The dissatisfaction with this state of affairs came largely from many of the first-time delegates, especially Ron Paul followers who saw themselves being disenfranchised because the delegate slots were going to be assigned by an administrative committee which no one had voted for and appointed by the convention chairman. Even worse, the at-large delegate slots could be assigned to anyone including extra delegates from the large precincts which were already well represented.
The natural suspicion was that the nominating committee would be dominated by insiders and they would pick their cronies as delegates and leave the newcomers out in the cold. It's a reasonable concern, but to be fair, the nominating committee was set up with some representation for the Ron Paul supporters, including prominent local libertarian-leaning Republican and candidate for County Tax Assessor, Don Zimmerman. Most of those who were upset were unaware that they had an advocate on the committee, so debate got pretty heated.
The focus of the debate was on a minority report submitted by Robert Morrow who differed with the rest of the rules committee on how the problem of inadequate representation should be dealt with. The majority plan was to select the at large delegates from anyone available. Morrow's proposal was that the apportionment should be changed slightly with 36 at-large slots specifically reserved for delegates from the small precincts selected by the nominating committee.
Debate was heated and some delegates were unruly and really angry. At one point the Sergeant at Arms had to be sent over to threaten some people with expulsion. There were three microphones set up and dozens lined up at each to ask questions and make statements and generally express a great deal of dissatisfaction. Unfortunately, the rules committee chairman didn't explain the situation very well so there were a lot of questions and it took a long time for people to realize that there was no "fair" solution to the situation and that delegate slots could not possibly be allocated to satisfy everyone because the situation we were given by the state primary system was the problem and nothing we could do would change that. Even the minority report proposal wouldn't solve the problem because it replaced underrepresentation of the small precincts with underrepresentation of the larger precincts.
Not surprisingly, with the larger precincts having more delegates, the majority report was eventually adopted and the minority report was just barely voted down. The reason the process took so long was that it took a roll-call vote and several procedural voice votes to resolve the issue. Some of the dissatisfied delegates walked out after the final vote, but it was heartening to see that many Ron Paul supporters remained and I hope they'll keep working within the party to generate positive change.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
I just posted my first update after the intro. More to come soon.
Dave
2 - Dan Miller
Bismarck. Laws. Sausages.
Now why did those words pop into my head?
Dan Miller
3 - Dave Nalle
Just posted another update. It's on the exciting new second page of the article. Stay tuned. Bigtime controversy in the next entry.
Dave
4 - Dave Nalle
Another update and we're on to page 4. Tune in soon for more controversy.
Dave
5 - Dr Dreadful
A very interesting piece for two reasons:
1. Good illustration of how, even if due to the local political demographic your individual vote amounts to little more than pissing into the wind, you can still get your voice heard on the national level.
2. The way new pages kept appearing as I read.
6 - Clavos
After reading this account of all the wrangling and internecine fighting going on in only one district, I'm very amazed that the national parties are ever able to put together a rational, cogent platform, much less get a candidate elected.
Very interesting and eye-opening, Dave.
7 - TJ
Good to hear the democracy I fought for is kind of working. Good for the Paul supporters. McCain needs a reality check. What happened to all the talk about him not being conservative. I guess Huckabee and Romney supporters just sacrifice principles and just go with the party. Not Paul supporters it seems.
8 - Dave Nalle
Another update. Grim and unpleasant conclusion still to come.
Dave
9 - TJ
The wait is killing me. Grim and unpleasant for who?
10 - GOP
The gentleman who was "forced" to reveal his real name initially identified himself at "Ronnie Reeferseed". Why did you fail to mention this? His credentials were understandably challenged by another delegate, and that's when it was revealed that he was using a fake name.
The Ron Paul supporters don't do themselves any favors when they parade people like this around in a blatant attempt to disrupt what under ideal circumstances is an already tediously dry proceeding. And there was in fact an attempt to force an individual roll call vote on all 70-something at-large delegates and alternates. There was some confusion over the wording of the resolution but that was the ultimate intent.
11 - Ryan C.
Thanks for the report!
I was a delegate in this convention, and you describe pretty accurately what happened.
I had the "pleasure" of overhearing the conversations of several Legacy PAC members -- they were not pleased that Ron Paul people knew what they were doing.
Ron Paul supporters are starting to hammer out those dents put in the Republican Party by the REAL renegades: NEOCONS!
12 - witheld
Great report. This is a pretty objective take on how things went.
A couple of things I found interesting:
- Some of the delegates wore earpieces similar to those worn by news media or Secret Service. These appeared to be established party members. I would guess that they were receiving instructions on how to vote and likely distributing this information to those around them.
- Kirk Overbee, who, Chairman Pojman mentioned was our resident expert in Robert's Rules of Order, and whom we depended at times to interpret the more complex issues of parliamentary protocol at times, happened to be the voice on the recorded telephone message many received in the days before the convention. It seemed like a conflict of interest to me that the person who had referred to half of the delegates as a "Renegade Group" had so much influence over the final outcome of many parliamentary decisions throughout the night.
13 - Ryan C.
To the person above me, regarding the earpieces:
You are absolutely correct. Those individuals sporting earpieces ARE establishment Republicans who have connections with the Legacy PAC (as if 'Legacy' doesn't SCREAM establishment/status quo). Brewer's (chair of rules committee) precinct delegation sat behind mine, and I overheard some interesting conversations. Most of it was derisiveness directed towards the Ron Paul supporters, of course. I'm almost certain those earpieces were used for communication between the establishment leaders.
It was funny -- at one point, Brewer and his people actually referred to themselves as the 'establishment' when they were discussing a convention from some year in the past.
14 - Dave Nalle
Ok, I wanted to note that I've posted my final section. I've maassively violated the BC article length limit, but that's the nature of the beast.
As for the Legacy people, let me assure you that they do NOT represent the mainstream of the Republican party. They're no more of a majority than the Renegades are. They just happen to have been around longer and to have more experience and perhaps a lower standard of basic morality.
I talked to a lot of people at the convention who did not come there because of Ron Paul who were sympathetic to the Renegades and their issues and certainly supported their right to be heard and included.
The Renegades may indeed have been unruly and they were certainly disorganized, but they real justification for being frustrated, and their behavior as newcomers who ought to be given a break or two does nothing to excuse or justify the truly offensive behavior of the Legacy group.
But please, try not to keep trotting out the 'neocon' accusations. It's as offensive as when the Legacy people and their fellow travellers start calling people RINOs. The terms aren't accurate and they're only used to offend and insult.
Dave
15 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Dave,
I found this article extremely interesting to read, and very reminiscent of the kinds of things that went on at DFL conventions in Minnesota in the '80's and '90's. Apparently, things have not changed all that much.
There is a healthy desire to bring some kind of democracy into the organization by one faction, and iron-fisted control attempting to squelch that desire by an establishment group.
It is my opinion that the level you got to this last weekend was the highest level you will see democracy actually operating at, though. In Minnesota, the highest level was the Congressional District convention. Once you get to the state convention, the big money will be all over the place.
16 - Christopher Rose
Dave, just a quick heads up, there is no limit on BC article length since the recent introduction of pagination.
17 - Freddie L
Dave,
Thank you for this very informative blog. I really enjoyed your writing style. Wheter you realize it or not, you are also part of the R3volution. You have done your part with this reporting, and I hope to read more of your writings in the future. KUDOS to all of the RP supporters for putting up with all the S**T at the GOP convention. Don't be discouraged. Karma will catch up with them. My sincere thanks to you all for your efforts.
18 - REMF
"But please, try not to keep trotting out the 'neocon' accusations. It's as offensive as when the Legacy people and their fellow travellers start calling people RINOs. The terms aren't accurate and they're only used to offend and insult."
- Dave Nalle
And how do you feel about someone calling commenters "dumbasses" or "morons"?
19 - Dave Nalle
The gentleman who was "forced" to reveal his real name initially identified himself at "Ronnie Reeferseed". Why did you fail to mention this?
Because I was on the other side of the hall and his assumed name was mentioned once, while they tried to spell his born name over and over again. As I recall it was something like Gremrc, right? Not an uncommon kind of name in this region and I think the folks at the podium were subtly scoffing at him with their repeated attempts to spell it.
As for his assumed name, I don't have a problem with it. Like many sensible Republicans - familiar with the late Bill Buckley? - I think the war on drugs is an idiotic misdirection of the nation's resources.
His credentials were understandably challenged by another delegate, and that's when it was revealed that he was using a fake name.
I agree that he should have been made to use his real name, but I think an unnecessary effort was made to humiliate him.
The Ron Paul supporters don't do themselves any favors when they parade people like this around in a blatant attempt to disrupt what under ideal circumstances is an already tediously dry proceeding.
This convention was anything but tediously dry, and given the way it was going I don't think that a bit of satire was out of place.
And there was in fact an attempt to force an individual roll call vote on all 70-something at-large delegates and alternates. There was some confusion over the wording of the resolution but that was the ultimate intent.
No, you're wrong. That wording was clearly admitted in error and the author tried to withdraw it repeatedly and was ruled out of order and not allowed to submit corrected language. He was treated discourteously and essentially punished by the podium for his naivete and inexperience. The podium forced a vote on the issue in order to prevent the renegades from introducing a more sensible motion. The author of the motion clearly did not understand what he was doing.
What he SHOULD have done was to ask for a role call of the nominated at-large delegates and then moved that those who were not present be disqualified and replaced on the basis that the nomination committee had nominated at-large delegates in advance who may not have attended the convention, which I suspect was true in at least some cases.
Dave
20 - GOP
A little food for thought here.
15 or so years ago, the Joe Pojman's and Kirk Overbey's of the world wrested control of the Travis County GOP from a bunch of establishment country club WASP-types who had almost no interest in winning local elections and absolutely no interest in opening up anything to grass roots groups. They did it by slowly and quietly and methodically recruiting their own precinct chairmen and getting themselves established on the various committees through normal and accepted channels. They did not, by and large, make a spectacle of themselves every two or four years at the big show, but rather put in the grunt work of organizing and recruiting their people block by block, precinct by precinct. And in the process they opened up the process to allow and encourage grass roots participation. It is precisely because of the work that the Joe Pojman's of the party put in in the 90's that the Paul guys, who are largely concentrated in the smaller precincts, today enjoy far more representation on the various committees than they ever would have hoped to get under the pre-"neocon" or whatever you call it regimes. But the "Legacy" folks still control the big precincts, because they worked their asses off for it in the 90's. For the Paul guys - or anybody, really - to think they should be entitled to simply walk in and be given an equal seat at the table because they are "fresh" or "young" or whatever is just naive, and frankly a bit insulting.
Also, booing Perry and nominating guys named "Ronnie Reeferseed" and calling us "Nazi's" does not help, to say nothing of the 9/11 conspiracists.
21 - Dave Nalle
Thank you for this very informative blog. I really enjoyed your writing style. Wheter you realize it or not, you are also part of the R3volution.
Think of me as a sympathizer anyway. From what I saw yesterday it looks like the movement is maturing in a positive direction. There are still a lot of rough edges, but I see potential there which I didn't see earlier in the election process.
You have done your part with this reporting, and I hope to read more of your writings in the future.
If you do keep reading my writing I'm bound to irritate you eventually.
KUDOS to all of the RP supporters for putting up with all the S**T at the GOP convention. Don't be discouraged. Karma will catch up with them. My sincere thanks to you all for your efforts.
Inexperience really counted against the renegades at this convention. They were manipulated and misdirected pretty effectively. Hopefully that will change with experience, but I hope that for the state convention they search their ranks for a small group of their most knowledgeable and politically savvy and unify behind them as a spearhead to speak for them and get things done. They need to bring down the level of internal chaos to be more effective. Otherwise they might as well go join the mess that is the LP.
Dave
22 - Dave Nalle
15 or so years ago, the Joe Pojman's and Kirk Overbey's of the world wrested control of the Travis County GOP from a bunch of establishment country club WASP-types who had almost no interest in winning local elections and absolutely no interest in opening up anything to grass roots groups.
In other words, they were a bunch of ex-dems who took the local party from the traditional republicans. Sorry to say I come from that traditional GOP background and I know first hand that they are a lot more sympathetic to the renegades than 'GOP' is willing to admit.
They did it by slowly and quietly and methodically recruiting their own precinct chairmen and getting themselves established on the various committees through normal and accepted channels.
This is the smart way to stage a takeover. The problem is that they're religious fanatics who hold beliefs inconsistent with traditional Republican values.
They did not, by and large, make a spectacle of themselves every two or four years at the big show, but rather put in the grunt work of organizing and recruiting their people block by block, precinct by precinct. And in the process they opened up the process to allow and encourage grass roots participation.
So long as the grass roots agrees with them, perhaps.
It is precisely because of the work that the Joe Pojman's of the party put in in the 90's that the Paul guys, who are largely concentrated in the smaller precincts, today enjoy far more representation on the various committees than they ever would have hoped to get under the pre-"neocon" or whatever you call it regimes.
I certainly wouldn't apply the term 'neocon' to the Legacy folks. That's clearly not what they are.
But the "Legacy" folks still control the big precincts, because they worked their asses off for it in the 90's. For the Paul guys - or anybody, really - to think they should be entitled to simply walk in and be given an equal seat at the table because they are "fresh" or "young" or whatever is just naive, and frankly a bit insulting.
My point as a more or less neutral observer is that the renegades should at least be given a fair hearing and be treated with some respect for the work they have also done. The other point is that the party needs new blood and to expand its base, and the Legacy types aren't bringing in that new blood and it's unwise to slap people who want to be part of the party in the face for their enthusiasm.
Dave
23 - Dave Nalle
Also, booing Perry and nominating guys named "Ronnie Reeferseed" and calling us "Nazi's" does not help, to say nothing of the 9/11 conspiracists.
On that one I can agree with you, though it was more than just the Renegades booing Perry. There was a small but vocal faction of TollParty people there. If you read my other writing, I've taken the Paulbots to task in detail over these issues.
But let me add that it was not the Legacy faction which filled that room with more than twice as many people as showed up in 2006. They remain a small but influential minority, and numbers may eventually win out.
Most of the things the Renegade faction wanted to propose were fairly idiotic, and rather than just slapping them down the folks at the podium could have looked a lot less heavy handed and probably moved things along with less contention if they'd just let them have their say and then let us vote the proposals down.
Dave
24 - GOP
I agree that the roll call issue at the end was quite confusing all the way around. I'm still not quite sure how Pojman got the petition declared ineligible or whatever. But I had heard from many sources both prior to yesterday, and indeed during the day yesterday, that this was exactly what they would try to do. Sure enough, the petition began circulating right before the caucuses. The intent from the beginning was to wear us out so they'd have a majority at the end to reopen up anything they wanted. That they screwed up the resolution isn't the point - they were shooting for a roll call vote on each and every alternate in hopes of chasing us away for the night. Heck, even a roll call vote on the slate might have done it.
The whole pointless fight over the nominations report was little more than a test to see how much power the Paul guys might have. As you yourself mentioned in your blog, there was nothing anybody could have done to satisfy everybody. We just didn't have enough state delegates this year. btw, that's because of the Rylander vote and I wonder how many Paul guys voted for Rylander, thus creating the very problem they were so upset about? I mean, ideological purity is fine and all, but there are consequences and this is one of them.
My point is that they intentionally picked a long, drawn-out stupid fight over something that wasn't Legacy's or anybody else's fault. How do you expect Pojman to act after that? How would YOU react to someone who did that?
25 - Ryan C.
To the user named GOP,
You make it sound as though those Pojmans and Overbeys did people like Ron Paul supporters a favor, as though I should be so thankful to them for allowing me to even be there.
It may be that they enabled "grassroots participation" from whatever faction had influence before them. But, they clearly do not want the participation of those outside their own influence.
Why should they command some sort of admiration from me? It's apparent that they think my ideas, as well as those of the Ron Paul supporters, are incongruent with their thirst for power.