine didn’t vote nay on adopting the Committee on Contests report…they’d have just looked foolish if they had because the case for Oklahoma was so weak. By that, I don’t mean that bad things didn’t happen at the Oklahoma convention, just that if all you’d heard was what was presented at the Credentials Committee meeting, you’d never believe anything was wrong.

The Credentials Committee stood at ease for a few minutes after considering the Oklahoma case. This is when I learned from the Credentials Committee member who had saved me from getting kicked out of the meeting about the conversation between the staffer and the RNC member, and how the Credentials Committee member had intervened on my behalf.

The last case considered was Oregon. The Challenger’s counsel (the good guys) claimed that the establishment deliberately slow rolled the conventions once they saw votes going against them, in hopes that a special Oregon rule for selecting delegates by an executive committee when the conventions fail to elect them would be invoked. Respondent’s counsel (the bad guys) claimed that there was only one convention in 5 locations, that all 5 locations had to adjourn at once, and that they couldn’t have foreseen that the day’s business would have taken so long.

The arguments were very technical at times. There was extensive questioning over whether there was one convention at 5 sites, or 5 different conventions, and the two sides disagreed on that issue. One “site” adjourned promptly at 5pm, and the other 4 “sites” continued on. The establishment considered everything the other “sites” did after 5pm to be null and void. I was amused when Respondent’s counsel (who was claiming that there was 1 convention at 5 locations, not 5 conventions) slipped a couple of times and referred to “conventions” instead of a “convention”. Challenger’s counsel pointed out that Oregon has 2 rules about holding conventions, one for conventions held in odd numbered years, and one for holding them in even numbered years, and that the Respondent’s kept referring to the wrong rule to justify their actions.

Only the at-large Alternates were in play in the Oregon challenge, but due to numerous factors, that actually made a difference with regard to Presidential nominations and voting. Someone on the Credentials Committee moved to adopt the report of the Committee on Contests, which would seat the at-large Alternates chosen by the Oregon star chamber and toss the at-large Alternates elected at the 4 Oregon conventions that did not adjourn at 5 pm. Mandy Tschoepkes (sp?) from Texas seconded that motion.

The female Virgina Credentials Committee member moved to amend the Committee on Contests report to seat the elected (Ron Paul) Alternates instead of the appointed (Romney) ones. One of the committee members from Iowa seconded the motion.

Stavros Mendros gave a speech asking why the contested Alternates from Oregon weren’t split between elected Paul supporters and appointed Romney supporters, just like the Maine delegation was. This got him applause for the 3rd time of the day. There was also an emotional speech by Mike from Virginia urging the Committee to “not reward bad behavior” (on the part of the Oregon establishment that denied the elected delegates). This was followed by a motion to call the question (stop debate and vote on the amendment to seat the Ron Paul Alternates), which passed.

The voice vote to seat the Ron Paul alternates failed by a large margin. I suspect the only “ayes” were the same 12 people who stood for Maine on the earlier vote.

Kelly from Iowa moved to amend the Committee on Contests report to throw out all the contested at-large Alternates, and to allow the uncontested Oregon Delegates to vote for replacements, as provided for by the Oregon State GOP rules. The Chair ruled her motion out of order. Mike from Virginia appealed the decision of the Chair (giving the Credentials Committee an opportunity to overrule the Chair). He needed a 2/3 majority, and the voice vote sounded like he got less than 1/3.

Stavros Mendros from Maine proposed an ammendement to the Committee on Contests report to have the Credentials Committee select half elected Ron Paul Alternates and half Romney replacements, just like the Committee on Contests did for the Maine delegation. Robert (“Max”) from the Virgin Islands seconded the motion. The voice vote failed, again by a large margin.

Someone moved the previous question (again, “let’s quit making new amendments and decided this once and for all”). This passed unanimously, as the Ron Paul Credentials Committee members were just about out of ammunition. There was a final voice vote to adopt the Committee on Contests report, tossing the elected Ron Paul at-large Alternates in favor of the star chamber-selected Romney at-large Alternates. It passed, with the usual 12 or so members dissenting.

Summary: We lost Maine, Oklahoma, and Oregon.

The Credentials Committee took one final vote. The motion was to have only one vote as a permanent committee when they reconvene after the start of the Convention. That vote will be to approve all the decisions made so far (Maine, Oklahoma, and Oregon). I expect it to pass handily.

My most recent information is that the permanent Credentials Committee will meet sometime tomorrow (Tuesday, 8/28/2012).

RNC Changing the Rules to Minimize Grassroots Efforts?
Crete, NE – Republicans taking part in the Republican National Convention in Tampa may have more on their plate than expected. Tropical Storm/Hurricane Isaac descends upon the area, but the bigger storm may be inside the convention center.
What should have been a convention lightly spiced with minor contention from the liberty wing of the Party, followed by a celebration as the Party unified under the Romney-Ryan ticket, seems to have become a battle of “establishment” vs. the “grassroots.”
“A cornerstone belief of the Republican Party,” says Laura Ebke, RLC-Nebraska Chair, “is the notion that we have checks and balances, and that we operate under republican pinciples.”
“I’ve been involved in Republican politics for as long as I can remember,” said Ebke. “I have vivid memories as a child of going to county conventions, and believing that local level political involvement was valuable to the Party. And now, I have to wonder whether today’s Republican Party cares about the grassroots anymore.”
At issue are two proposed rules, Rule 12 and 15, which would effectively minimize the input of the party’s rank and file, and put even more power in the hands of party leaders and wealthy special interests. This governing structure is no unlike that of the Democratic Party, which is much more top down than bottom up, noted Ebke.
“As I read these rules, I can’t help but believe that it effectively stomps out grassroots efforts, and will be especially harmful to the party in small counties around the state. I hope that Nebraska’s delegation will vote NO on the rules changes,” said Ebke.
The Republican Liberty Caucus, as well as a number of Tea Party related groups—including FreedomWorks—are working today to lobby RNC delegates around the country, before the vote on the Rules is taken on Tuesday.