GOP Convention Open Read

Any news from your GOP County cenvention? Here in Gwinnett, it was loud and rowdy as a group of Ron Paul supporters tried to throw out the Credentials Committee report and elect their own Convention Chairman. They were defeated but only because, as I was told by a Paulian, a “diobalical plot” thwarted them.

What happened elsewhere?


    • nicholastjohnson says:

      Concerned and passionate citizens trying to become part of the political process is no nightmare – it’s a dream come true! Isn’t this what the GOP has needed for so long? It’s a breath of fresh air, in my opinion.

      • Doug Grammer says:

        If a bunch of people who have never been active or attended a meeting show up and try to keep the people who have been working to build the party for years from becoming delegates, it’s not a happy dream. Especially so, if they aren’t going to be active after the convention cycle.

        • nicholastjohnson says:

          You can be sure that we’ll be active long after the convention cycle.

          And, for all the people that have been working to build the party for years, I would say that Dr. Paul has given you all a very easy template to follow. Your ranks doubled (or more) this year thanks to him.

          A message of personal liberty, sound monetary policy, a strong national defense and a massive debt reduction will bring in more people than your county GOP headquarters’ can hold. If the GOP wants to build its base, they should try adopting truly conservative principles. If the GOP wants to gobble up the 40% of people in this nation who are independents, you all should consider Dr. Paul’s positions very, very carefully.

            • nicholastjohnson says:

              Perhaps. Could it be said that you massively underestimate his appeal?

              Could it also be said that when people are shown the truth and details about Dr. Paul’s policies of personal liberty and limited government without the slant of the mainstream media or other candidates they instinctively flock towards him? Could it be said that he is the only candidate who will work to restore personal liberty and reduce the size and scope of the federal government?

              They’ve got so many of you scared of the boogeyman in the Middle East that you’ll ignore the many extremely positive points about Dr. Paul and focus solely on what you perceive as weak foreign policy. To make the point, I don’t want to vote for any of the other three candidates, because I view them as having a WEAK foreign policy. Being morally and financially bankrupt is the greatest weakness, and the three other Republican candidates will continue marching down that path. I hope, for all of our sake’s, I’m wrong.

              • Doug Grammer says:

                Count the votes for Paul and then divide by the total number of votes cast and we will see whom is bad at math.

                • nicholastjohnson says:

                  I’m not sure what you mean – are you suggesting that the percentage of Paul voters is less than that of other candidates’ voters? If so, I think that is pretty elementary.

                  Since you replied to my previous post with that statement, I assume you’re trying to make a point about the post you replied to, but I don’t understand the context.

                  Please elaborate.

                  • Doug Grammer says:

                    You state that our ranks doubled because of Ron Paul. I am saying that you are bad at math. Let’s assume that every Ron Paul voter has never voted for a Republican before and that 100% of them will stay in the GOP after Congressman Paul fails to win the GOP nomination. (ha ha ha) (Not laughing that he will lose, but that 100% of the cult members will stay.)

                    Pick any state and do the math; Mississippi for example. Congressman Paul’s vote totals: 12,749. Everyone else’s vote totals: 94,981 +90,409 + 88,715 + 1,337 + 954 +409 +381.

                    Please explain your math of how “Your ranks doubled (or more) this year thanks to him.”

                    • nicholastjohnson says:

                      It seems you’ve made a good point.

                      I can only go by the numbers at the events that I attended; for whatever reason, they may not be indicative of the population at large, especially in the deep south.

                      By the way, laughing that the “cult members” will leave after the convention cycle does not help improve our party. It should probably make you cry, if you let them all get away. Instead of being so defensive, you should try to find them in your area and make sure they plan on staying long term.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      If you don’t like the term cult member, don’t let it apply to you. If you are focused only on electing your cult leader, you are a cult member. If you are out to improve the GOP, then you are a welcomed Republican. The two groups are mutually exclusive.

                      I am defensive when a group (cult) tries to use my organization as a means to an end. I am defensive of my friends who have worked hard in the GOP for years to be stepped over by first time convention attendees. If they want improve the GOP, I want them. They will still have to prove themselves and wait their turn behind people who have been building the party for years. If they are a cult member, I don’t.

                      If you want, we can look at the math in any northern or western state. You can pick the state.

  1. Harry says:

    The GOP had better figure out how to make peace with the Paulistas. The youth and independents identify with messages such as Ron Paul. We in the traditional wing are increasingly growing old and irrelevant. By the way, I went with Romney in the primary – not Ron Paul – but his message cannot be ignored.

    • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

      Harry, that is so true as there is a Libertarian wing of the Republican Party that has sat idly by and watched very uncomfortably for the last 12 years as the GOP has played a lead role (along with the Dems) in overseeing the running up of trillions and trillions of dollars in national debt during what has been an unprecedented expansion in the size and reach of what was already a very big government.

      Even other Republicans often seem to be shocked at the existence of such a Libertarian wing of the party that is even more concerned about the explosive growth of the size and reach of massive government, but not necessarily as concerned with social issues as the socially-conservative wing of the party as they are with government overreach on both social and fiscal issues.

      While a candidate like Paul may not be considered to be electable to the office of President, IMHO, the Libertarian positions of much smaller, much less intrusive, much more efficient, much more fiscally-responsible government that a candidate like Paul represents and seems to loyally espouse reflects where the Republican Party needs to be headed as opposed to guiding a slightly slower-paced unsustainable massive expansion of big government as the GOP more often than not seems to do nowadays.

      • Mize1970 says:


        My problem isn’t as much with their philosophy as their hypocrisy. They decry use of procedural methods to steer the operation one way or another, and scream about “transparency” every chance they get . . . and then turn around and use what appears to be a carefully-scripted scheme to pack the delegate slate with their supporters. See if this sounds familiar with what you saw at YOUR county convention today:

        1. Pack the mass precinct meetings with Paul supporters. Make your presence vocally known, but otherwise behave yourselves as you sign up for the county convention, and make it be known that you’d like to be considered as delegates to the state and CD conventions.

        2. Ignore the county chairman’s instructions on the process for getting considered by the county party’s nominating committee as delegates for the state and CD conventions (which is so easy and open, even I was able to do it).

        3. Feign shock and surprise when you arrive at the county convention and your name isn’t on the slate of delegates and alternates to the state and CD conventions.

        4. Feign ignorance of the whole nominating process, claim that you’re just young/new/new to the area, and you’ve been a loyal Republican the entire two and a half years you’ve been a registered voter, and want to get involved and learn the process.

        5. Miraculously develop the ability to recite Robert’s Rules of Order by memory, yell “point of order” every four seconds, and slowly begin the process of derailing the agenda.

        6. Wait out the old-timers and parents of small kids who have things like baseball games and Girl Scout meetings and have to leave after 4 hours of this nonsense, and then make strange motions for removing the duly-presented slate of delegates (you know, filled with people who managed to follow the rules) and replacing them with people who are still there, i.e., YOUR people.

        7. Scream about “transparency”, the virtues of assisted suicide, “interventionist” wars, and how the Federal Reserve is a secret cabal headed by Satan himself, every chance you get.

        8. Start a real ruckus when the REAL Republicans have the unmitigated gall to refuse to fall for your ruse.

        9. Remind us all of what a loyal Republican you are when you never darken the doorway of the GOP headquarters ever again.

        Yeah. That’s going to engender real support.

        • Tiberius says:

          At Fulton, we had 1 guy say he an many other “didn’t know you (the Fulton GOP) existed until 10 days ago.” If I wasn’t standing on the stag, I would have burst out laughing.

          • Andre says:

            Luckily, a majority of the Fulton County Republican Convention delegates voted down a motion made from the floor that had the potential to keep the convention convened until late into the evening.

            I’ll give the Ron Paul supporters credit for living by the rules, and dying by the rules.

            • Mize1970 says:

              I wouldn’t say they lived and died by the rules . . . . more like live by the rules, and then get mad when everyone else doesn’t let you change the rules to suit them. Kind of like my younger sister used to do when we played Monopoly.

            • Andre says:

              Also, I think Rusty Paul, the permanent chair of the Fulton County Republican Convention, did a good job presiding over today’s proceedings. Paul was fair, even-handed to all delegates, and abided by the rules adopted by the entire convention.

              • Mize1970 says:

                Randy Evans did a great job in Cobb. But the real hero of the day was Jason Shepherd, who put an end to all the folly by calling for his own “point of order”, playing the Paulines’ procedural game against them (some goofy vote they’d suckered the rest of us into, which was in-and-of-itself technically out-of-order) . . . and then immediately moved for adjournment. It was a beautiful thing!

                • seenbetrdayz says:

                  I’m not sure exactly how you can use universally recognized rules against or for any particular group.

                  I’m fortunate not to live in a large county. After wrapping up in a small county convention, I went across the county line and witnessed what happens when people stop following Robert’s Rules of Order in a large county.

                  Ron Paul supporters don’t get mad when someone else “uses the rules against them” (again, that’s like saying that calling someone out-of-bounds in football is ‘using the rules against that player’—no, it’s just the rules, nothing more). Ron Paul supporters get mad when people decide to go off and ignore the rules, after everyone, regardless of who they support, agreed to them.

                  • Mize1970 says:

                    The Paul supporters I observed today got mad when people opted not to let them change the rules . . .

                • CNFPP says:

                  Thank you for the kind words both here and on Facebook. The moral is, always bring a copy of Robert’s to any meeting or convention.

          • nicholastjohnson says:

            If you really cared to bolster your numbers, you would have said, “Glad you found us! Bring your friends!”

            Unless, you’re scared, then you would have nearly burst out laughing…

        • nicholastjohnson says:

          I can’t speak for every county, but in Cobb, procedural methods were followed when it suited Randy and his ilk – when it was best to move quickly and obfuscate the purpose, Randy was a pro.

          It’s funny that you thought our scheme was “scripted” – as that couldn’t have been further from the truth. In fact, we knew it couldn’t be scripted. Our only goal was to ensure that everyone knew what was going on at every moment – if we didn’t understand, we asked. Call that scripted if you like, but it was really about making sure we weren’t taken advantage of. And, by “we”, I mean our group PLUS every other person in that hall who simply nodded their head because they were expected to do so but didn’t really know what was happening either.

          I’ll respond to your numbered list above now:
          1. I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “make your presence vocally known”. We were speaking audibly, I suppose, but not just among ourselves. I met plenty of interesting establishment folks while waiting for the meeting to begin.

          2. Wrong! We attended the dog and pony show – despite the fact that convening before the convention to select delegates marginalizes the actual convention.

          3. We weren’t on the slate?!? Egads!

          4. So, there is an interesting distinction here. We aren’t necessarily ignorant to the process, but we can’t follow it as quickly as some others. In addition, we wanted to be sure that we always understood what was going on. Oh, and as for your not-so-veiled attempt to automatically discredit us because we’re young, I’d like to point out that our meetings are filled to the brim with all races, ages and religions. Liberty does that – it brings people together, unlike your pre-election season GOP breakfast’s, I’m sure – where the average age is probably closer to 65 than 35. But, don’t worry – we’ll be there in force from now on, so we’ll bring that average down for ya.

          5. It wasn’t a miracle – it was the result of hours of study. We’ve had four years to lick our wounds and learn. And, as far as the “Points of” go – I’ve said before that our main goal was to make sure that we understood exactly what was going on. Perhaps, you’ll retort with some nonsense that the chairman said the same thing five times – to that I would say that it may be more difficult to grasp for people who are only now becoming politically active than for you. You should want us to educate ourselves and learn more about your process. Our goal was never to derail the agenda.

          6. Umm, huh? I missed two baseball games. Oh, and my wife had to schlep my nine year old, six year old and six month old to and from those games by herself. And she did it with a smile on her face, because she knew that I was out fighting for the future of our country! If you call deciding who will represent the greatest county in the greatest state in the greatest country “4 hours of nonsense”, well, that says more about you than it does about us. “Duly presented”?!?! You mean where a group of people meet to tell you who they think should be delegates, and you solemnly nod your approval to your establishment overlords?

          7. Not sure about other counties, but in Cobb, I didn’t recognize the people arguing for assisted suicide (read: they weren’t our people). Wait, what’s wrong with bringing up our qualms with interventionist wars? I thought those resolutions were supposed to represent the county – shouldn’t we have an opportunity to voice our opinion of them? Or would you rather we just sit idly by and agree in lockstep? Bernake isn’t Satan!! He is simply a product of what he’s given – a dollar is meaningless. It holds no inherent value, and so his job is difficult, and increasingly so. It can be fixed though – by returning to a mineral standard.

          8. This is the saddest point you’ve made because of your emphasis of the word “real”. Like it or not, we are Republicans. So long as the two party system dominates the way it does, we must have a party with which to align. You should be begging us for more involvement. With the last census numbers – 31% Dem, 28% GOP and 40% Independent. You’re going to need us to beat Obama. Oh, and there were no ruses.

          9. You couldn’t be further from the truth here – we will darken many a doorway. Set out an extra chair for me and my wife at the next breakfast – we’ll be there.

          • Bridget says:

            Good morning, Nicholas.

            Welcome to the Cobb GOP.

            I look forward to meeting you at the next breakfast; it’s always the first Saturday of the month at 8am at HQ. I’m a former Membership VP for the Cobb YRs and currently serve on the Communications Committee. I’m under 35 and have been openly welcomed by “the old guard”. I was an alternate moved up to delegate at the last state convention, and I’m already slated to be a delegate at state this year.

            Age is not an issue. Like all effective people in the free world…you have to show up to go up. Get involved; stay involved.

            Our chairman and officers are openly trying to recruit younger Republicans. Our process/procedures are widely distributed. We’ve made participation easier by embracing technology and making many more services available online. To my knowledge, we are the first and only county to offer online pre-registration to Mass Precincts. We’re branching into text-based technology and have stepped up our social media to reach younger voters.

            If you’re serious about defeating Obama, offer your talent in addition to your complaints. The easiest/quickest way to meet everyone is to join a committee. If you need help finding one, my email is [email protected].

            ….take me up on this offer if you’re serious about effecting change.

            • nicholastjohnson says:

              I will take you up on your offer.

              However, could it be true that you’re welcomed because you support one of the other three candidates? If you believed in personal liberty and a smaller federal government, would they still be as open?

              My biggest fear is that the Paul supporters stay home on that chilly day in November if Paul isn’t the nominee – not because I think any of the other three should be President, because I don’t. Rather, as champions of liberty, we should show up to vote!

              But, because of how we perceive we were mistreated along the way, and because of the fact that the other three and the Democrats are really two sides of the same coin, I fear we’ll be in for another four years of our slide towards socialism.

              • Bridget says:

                We have a productive email thread going offline and we’ll leave it there, but as for your other comments…

                Much like Corporate America, you rarely agree with everyone on your team. If you’re the newest member of a functioning team, throwing a tantrum and berating others who don’t agree with you will not get you the outcome you want. Being tolerated and appeased is not the same as being viewed as a successful member of the team.

                Flies and honey. I’m welcomed because I’m consistent, eager to help, and positive. Believe me – I can be intense, but being really against something bad isn’t nearly as effective as being really for something better.

                For an anti-war guy, you came out guns ablazin’ all over this thread….

                “I think this weekend is a precursor to an upheaval of the entire party. We’ll be present in force from here on out.”

                “Umm, what do you think we’ve been doing for four years? We know the rules – we just wanted to make sure we aren’t hoodwinked by a fast talking, seasoned expert.”

                “The rank and file republicans that were there are not the tyrants, but the servant of the tyrant with the power to overthrow him but does nothing is almost as bad.”

                I got a finger (literally) wagged in my face on Saturday. I was sitting down in a chair and a mid-40s guy was standing over me. He chastised me for not being informed on the issues. I had to stand up and put my hand up and tell him not to put his finger in my face. Who does that and thinks they will be accepted by “the regulars”? Stuff like that is why people (regardless of what/who they are supporting) are swatted off like an annoying gnat.

                I look forward to getting to know you at events and working with the Ron Paul supporters to support the eventual nominee who runs against Obama.

                • nicholastjohnson says:

                  Well said.

                  As far as the upheaval comment goes, I don’t particularly mean Georgia or Cobb. The libertarian minority of the republican party may be slowly becoming the majority, and I think we’re starting to see it.

                  Randy is a Newt insider, and when it suited him, he moved quite quickly through procedures. When it didn’t matter, he was very calm and deliberate. He even said it was his convention – not ours, or yours, or anyone else’s.

                  The tyrant comment is my hyperbole to make a point. If you watch the video, Randy clearly glosses over several votes and changes rules to suit the topic of the moment – my point is that we aren’t necessarily mad at the regulars, per se, just at the fact that you all didn’t help us make Randy play fair.

                  There were multiple instances of tempers flaring on both sides. When I stood for a vote, an elderly gentlemen told me to “sit down, boy.” Neither side is squeaky clean there.

                  Oh, and to clarify, I’m not anti-war – I’d wager most Paul supporters aren’t. In fact, I fully support an increase in our standing army numbers and armaments – in addition, I think the navy needs more battle groups. What I am against is endless wars in the middle east, where we’ve been since 1953 attempting to shape governments to our benefit. No one knows who we’re fighting or why – and if someone wants to say, we’re fighting terrorism, I’d counter with, it is impossible to go to war with a tactic (terrorism is not a group, but a tactic of war).

                  9/11 gave congress and the president carte blanche access to spend as much money as they wanted on the military industrial complex – just so long as they promised to keep us safe. Thus, the patriot act and now the NDAA.

                  We’re chasing a sensationalized boogeyman that the government and mainstream media has us convinced are moments away from launching an intercontinental ballistic missile towards one of our cities. We Paul supporters are all for security – but we prefer the Reagan version of peace through strength. We really don’t care to meddle in the affairs of other nations – particularly, when we have so many issues to resolve at home.

                  • Doug Grammer says:

                    Randy Evans is a fair man and a friend of mine. He was the General Council to the GA GOP and yes, he has ties to Newt, as do many in the GA GOP. His ties are closer than most. When you refer to him and “his ilk,” you are not winning friends, but you might be influencing people. I would like to see a link to the video that you have mentioned. After viewing it, we can discuss what was and was not done fairly.

                    I don’t care if someone supported Elvis in the primary if they will work for the GOP nominee in the fall. It’s not going to be Paul. The sooner you accept that, the better off you will be.

                    You are going to need to learn to communicate in a more positive way if you want to be effective and respected, and coming from me, that’s funny. “If you believed in personal liberty and a smaller federal government, would they still be as open?” Is there any indication that Bridgett doesn’t believe in those things? I have the backbone to let you know that you have insulted someone you just stated you want to work with. She’s a very nice person so she won’t mention it. I’ve been known to say what’s on my mind.

                    You seem to have a streak of decency and intelligence about you, so you might have the ability to actually do what you say you will do and be active. If you want to impress me, vote for people who have worked for years to build the party instead of someone coming just to support Congressman Paul. That will be a test of who deserves to go and has worked for the GOP instead of someone who has only attended 1 mass meeting and 1 convention so far. Your vote will show your ethics and real motivations.

                    There is much to do and much more that needs to be done. We need principled idealists who will work hard for the cause. That is the CAUSE, and not a single candidate. When someone’s candidate doesn’t win, they won’t pack their bags and go home, but rally around the nominee, whomever it may be.

                    We can debate issues and platform all day long, but I suspect that we have much more that we will agree with than disagree with. Welcome to the GOP. Now get to work and prove you are in it for the long haul.

                    • Lo Mein says:

                      “You’re welcome into MY party, as long as you shut up and do as you’re told when the time comes.”


                    • nicholastjohnson says:

                      I spent about 15 minutes afterwards talking to Randy, and he seemed nice enough. In fact, immediately after the convention, I complimented him on his fairness and patience with us. The video I watched later, however, told a different tale.

                      I believe the GOP recorded the event, so you may be able to get a copy from them. I haven’t posted it publicly yet.

                      Its interesting that you say it won’t be Paul. That’s the icing. The cake is the wholesale change that Paul is instigating. He’s woken so many from the slumber.

                      It disturbs me that you think I’ve disrespected Bridgett. She extended a kindness to me, while many here snubbed their noses. For that, I am grateful and meant her no disrespect. I assumed that she was not a Paul supporter, which is why I assumed that she did not believe in personal liberty or a smaller federal government. If this is incorrect, I apologize. If, however, she supports any of the other three candidates, she could not also believe in the paramount importance of personal liberty created by a smaller government. All three will continue to degrade personal liberty and increase the size of government. This is not an opinion, but fact.

                      Also, I should hope that everyone have a backbone. It is those that nodded in compliance while those in power made decisions for them that have gotten our country into this position.

                      If another candidate wants to espouse true conservative principles, we may very well coalesce; however, the three establishment candidates seem hellbent on doing nothing of the sort.

                      I had considered overlooking it, but since you chastised me for the same thing, you should (and probably do) realize that the last line of your comment smacks of a disrespect. I’ve apologized for mine.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      Telling you to go to work and prove you are in it for the long haul is a challenge. It’s not a sign of disrespect, but I want to see if you are made of the stuff you claim to be made of. Time will tell if you are up to it.

                      I don’t live anywhere near Cobb County. I assume you mean the Cobb County GOP and not the state party. You’ve made the claims of unfairness. Now it’s up to you to prove them. Provide the link and I will watch with objective eyes. I shouldn’t have to do your homework for you.

                      There is no such thing as a perfect candidate, although some Paul supporters seem to think otherwise. Even though I don’t support Congressman Paul, and I am far from that, don’t tell me I don’t support liberty and smaller government. You don’t like my liberty not to fall in line and bow at the alter of Congressman Paul.

                      I actually agree with him on a few issues, but on the ones we disagree on, he has the worst ideas. Political parties are about ideas and not specific candidates. Those who worship a candidate saying that only HE can lead us, solve our problems, win an election and so on are members of a cult and not a political party.

                      Lo Mein, when someone says they are joining my party, I expect them to support the platform, it’s candidates, and eventual nominees. There is room for tweaking and small changes, but don’t expect the GOP platform to be pro-choice and against individual ownership of weapons. Congressman Paul will be disappointed when the GOP doesn’t change it’s platform and insist on bringing all troops home immediately. If new joiners can bring in a candidate who can win the nomination, I’m going to take a serious look at that candidate. Donald trump has a better chance. However, does anyone know the number of delegates Congressman Paul has?

                      I’m offering up a nice big glass of reality when I say Congressman Paul won’t win. Drink deeply.

  2. Justin Tomczak says:

    Just got home from Cobb. Posted this on Facebook:

    Joe Dendy organized a great Cobb GOP County Convention today. Randy Evans ran things like no one else can, bent over backwards to ensure fairness, and kept things moving despite the best efforts of some. 134,221 points of order/personal privilege ended up costing a group of folks delegates who would have been seated, had these folks not convinced the rest of the crowd that all they cared about was dragging things out all day. It was unfortunate.

    • nicholastjohnson says:

      “Bent over backwards to ensure fairness” is a laughable statement. But, you’re right, it was unfortunate.

  3. Mize1970 says:

    I was also at Cobb’s convention, and the Paul folks tried almost the same identical stunts. If I never hear the phrase “point of order” ever again, it will be too soon. It also doesn’t do you any favors if you claim total ignorance of the process one minute, and then start lecturing Randy Evans of all people on Robert’s Rules of Order. That’s almost as effective to winning the opposition over as claiming that you couldn’t carve 20 minutes out of your 400-hour work week to pick out and go to one of about four or five nominating committee interviews spaced throughout a week, all the while vying to go to a two-and-a-half day event in ANOTHER CITY.

    • Bridget says:

      I think I’m going to start using “Point of Personal Privilege” on a regular basis; As a woman, I REALLY like the concept 😉

      When that doesn’t work to take precedence over all other business, I’m going to insert Points of Inquiry until I just wear the other person down. I’m positive this will help me win friends and influnce people.

        • CNFPP says:

          No. You are allowed to interrupt the flow with those tricks. That’s what the Ron Paul folks figured out. Points of Inquiry, Order, etc. can be thrown out at any time. However, Robert’s does allow the Chair to shut it down if it is being used as a clear delay tactic. Randy was a lot more patient than I would have been.

          • nicholastjohnson says:

            You all can call it a delay tactic, if you like, but as the future of the party, you should want us to be educated on the rules and procedures. That was what we wanted: to be sure that we understood every single thing that went on. If we are to be ridiculed for that, so be it.

    • nicholastjohnson says:

      Randy Evans is a human. He can be wrong, too. In fact, he was wrong on several occasions, which he admitted (on camera).

      See you at state!

      • Lo Mein says:

        Randy Evans may be a human, but he has now presented himself as a certain other braying animal, TWICE, at important conventions.

        He is the archetypical Robert’s Rules Bully. Hee-haw!

  4. Tiberius says:

    Fulton County ended @2pm. Paul people out in force. The “regulars” won the vote to accept the nomination committee reports for Fulton and for all 4 CDs. The only one that was close was the 5th CD. The “regulars” won by 6 votes.

    By the final convention vote for Fulton, I’d say there were @100 Paulites there.

    • nicholastjohnson says:

      The “regulars” are what has gotten us into the mess we’re in – I would be hesitant to be happy about anything that the “regulars” won…

  5. debbie0040 says:

    In Gwinnett, the non Ron Paulers countered with a few point of orders of their own and stopped a challenge to seat convention delegates not duly elected at Mass Precinct Meeting and to elect a convention chairman that was a Ron Paul supporter.

    In the end, most non Ron Paul supporters and Ron Paul supporters delegates shook hands and went away happy with the delegate selection process for District and State..

      • Jimmie says:

        The main issue at hand with Gwinnett and let’s be fair here, was the refusal to hear the assemblies motion to bring back the disqualified Precincts at Mass Meetings. The refusal to hear debate on motion. The refusal to allow appeal on the decision from Chair. Right from the get go it got heated. People are told they can have a voice at these meetings as long as they attempt to use proper order. Granted several were out of Order (on both assembly and Chair). There were an estimated 20+ or more guests present who tried to be reinstated as delegates prior to convention, to no avail. At Mass Precinct Meetings. Last years Chairman and Sec. were required to sign Feb 18 delegate sheets to validate them. Several precincts previous Chairs kept quiet at the precincts and did not sign. The Mass Meeting precincts elected new Chair and Sec for purposes of validating delegate sheets. How is that terms for disqualification? On top of it, several precincts were re-instated this last week, due to same discrepancies. The assembly was denied their voice on the matter IMO. That’s all water under the bridge. In the end it all turned out good for everybody. Several of the disqualified were given alt slots. The great thing about Ron Pauler’s, if you will, is passion, determination, and dedication. Something you’d think the County would love to have.

        • debbie0040 says:

          Jimmie, the refusal to hear the motion to bring back disqualified delegates was out of order. When that motion was made, I used Point of Order to state that the assembly did not have the authority to over-rule that state call that stated delegates were to be duly elected at Mass Precinct meetings. The Chair ruled with my Point of Order and informed the convention that if the assembly added delegates that had been disqualified then the entire convention was as risk of being thrown out. The convention then voted to accept the credentials report. Ron Paul supporters like to use Parlimentary procedure at conventions in an attempt to prevail at gatherings. They don’t like it when someone turns the table on them and uses parlimentary procedure against them to stop their plans.

          Let’s be facutal in regard to the disqualifications. Jon Richards and Joan Zellner interviewed the people that signed the precinct forms in the weeks after Mass Precinct Meeting. Only two precincts stated that their precinct officer resigned and they had elected new ones. My precinct was one of them and I produced an email that I had sent last year to the Precinct chairman stating I was resigning as precinct secretary . There was another one that stated the same thing and every member of their precinct came before the credentials committee and attested to the fact that prior to the mass meeting, a precinct officer had resigned. The other officials in precincts that were disqualified stated to Joan or Jon that had messed up on the paperwork and did not file it correctly and there was absolutely no mention of anyone resigning. Jon and Joan presented the email correspondence to the credentials committee. A few precincts found out that two precincts were re-instated because they had elected new officers. These precinct members then attempted to change their story of what had happened. The credentials reviewed the email thread of the explanation given previously and upheld the disqualification. It should be noted that we denied the request of a member of the Gwinnett GOP Executive committee to re-instate his precinct and also upheld the disqualification of a precinct that had a long time state house rep as a member.

          We would love the Ron Paul to stick around and be active but that has not been the track record. You only see most every fours years during the Presidential election cycle. The time to effect change is in between those Presidential election cycle-not every 4 years.

          • Jimmie says:

            I agree. We will try our best to get as many as we can to be involved. There will be a day, hopefully soon, that we can all merge together and be one again.
            I fully understand your P.O.V. about people just showing up every 4 years and trying to take over for a day. It’s not the best way to approach things I suppose. The thing is, the overall census (imo), is The County regulars do not want us to attend and be involved. This may or may not be the case. Maybe it is part of the case. It’s a Democracy, so there are many p.o.v. involved right. It’s to be expected.
            Like I said, we’ll attempt to get the numbers out and involved.

            • Jimmie says:

              as far as rules go. The respective County Convention is allowed to suspend the rules. As far as I know. If the assembly deems it ok. Not sure that would have happened anyway.

              • CNFPP says:

                Not exclusively. The convention can’t suspend the Call which supplies most of the rules or any rules contained in party bylaws or other governing documents. It can vote to suspend special standing rules adopted by the convention by a majority vote for a specific purpose. For instance, Cobb proposed no extra standing rules and none were adopted so there were no rules that could have been suspended in Cobb.

                • troutbum70 says:

                  What happened in Gwinnett was due to a lack of understanding of Robert’s Rules of Order for the Executive Board in their entirety. Also for the simple fact that the Credentialing Committee was having a hard time getting the data to come online for them to verify. The Chairman, Bruce Levell, didn’t know which way to answer and Mike Royal had to step in several times. When you have a Chairman that has one foot out the door or already moved out of the County, it makes you wonder how much time is really being invested in the future of the Gwinnett Republican Party. Things could have gone much smoother if there had been a simple statement at the very beginning to express what was going to happen during the process. And no, not all those who wound up registering as guests got a chance to go back and plead their case to be elevated to Delegate because it wasn’t actively advertised. But this also goes back to poor planning for the Mass Meetings. Instruction sheets were missing in most of the packets for the precincts. Paper work was sitting on the table and people were filling it out before the start of the Mass Meeting. Instead it should have been done like the year before in some Districts where the paperwork was handed out after the start of the meeting and an explanation. The School District managers failed in their jobs at the Mass Meetings. If an announcement had been made that this was not a year in which we were re-organizing, many of those who were disqualified wouldn’t have been due to continuing with the same Precinct Captains.

                  Jason Thompson, the 7th District Chair, warned the county party that there would be a large turn out of Ron Paul supporters and even expressed that the county send out robo calls and other forms of announcements to get Republican voters out.

                  When you spend 45 minutes going back and forth to decide who would be the Convention Chairman, between Mike Beaudreau and two Ron Paul supporters, you know something got messed up somewhere.

                  Yeah in the end the list of Delegates were voted in but not by a wide majority. So let’s not sugar coat the proceedings from Saturday.

                  On a really sad point, Gwinnett couldn’t even get enough people to come out and fill the capacity of the theater. It might be a 300 seat capacity.

                  • Jimmie says:

                    There is no doubt it was one big Cluster F of a Saturday in Gwinnett. You can’t do this. You can’t do that. Out of Order. Rules of Order. New Chair. No Chair. State rules state this and that. From hearing stories across Atlanta, Gwinnett wasn’t the only one.

                  • rrrrr says:

                    “When you spend 45 minutes going back and forth to decide who would be the Convention Chairman, between Mike Beaudreau and two Ron Paul supporters, you know something got messed up somewhere.”

                    Seems like it was less time but it was COMPLETELY avoidable. I guess I missed the fireworks that occurred prior to the convention opening, but it was obvious feathers were ruffled at the get go on both sides. The fiasco with the chairman vote was an example of “rushing” through pure and simple and resulted in an embarrassing self inflicted wound.

                    When the floor was opened to nominations, Mike’s name was offered, then another gentleman stood to be called on by the existing chair to offer another name for consideration, he was never acknowledged. Mike proceeded to the podium and the voting process was questioned. Mike’s answer? Essentially he wasn’t chairman at that point of the grievance and that was that. ( I myself almost stood up here to remind Mike that this function was NOT a Board of Commissioners meeting he was residing over) So there was some well deserved scrutiny to the chairmanship. Then we entered the “abundance of caution mode” and the chairman vote action was rescinded, nominations taken properly, followed by a vote. There initially were 3 names and a vote was taken, it was claimed that Mike received over 50 percent – then that claim was proven invalid as the total actually was 49 % for Mike. Next round one name withdrew, a second vote was taken and it was close, but Mike clearly won by 20-30 votes. All was well and peaceful afterward but I truly believe if the” that’s that” hadn’t occurred, the vote separation would have been far wider in Mike’s favor. So if this was an abuse of Robert’s Rules of Order, it needs to happen more often. I’m not a Paulite, but I don’t care for glossing over the process with slight of hand either because that hasn’t served our county ( or country) very well at all in the last 6 years. So the takeaway? Bring a copy of Robert’s Rules from here on out and for the record, the use of point of order or point of information doesn’t work around the dinner table …

  6. Nathan says:

    Walker County’s went pretty well. We had a challenge from the floor but it was handled well. I hear things in Catoosa County wasn’t as smooth. Apparently their rules do not allow for the voting on a full slate and required a vote on each delegate and alternate. I haven’t confirmed if that’s true or not though.

    • Doug Grammer says:

      That is what the Catoosa GOP rules state, however a motion to suspend the rule could have been passed if was the will of the convention. They also could have changed the rules prior to a vote. That can’t be done at a meeting, but it can be done at a convention. The Catoosa rules don’t state when rules are deemed to be in effect, so I’m thinking it could have been done immediately before the voting. To be nice, they should have changed the agenda to show they were going to change the rules.

      • Doug Deal says:

        You can never use a motion to suspend the rules against the bylaws, only rules of order. No wonder your conventions go until late in the afternoon.

          • CNFPP says:

            Actually, Doug D., you can’t suspend Rules of Order, only Standing Rules. Robert’s doesn’t want itself to be eliminated.

            • Doug Deal says:

              Robert’s Rules as well as special rules of order can be suspended for a particular purpose with a 2/3 vote. They are not eliminated for the duration, just any impediment to considering a motion is removed.

              Standing Rules may be suspended with a majority vote but never relate to limits on debate.


              I wish people would actually read the rules before commenting on them.

        • Doug Grammer says:

          D. Deal, MY convention was over by 11:30 AM.

          As far as authority to suspend trhe rules, see RONR 11th, page 17, lines 20 to 25. Specifying how an election must be conducted is a rule of order, even if it is contained in the bylaws. Electing a slate is permitted by the state call, so no conflict there.

          • CNFPP says:

            Yes, a rule pertaining to an election can be suspended with 2/3 vote, even if it is in the bylaws. However, I’m not sure a slate versus non-slate would be considered a rule of order. Do you have cite that you can find pretty quickly?

            Now, I would say a rule prohibiting a secret ballot could be overruled by 2/3 since I would consider that a rule of order.

              • Doug Deal says:

                This is ridiculous. If it is in the bylaws, it is not up to Doug Grammer to determine if he thinks it is one thing or another, it cannot be “suspended” unless the rule provides for its own suspension.

                I sincerely hope you guys never run into controversy if you think this how it works. Just making things up as you go along is a recipe for disaster.

                • Doug Grammer says:

                  Actually, it is up to the parliamentarian to tell the convention chair what he thinks is allowed under RONR 11th. When I do so, I cite the page number and line. Have you tried reading what I cited lately?

            • Doug Grammer says:

              Doug, if you go back read what you just put a link to, please read:

              “Rules that CANNOT be suspended even with unanimous consent (unless they provide for their own suspension):
              Bylaws/Constitution (unless it is clearly a rule of order, see page 17, line 22-24.) ** ”

              Please pay attention to what is in brackets. By deffinition, a rule of order is how to conduct a parlamentary event, such as an election within a body or an election within a convention of an organization.

              Doug D, how many times have you served as a parliamentrain for the GOP? I’ve done it more times than I can count, I’m not ALWAYS right, but I think I am here.

              • Doug Deal says:

                I guess we might not be agreeing on the item in which we are disagreeing. If you mean things like the candidate is entitled to speak for 5 minutes or memebers may speak in favor of a candidate for 2 minutes, then yes, those are obvious rules of order.

                However, if you mean the requirements for election, those are not mere rules of order, those are the fundamental rules of the organization. You cannot waive the rules to elect someone who is not qualified to serve under the bylaws. You cannot waive a term limit. Rules of Order are just that, rules governing the order of business before a body at a particular session. As soon as they address something that has a scope beyond the session, they are no long rules of order.

                I reread your local county rules in regard to elections and yes, there is a lot of order of business type of language in there that I have generally kept out of rules that I have written and instead had special rules of order in a seperate document.

                By the way, I have also acted as a parliamentarian off an on for about 20 years at various levels from local clubs to state conventions, boards and county conventions. I have also written the bylaws/constitution of about 10-12 organization. Even still, I do not consider credentials (including my own) as evidence of being right, just whether it jives with what is written.

                • Doug Grammer says:

                  Well you get two points for saying that maybe we weren’t talking about the same thing to get yourself out of the box you have put yourself in. The conversation started on the fact that Catoosa held an election for each delegate and alternate when they didn’t have to do so and it is written in their rules that the must do so.

                  You were 100% wrong and lose two points when you stated:

                  “Unless they call for their own suspension, bylaws cannot be suspended. They are the foundation documents of the organization and are generally only inferior to the charter (if one exists). Anything in Robert’s Rules is subservient to the bylaws of an organization.

                  (I cited the exceptions.)

                  If you are in their parliamentarian, god save you all.”

                  I was not Catoosa’s parliamentarian, I was Walker’s. You’ve question my parliamentary knowledge and openly scoffed at it. I’ve shown you where in Robert’s that my opinion has basis, and you have eventually agreed with my opinion. Therefore, I get two points. You don’t know what county I live in and assume much that isn’t accurate; that’s another two points.

                  At the end of the discussion, I have more points made than you have. Apologies don’t have to be grand, but they are deserved.

  7. flylikeaneagle1776 says:

    For all the people complaining about how the Ron Paul people where trying to crash the party, this makes me sad. Our founding fathers were willing to fight and die for their independence, and you all are complaining about a meeting going on a little bit too long? We were within the rules, asking for honest questions, and striving for a clear explanation on everything. The “dumb-masses” of the Republican party are acting more and more like liberals every day. After what happened today at my precinct, I will give you the knowledge that you CANNOT beat Obama without us. Based on this treatment, none of us Paul-bots will vote for any Republican except for Paul. Who is prepared for Obama to have another 4 years? I know I’m not, but unfortunately, this may have to happen, for the Republicans to become the decent party of the two. So I dare to say, Paul 2012, or Obama 2012.

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      Shush you. You’re not allowed to mention the founding fathers on here unless you’re talking about how they wanted to bring democracy to Syria.

    • debbie0040 says:

      word of advise to Ron Paul supporters. When you have a “secret” Facebook group to discuss strategy for the county convention, you may should check the people in the group. I can tell you that in Gwinnett some received the memo’s of what was planned by Ron Paul supporters and what they wanted to do at the county convention. We knew what was planned and it was not simply trying to find answers to questions. Part of the strategy was to disrupt and delay if the pro Ron Paul votes were not sufficient to control the c ounty convention.. We saw the memos, so please don’t feign innocence at just trying to find out answers…..

        • nicholastjohnson says:

          Which is exactly what we’ll need to defeat Obama.

          Which of the other three candidates has a ground game like ours? I suggest that all of you who are bashing us go find a Paul supporter to hug today – tell them you’re sorry and beg them to come to the polls in November. Otherwise, we’re in for for more years of our slide towards socialism.

      • Jimmie says:

        Never was any intention to disrupt and delay as far as I know. I think that was just an effect of the chaos that happened early on. Many had friends that wanted to be involved in the process and were shut out. I can understand being upset.

      • nicholastjohnson says:

        Umm, this isn’t news. We knew there were interlopers among us, and we welcomed them. We had no nefarious plans to hide.

        The strategy wasn’t necessarily to “disrupt and delay” as you say – it was to win over the establishment, and that can take time. We hoped they would slowly come around – some did, some didn’t.

    • Mize1970 says:

      Nice try. I’m sure Dr. Paul is a nice fellow and he does make some good points, and if done fairly and orderly, his candidacy is good for all of us. But the fact is, there was a well-organized group of folks present who clearly had no intention of being part of the party, just advancing their narrow agenda, and for all their pontificating, were clearly not above pulling a fast one to pack the slate with their folks and remove those of us who FOLLOWED THE RULES.

      My house district was packed with Paul supporters, and I witnessed their scheming and plotting on our side of the room. So much for transparency.

      I do apologize for those who hollered “shut up” . . . not very orderly, polite, or helpful to the overall process. But when the same questions were being asked over and over again, obviously to frustrate your opposition and get us to leave, well, it began to wear a little thin.

      Kudos to you for your organization, though . . . appears the script was played out pretty much everywhere.

      • seenbetrdayz says:

        Well, I never felt like anyone should apologize for the actions of others (so your apology isn’t necessary, there was no insult to me personally), but let me apologize for those RP folks who stuck around to try to kick out folks who’d been in the county party for years.

        The training we had suggested that once delegates had been secured, not to press other issues. Delegates were the focus. If however, the convention turned into a swift pushing of pre-designated delegates by a committee beforehand, we tried to slow things down. In 08, these conventions were a blur; As far as I can tell, the GOP is just not used to having people with different stances at these events, so motions usually move swiftly and people go to watch baseball or something afterwards.

        On the heels of that apology, I’m gonna piss some people off again:

        If the idea of having to spend a few extra hours in a day trying to work through a process that will possibly determine who is going to be president for the next 4 years doesn’t sit well with some folks, I can guarantee you there’s gonna be those Ron Paul supporters who take our country’s issues seriously enough to sit there as long as it takes. You don’t see that with any other candidate’s supporters. This can either be a huge boost for the Republican party, or it’s worst nightmare.

        Being from a small county where apparently things don’t get quite so crazy, I didn’t go to my convention to kick out the chairman. I went to support Ron Paul. I wasn’t interested in pissing off people after I got what I came for. In our county, we actually ended up with more than we expected, the chairman was fair by my opinion, and, yeah, did I mention I’m just glad I don’t live in one of those large counties?

        I don’t envy you Cobb, Dekalb folks one bit. Sounds like a big headache, for all sides involved. It’s just a headache that Ron Paul folks have a high tolerance for, given what’s at stake.

        • Mize1970 says:

          Good for you, then. The folks I encountered were less interested in working through the existing party framework to seat their delegates than in pushing through their agenda. It permeated every aspect; I’m surprised someone didn’t object to the key in which we sang the National Anthem.

          (the irony is, there appeared to have been plenty of free delegate/alternate seats for everyone who wanted to go to Columbus or their CD. If it were truly a matter of seating their delegates, that should have been sufficient, but no one was interested in that; they wanted to go line by line and vote up or down on every delegate, vetting out each one’s Paul creds along the way)

          As to your point about those who are willing to work a little harder/longer in the process, I agree with you . . . and it puts the lie to the oft-repeated argument today that “I work two 60-hour-a-week jobs and couldn’t carve out 20 minutes or so to go to one of four separate Nominating Committee sessions that were spread out over a week to vie for four hours on a Saturday for a slot to go to a convention that lasts for two-and-a-half days . . . in ANOTHER CITY . . . ” (sorry, I know I repeated that above, but that one really got my goat).

          Bottom line is, it was an organized plan, that apparently worked in DeKalb, but didn’t in Cobb or Fulton.

          • Mize1970 says:


            I ask this question respectfully and honestly . . . regardless of how this election turns out, will we see you at the next Republican convention next year? Truly curious; there were many people today that nobody ever saw before and I highly suspect will never be seen again. I hope I’m wrong on this point, but I’m afraid I’m not.

            • Jimmie says:

              Without question. Hopefully you will see us at meetings and functions. We are Conservatives too. We have many views that are in line with other Conservatives at that Convention today. You absolutely cannot dismiss what happen in 08, and not expect Ron Paul supporters who want to be involved in the process, to not be defensive. It can’t be an us vs. them situation. The only one that wins that, is that guy who we want removed from Office. There are many of us. We are very organized and passionate. Eventually and hopefully we can merge together and be one heck of a powerful inviting message to others. I came out of today with no ill will. It ended well I think.

            • seenbetrdayz says:

              I actually read your comment last night and decided to sleep on it. I didn’t want to just offer an answer for the sake of an answer.

              Let me say that the folks I met yesterday seemed like decent folks. If they weren’t happy about us being there, they didn’t really let it show. The county GOP here isn’t exactly large enough to the point where they can just say, “ah, nah, you know what, we don’t really want any more participation.” lol. I’m sure it’s a different story in the big red counties.

              Honest answer is that I hate politics. For lots of folks, this is nothing more than a hobby. They enjoy the thrill of the fight. It’s red-team versus blue-team, rah-rah-rah, and they’ve been doing this their whole lives, so it’s hard to walk in and be able to just say, “Hey, uh, guys, you kind of screwed up our country after doing this for x number of decades. But, don’t worry, the democrats are guilty too.” If I could say that and be honest about how I feel, without causing a riot, and they still want me around, it’d probably separate the ones who see it as a mere hobby from the ones who are serious about putting the country back on track. And I wouldn’t mind sticking around with folks who are serious about it.

              The delegate system is not what I’d expected, but it’s probably what I should have expected. I’m talking about the system itself , not really the outcome of what happened yesterday. The fact that there’s slots set aside for people just by virtue of them being in the party for decades . . . well, I’m trying to figure out how I feel about that. IMO, The delegate process is supposed to be about representation. It shouldn’t really be a time for folks to be using those delegate slots to return political favors. I realize “that’s just how we’ve done it.” But, if nothing else, it explains, perhaps, how we keep ending up with these run-of-the-mill candidates who make it to the November ballots, cycle after cycle. Yesterday, I learned that your delegate is probably a guy/gal who wants to support someone else so he/she can move up a half-rung on that political ladder in Georgia.

              And lastly, it’s the standard libertarian disclaimer. I’m not gonna say it because ‘it’s the cool thing to say’, it’s just that you can’t do anything in this system unless you move through one of two parties, Democrats and Republicans. So by that construction alone, you are inevitably going to end up with people in your party who really don’t want to be there. It’s either the GOP knocks down some bureaucratic walls put up to discourage 3rd party participation in the system, or 3rd party goers are going to end up in the GOP, and they’re probably not going to be the ‘unquestioning followers’ the GOP leadership is looking for.

              And it may just be that they do only show up for a convention every blue moon. Not all of them might be so up-front as to tell you that they don’t even want to be in your party, but in any case, they don’t have a choice.

              Either you work thru the GOP or the Democratic party, or you stay home. That’s our system, and expecting people who were essentially forced into those limited options to just come in and be enthusiastic about ‘doing their part’ to support the mighty R at all costs, well, it’s just not a realistic expectation of these folks. Not everyone who shows up can automatically be assumed to be interested in the GOP, it’s just that they don’t have anywhere else to go. [edit: I suppose I’m being redundant here, but that’s really the main point take away from this]

              So, no, you probably won’t see many Ron Paul supporters other than at convention. But, personally, I’ll at least go to the next GOP meeting, to see how it goes, and to meet the others who didn’t show up for the county convention (probably people I bumped out by showing up in-person yesterday). So yeah, I’m guessing not everyone will be happy to see me. We’ll see what happens.

              • nicholastjohnson says:

                I thoroughly disagree with you, dayz. (not thoroughly, actually, just partially – and only about the point about us not showing up to events)

                I think this weekend is a precursor to an upheaval of the entire party. We’ll be present in force from here on out.

              • Mize1970 says:

                I for one am delighted to see new blood, younger folks, newcomers, disaffected Democrats, and those with a wide libertartian streak come into the party and try to make it for the better, and stronger. I would hazard to guess that the attitude of welcomeness you experienced, Dayz, was genuine and that these folks want to see the likes of you hang around and stay involved.

                I’m sorry if anyone came away feeling genuinely unwelcome.

                But I am not sorry to see the convention successfully rebuff an angry, cynical, organized effort to disrupt proceedings, call the same bloody question again and again, points of order ad nauseum, and conspire to throw out the slate that was legitimately presented according to my best knowledge of party rules. That kind of stuff, as well as calling folks not on your team things like “corrupt” and “traitor”, does not tend to promote goodwill toward your position.

                It’s been stated in this thread that the process of getting our country back on track is going to be a long, sometimes torturous process. I’d encourage you to take that to heart yourselves, and not expect the sort of change you desire to be instantaneous in a church basement on a Saturday afternoon.

        • wishbone says:

          agreed. the chair in Cobb felt a best guess vote regardless of how close was not worth the 40 minutes it would have taken to get a verified vote by ballot or other means. if a verified vote would have mtaken place everyone would have walked away with a better taste in their mouth. instead 50 percent of Cobb convention left in shock, disturbed with the forced agenda, slates and eagerness to go to Applebees. I estimate 60 people from all sides were refused their opportunity to be added as alternates. those individuals got he worst of it.

          • Mize1970 says:

            Wishbone, this is going to come off as snarky, but I swear it’s an honest, legitimate question for you . . . .

            Why did so many of the Paul supporters NOT go through the Nominating Committee process to get on the delegate slate for State and CD conventions?

            Was it coincidence?

            Or was it an intentional move so you WOULD be left off the slate, and therefore have an argument to wage at the convention?

            • nicholastjohnson says:

              I’ll answer this from my perspective.

              The Paul supporters are growing in numbers at breakneck speed. There are thousands of new supporters who weren’t even involved when the mass precinct meeting took place.

              Can any other campaigns say that?

              • Mize1970 says:

                That’s fine, but as I understand my county’s party bylaws, you start out with the mass precinct meeting, and go from there.

                Are you suggesting that just because you suddenly have these massive numbers on your side, that we should just ignore/throw out the party’s rules and let you do whatever you want?

                • nicholastjohnson says:

                  No, I’m suggesting that if the numbers are great enough anything can happen. And, it wouldn’t be “letting us” do whatever we want – it would be allowing a democratic process to unfold. Alas, it wasn’t to be in Cobb.

                  I notice you didn’t touch the subject of so many new supporters signing up daily – even today! I many new volunteers do you think the other guys are getting every day?

              • Doug Grammer says:

                “There are thousands of new supporters who weren’t even involved when the mass precinct meeting took place.”

                Really? Show us the math. I might agree to a hundred or maybe even two, but thousands? I doubt it.

            • wishbone says:

              from what I could see there were people left off from all sides for not going through the process. that is on them, regardless of how silly the interview turned out to be. basically I had to take time away from my family so someone could tell me the dates of meetings in person. but yes I went. I got slotted as an alternate for both. so following the rules doesn’t always work out. I know that too.

              my beef is that a number of people on the delegate list didn’t bother to show on Saturday. so should they get precedence over those who made it to the convention?who took time away to be there?

              so we were forced to take the committee slate. and honestly if Evans would have had better control and a confirmed vote count the meeting would have ended on a higher note giving nobodt any thing to rant about. but now it is up for debate, which undermines confidence in the Cobb GOP.

              • Doug Grammer says:

                I had people in my county that did not attend the convention that we sent as delegates over people who attended for the first time. In my mind, these people that we sent that weren’t there have worked for YEARS for the GOP. These first timers apparently claim to be a Republican for ONE DAY, so far. If they are about improving the GOP, I hope they stick around. We sent almost all of the people who attended for the first time as alternates to District and about half of them as alternates to state.

    • Doug Grammer says:


      I was going back and reading what has been posted to see if I missed anything interesting, and I ran across your post. You are the picture of a cult member. Either it’s PAUL in 2012 or it’s Obama in 2012. If you are a selfish Rino who would rather see this county have President Obama in the white house than the eventual GOP nominee (who won’t be Ron Paul,) then shame on you.

  8. wishbone says:

    what happened in Cobb today was a disgrace. it is unfortunate that the party members like mize1970 see this as Paul vs the GOP. Evans was more than happy to drag out the meeting when the topics were non confrontational. However when the fireworks started he accepted votes that could not be verified, refused to acknowledge the division on the floor and emphasized how to close the meeting. he even took a side conversation with mr Shepard prior to his point of order and then asked mr Shepard if he had any other motions. again no verified vote and the convention closed.

    Harry’s point is very relevant. the party is changing and as long as it is divided the minority will fight to be heard. one day this may be you. I just hope when it is that the new party will give you more respect. the shouts of shut up did not come from the newbies.

    looking forward to better days. I hope you are too.

    • CNFPP says:

      A standing vote WAS division. Why don’t you actually bother to read Robert’s. A call of division is only appropriate when there is a close voice vote. As anyone can count when people are standing it is considered the best way to divide the hall. You didn’t like the outcome, that’s all. With the continuous dilatory points of order and motions, adjourning was entirely appropriate. The rules of order are well published and easy to understand. The Ron Paul folks were given a bite of the apple by being allowed to fill empty delegate slots. When they started to push for the removal of everyone who had left early because of their dilatory actions or couldn’t make it entirely, the vote was taken to close the slate of delegates and end the nonsense. Evans decided to not waste time with a voice voice and called for a division by standing vote so each side could visually count. The motion to close the slate passed. The Paulists then made their out of order challenge to the ruling of the chair.

      If they had not decided to try to start removing people, every single person there would have had space to go as a delegate or alternate.

      The reason most were not on the list was because they said they could not make an interview. The Cobb GOP scheduled interviews Last Saturday, Sunday, Monday and Wednesday. Then they wanted to eliminate people who made it to one of those 4 meetings so many complained they couldn’t make, but wanted to cut people who couldn’t make the one meeting or had to leave early. At that point it was time to end the nonsense.

      • nicholastjohnson says:

        I guess the future of the country wasn’t important enough for them to carve more time out of their Saturday. That’s a shame…

      • nicholastjohnson says:

        “Why don’t you actually bother to read Robert’s”

        Umm, what do you think we’ve been doing for four years? We know the rules – we just wanted to make sure we aren’t hoodwinked by a fast talking, seasoned expert.

  9. Bvu says:

    DeKalb’s didn’t end until 4:30pm!!! RuPaulites overran 4th CD delegate selection; it was tyranny of the majority behavior, definitely setting up 4th CD convention to be an interesting one. Many of the stalwarts of DeKalb GOP did not make selection list for 4th CD; the redraw definitely helped the new 6th CD constituents who were formerly in Hank’s district.

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      Tyranny is more like when you’re supporting a guy who wants to run other people’s lives.

      Like the libertarian bumper sticker says, “Beware libertarians, they want to take over the government and leave you alone.”

      Kind of hard to apply the word “tyranny” to that breed of political philosophy. Y’all might think libertarians are crazy, sure, but tyrannical? —Nah. That dog just ain’t gonna hunt.

      Honestly, I wish I could go back to not caring about how y’all run your party, but, we just keep seeing really, really . . . really bad presidents coming out of both parties’ nominating processes, so, we figured it was our turn shuffle the cards. Or, at least try to.

      • LibertyOrDeath says:

        Key point I noticed from entrenched old-school GOP delegates / Speakers:

        There were token attempts to endear Ron Paul supporters to the GOP movement in eventuality. This was accomplished through the typical establishment type fearmongering: “If you don’t vote for us, Obama (I wish I could type this with a really southern accent because Gingrey’s jaw was flapping so loose I thought it was going to fly off) is going to win.” Those dang rascally liberals are going to take it, and that’s what being a republican is all about. Vote down those party lines.

        I say to this, no. What I have come to learn is that establishment liberals and establishment democrats are two sides of the same coin. They are both pro large-government big spenders that are in bed together to attempt to power share and control at the country level for their own gain.
        The fraudulence of today’s vote count under Randy Evans is an example of why we need to bring about political change. Freedom of thought, and no prisoners of conscience. Please stop telling me, as an agent of liberty, that I need to vote down your party lines. I am not interested in your fearmongering, and know that this type of coercion, though has worked on you, will not remove me from my long term mission of not just taking my foot of the gas, but hitting the brakes before our country crashes.
        If we are all in a car with Obama, he is driving us towards a wall with his foot firmly on the pedal. Voting in Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich is like taking your foot off the gas, but your still going >100 MPH so you are dead anyways.
        Regarding the suppression we face as a movement but also the hard times we face nationally, I look to some of the great revolutionaries in recent and ancient history. One great modern revolutionary leader is Aung San Suu Kyi. Most of you probably don’t know about her, but you can certainly look her up, and read her book “Freedom from Fear”.

        In case you didn’t know, she is the leader of the movement for Democracy in Burma. Her father was assassinated when she was two, and she has spent most of her life in confinement in Burma. Regardless, she fought through all those times and has started a great movement. I would share her thoughts below on sticking to a cause even though the odds are stacked against her, forces are acting against her, and bad things are happening to her:

        “I do so precisely because of the bad things that are happening to me. We needed a system where you could bring about political change without violence. We needed a system where people are free to think as they please, a system where there would be no prisoners of conscience. All the bad things simply convinced me that we needed to work for a better world, and that helped me a great deal.”

        Moving forward will be a long and hard path, but we will not give up. As Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty, or give me death!” Liberty is the only lullaby that I will rest to. The young people, as well as many older, understand the true constitutional republican movement that Ron Paul represents…and I can promise you, our numbers will continue to flourish, and our leaders will continue to mature as we bring in new members as well. I would recommend you start putting out some extra chairs at the GOP breakfasts or perhaps a larger venue, because we are not going away.

        In regards to the unfortunate mockeries of the delegate process that happened today, I know that we are in an evolution cycle that will run its course: “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” – Ghandi. I ask you, where do we stand today in this cycle? In the days to come, I would bid you all, regardless of political affiliation, to set aside your bias and ask yourself what is right. I have been wrong before, and it is a maturing process to be able to evaluate yourself and see the error in your ways…but it is also a growing process.
        Fixing corruption is a long and difficult business, because its not just a question of bringing back laws who punish those who are corrupts, or giving civil servants such as teachers salarys that will allow them to live decent lives. Its also a question of changing the mindset, for people who have gotten used to corruption for decades they cant just overnight stop looking upon bribes as a normal way of life. It becomes so normal that they don’t even consider as corruption. So It is going to be a long and hard. Cleaning up the whole country, we all have to work at it, and we have to work at it from different directions. We have to work at it through rules and regulations, we also have to work at it through the participation of people, we have to make it obvious that the people do not like that kind of system.
        Please keep your eyes open, and remember this:
        “It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.” — Aung San Suu Kyi

        Dont be afraid to be wrong. It will keep you right.

        • debbie0040 says:

          I have heard a great deal of fear mongering from Ron Paul supporters. They have said that the only GOP candidate they would support is Ron Paul and that if I want to defeat Obama, I had better get on the Paul bandwagon because their support would be needed to defeat Obama. They said they would not vote for the GOP nominee. There is fear mongering from both sides..

          Four year ago, Paul supporters first came on the scene in order to try to influence the national delegate selection process. They said they were here to stay then . Funny thing is the over whelming majority disappeared until this year. I do hope they stay around and help us in the fight. We need their energy and could accomplish much . The Paul supporters need to stay engage and active. The time to fight for principles is now and in between Presdidential election cycles – not just every four years.

          • seenbetrdayz says:

            With all due respect, debbie, it seems like folks want the Ron Paul supporters’ loyalty and passion . . . without the opinions.

            Maybe that’s a reason why the GOP’s ‘big tent’ has shrunken drastically since the Reagan years.

            • debbie0040 says:

              seenbetrdayz, we do want their opinions and want them to fight for their principles. We want them to stay around and engage and not just be seen every four years. Until Paul supporters actually stay engaged and fight battles in the trenches with activists, there will be resentment at the fact you only see them every four years. They need to stay involved and fight for their principles within the system.

              Paul activists should not be hypocritical and talk about fear mongering from the GOP establishment when they in fact engage in fear mongering themselves.

              • seenbetrdayz says:

                Republicans are supposed to [be] scared of what happens if you give the government too much power. That’s why they’re republicans. That’s why they say they’re for shrinking the government, because they’re aware of what happens when government gets large and unaccountable. I said, “Say”.

                The GOP establishment has been scaring republicans into giving them more power (growing government). In fact, it’s so ingrained in the party mindset that when someone comes along and says he actually wants to cut a department or two, republicans are like, “Man, this doesn’t feel right.”

                If you can’t see the difference in the fearmongering between these two forces, I hope you will wake up soon.

                Ron Paul supporters need to be reminding republicans what happens if government gets too big. But we’ll scare them into fighting against big-government (which is what they’re supposed to stand for, so what exactly is the problem?), instead of scaring them into giving in to it, which has been the M.O. for the Republican party establishment for as long as I’ve been alive.

                • ted in bed says:

                  Republicans are not for smaller government. You are confusing them with Conservatives.

                  Republicans want government to grow in areas they like and to make it more efficient by being bigger, eg the budget busting medicare prescription drug benefit. Another example is Senator Chambliss’ SPONSORSHIP of the PROTECT IP Act (S. 968), which really should be called Social Media Surveillance Act.

                  In reality, Republicans like Chambliss vote for bills that financially benefit thier campaign contributors, in PIPA’s case Hollywood, the very people who are destroying the values of Americans. Chambliss is ok with that though, as long as the check clears.

                • debbie0040 says:

                  Fear mongering is saying that if your candidate does not win the nomination, then Obama will be re-elected because you will refuse to vote for the nominee if it is not your candidate.

                  I have been fighting for smaller, limited government within the GOP for years so don’t assume that only Ron Paul supporters are for limited government. There are many of us that have been fighting the fight within the GOP. Have not seen you guys join the fight expect during the Presidential election year. Once you see your candidate did not win, you go away and don’t engage again until the next Presidential election cycle.

                  • Jimmie says:

                    debbie0040 There it is! We have a platform to join together on. Coalition for limited Gov. We can do this! seriously. We can do this. Its not a one size fits all deal.

                    • rrrrr says:

                      Been to a real Tea Party lately? You don’t have to be a Republican either just show up and work together!

                  • maryg2g says:

                    Debbie, you have a unique definition of “fear mongering.” I’ve never heard that 1 before. Isn’t it possible that 1)some people refuse to vote for the lesser of 2 evils b/c that’s still voting for evil; 2)some people recognize that they are accountable to a higher authority than a political party; or maybe 3)some people really think that the party nominee would make a terrible president. Or perhaps there are 10 other possibilities that we might not have thought of.

                    • Doug Grammer says:


                      I know if I started out that no candidate is perfect and we always vote for the lesser of evils or the greater of goods, you would tell me how perfect Ron Paul is. Enjoy your cult.

                    • maryg2g says:

                      Doug, you seem to have overlooked this in my posts, but I haven’t taken sides on any candidate. Speaking out against egregious verbal abuse, hilariously ironic misspelled words, & hypocritical accusations among the forum members–namely you–has nothing to do with my personal choice of candidate.

                      There are no perfect candidates, & there’s a broad range between good & evil. And some Republicans can be named among the evil ones. I choose to vote my conscience, regardless of party affiliation. I choose to be as open-minded as possible to an unfamiliar point of view. I choose to carefully study the issues & every candidate’s history. I choose to ignore campaign rhetoric. If this is cultic thinking, bring me some more Kool-Aid.

                      Perhaps you’ve seen/heard this quote by someone you referenced on another thread:

                      “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. ”

                      Did MLK know you, Doug?

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      Open minded independents are appreciated. I don’t think that you fall into that category regardless of what you state. If I were to guess, I’d say you were an arrogant retired school teacher who thinks more of herself than anyone else does. I will bet your cat can’t stand you. You miss your job of bullying students and want to post on this site, so you can criticize others for spelling and grammar. Some of us don’t spell check everything before posting. We are passionate about ideas. Apparently, you don’t care about anything other than being a pain in the butt to others.

                      I decided to take a look at all of your comments in this thread. I counted that you have made 21 comments. IMO, you are condescending in 18 of them and you are insulting to others in 12 of them. Aren’t we all happy that you are adding valuable discussion?

                    • maryg2g says:

                      Doug —

                      “Open minded…blah, blah, blah…others.”

                      You’re really terrible at profiling people, aren’t you?

                      “I decided to take a look at all of your comments in this thread. I counted that you have made 21 comments. IMO, you are condescending in 18 of them and you are insulting to others in 12 of them. Aren’t we all happy that you are adding valuable discussion?”

                      I don’t have time to count all of your insulting/overbearing/bullying/obnoxious comments. Could you please do that? Now, don’t forget to take a breath every 50th or so.

                    • maryg2g says:

                      Oh, Doug. Why are you suddenly being humble? I’m sure you have MORE than 200 insulting/overbearing/bullying/obnoxious comments.

                  • nicholastjohnson says:

                    Yeah, Debbie, they caught you here.

                    You are clearly an undercover Paul supporter – you must be, as none of the other three want to shrink the size of the Imperial Federal Government of the United States of America!

              • wishbone says:

                every member on the floor has equal rights regardless of how often you see them. many members to the party are new and instead of embracing them you choose to fight with them to control the sandbox. as a new member I can tell you I did not embrace the us vs establishment mentality. that was until I saw how the convention went down in Cobb. I can confirm you will see much more inside involvement from new members. you say you want this so be prepared to support us as we fight for our voice and major change in the party.

                • CobbGOPer says:

                  Good luck to you. I tried to initiate similar action in the Cobb party last year but the good old boys are too entrenched. I’ve decided my time is better spent elsewhere than trying to fight with these cliques.

        • CNFPP says:

          The only fraud was the pro-Ron Paul tyrants who, like all dictators, scream “liberty” as part of their “revolution,” but shout down and intimidate any opposition. They cry “fraud” when their tactics do not work when they make the same point of order over and over to ask the same question which has been answered over and over. This is not “establishment” versus “non-establishment” but between people who had spent years working in the party giving up weekends, nights and vacation time making phone calls and going door to door for countless GOP candidates and whose only reward is to get to go as a delegate to a state or district convention versus people who because this year they support Ron Paul time they should be moved to the front of the line and will shout down, cuss out (I was told “[email protected] you” and “[email protected]” on more than one occasion at the convention), and bully anyone to get to the front of that line. They are typical of a certain segment of their generation that believes that they deserve whatever they ask for immediately without ever doing one thing to earn it.

          I know ever few people who were not alternates at their first convention, myself included. These folks were not happy with that and anyone who disagreed with them became a “tyrant.” There is a term as well for people who don’t think the rules should apply to them, who pout, call names and throw tantrums when they don’t get what they want…”spoiled brats.”

          • CNFPP says:

            And I will also add that I voted on the losing side. We have always added people when we had open spots and we had folks, including former state senator John Wiles, who, for one reason or another, didn’t make the list. I told the people around me that I wasn’t willing to punish folks who had dedicated years to the party to keep the Ron Paul people off the slate, but so many people where so sick and tired of the obvious stall tactics that more folks voted against. The vote didn’t come out the way I wanted, but I don’t believe in voting over and over and over to get what I want. When I got up to the mic, one party leader who I have not been friendly with since last year’s state party race said to me, “I hope you’re on our side.”

            I replied back, “the only side I’m on is the side of the rules, but I have a feeling you are going to like what I have to say.”

          • nicholastjohnson says:

            We weren’t mad at the establishment for not agreeing with us – everyone is perfectly free to make their own decisions.

            We were mad that you did nothing when the party leaders clearly used confusion to silence our voice. And, I don’t mean at 2:45PM – I mean at around noon. So, don’t say they were just tired of our crap.

            The rank and file republicans that were there are not the tyrants, but the servant of the tyrant with the power to overthrow him but does nothing is almost as bad.

              • nicholastjohnson says:

                Using the collective “you”, yes, hence, our points or inquiry and information. I’m not sure why you’re having such a hard time understanding that concept.

                If the delegates don’t understand something that is going on, they have the right to ask for clarification. We had many people for whom Saturday was their first foray into politics – why do you ask surprised when they don’t know whats going on?

                Also, I’d guess that many of the non-RP supporters there didn’t know what was going on and don’t really know what when on at previous conventions. The brass comes in and speeds through the motions, the good people say “aye” when everyone around them does, but they don’t really know the details of what is happening. Our people were instructed to be bold enough to ask the question. Admit your ignorance, and they will educate us – we were told. Sadly, patience is not limitless, so when it ran out, contention ensued.

                • Doug Grammer says:

                  OK, using the collective “you.” A bunch of people went to their first convention and didn’t understand Roberts rules of order? Oh the shock! Don’t expect others to do your homework for you. You want to play in our convention? Learn the rules fast, because there is no rule that says that we have to explain everything that happens to you.

                  • nicholastjohnson says:

                    We understood Roberts fairly well – not great, but well enough. You know that, though.

                    The confusion occurred when the chair was trying to describe what was going to happen next, take a motion, moderate debate, count votes, etc.

                    Oh, and we did plenty of homework. And, the rules clearly state that if you don’t understand something you can ask using the Point of Information, so I’m not sure what rule book you were using.

                    Your tone here and in other posts suggests that you are personally offended by our presence and our bravado – was someone rude to you personally or have you been wronged in some other way?

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      I am confused on how you think I would know anything more about what happened than by what I have read on here. I’m still waiting on you to provide your link to prove that you were unfairly treated.

                      I wasn’t in Cobb county on that day, so no one was rude to me there. I find rudeness and bravado in people attending an organization for the first time and having the audacity to state that they best represent said organization by being elected as delegates and alternates to higher conventions. I am open minded on the district and state level, but I will fight as much as my time of from work will allow to ensure that no first time GOP convention attendee will be elected at the district or state level to the national convention. I don’t have much use for people who see my organization as a means to and end without caring about it and are only focused on ONE candidate.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      “Are you in a leadership position within the GOP?”

                      That is a great question. I would say yes. Here is why. I have worked for well over 20 years trying get Republicans elected. People know my name. I think I can influence a debate. I have debated ideas. I post here fairly regularly, usually from the view point of a conservative Republican. I have raised funds for the GOP and it’s candidates. I have trained its officers. I am organizing training for it’s candidates right now, and I’ve done that several times. I am not tied to any one candidate. I have attended, organized, spoken at, chaired, and been the parliamentarian of more meetings and conventions than I can count easily. I have organized poll watches, volunteers groups, and absentee ballot programs. I have been the cause of Headquarters for my county GOP to be donated and then had to help man and organize those headquarters. I would guess 8? I have written rules, platforms, and resolutions. I have done press releases and interviews, and even twice had a regular cable TV show appearance spots. I wasn’t the Chairman at that time, but I did a regular stand in. I have knocked on doors, put up yard signs, made phone calls for, and waived signs on the side of the street for many many candidates and even been the GOP nominee for a publicly elected office. All of this has been done as a volunteer, meaning not only with no pay, but at personal cost.

                      Notice that none of that required a title, but I’ve held those too. I still have one or two, but those don’t mean much in this context. I don’t think that there’s is anything that I have done that anyone who wants to support the GOP can’t do. There are many people like me across the state.

                      I don’t plan to go to Tampa, but are you really telling us that first time attending cult members should be delegates to the national convention over people like me?

                      The real question is, do you want to be in la eadership position in the GOP? I won’t be around forever. (Other’s standing up and clapping.)

  10. Dave Allen says:

    Forsyth was still going at 6. I had to leave. Don’t know what time it finished up. There was quite a Ron Paul presence but not sure that was it. For whatever reason it took nearly 3.5 hours to get the nominating committee’s delegate list. Not sure why.

  11. maryg2g says:

    Buzz & Mize1970:

    You 2 must’ve been at some other convention. The Paulites did not try to “throw out the Credentials Committee report” & Mize’s 9-point list of nonsense would be laughable if weren’t so revealing of his pure ignorance.

    • debbie0040 says:

      Maryg2g, I was at the Gwinnett convention and the Paulites did attempt to throw out the credential committee report. They wanted to add people that had been disqualified because their paperwork did not get filled out correctly per the state call and rules.

      Paulites had to be told that the Gwinnett convention assembly did not have the power to over-ride the state call that stated delegates must be duly elected at the Mass precinct meeting. They then voted to accept the credentials report.

      Again, many saw the memo that circulated telling Paul people what to do at county conventions.

      • maryg2g says:

        Wrong again, Debbie. They weren’t attempting to throw out anything. They were trying to reinstate disqualified delegates. Period. Perhaps they tried to do this at an inappropriate time, but their intent was appropriate. Interesting how different people can see the same thing & come to different conclusions, isn’t it?

        • Doug Grammer says:

          If they were never seated as Delegates, how could they be “disqualified” delegates? If they precincts weren’t properly convened and didn’t send in the proper paperwork, then those precincts aren’t entitled to any delegates.

    • gaexaminer says:

      Maryg2g: Yes they were. I was there. They wanted it tossed and a new slate (two new slates, actually) entered after the attempt to toss the report failed.

      I don’t agree with the Paul people but I was told to screw off and interrupted when trying to HELP them get added as alternates. Sometimes, you don’t need to be shouting out to interrupt every four seconds.

      What you are stating is false.

      • Mize1970 says:

        Let me get this straight. I, and many others, went through the process, went to the mass precinct meetings, got our names on the list, went to the Nominating Committee interviews (where, by the way, I was NEVER asked which candidate I supported), got on the slate, went to the convention, paid the entry fee, went through the process . . . and because we have the unmitigated gall to fail to ignore party rules, refuse to roll over and let the Paul folks toss out the duly presented slate, replace it with one of their liking, and/or go line by line and vote out the non-Paul delegates and replace them with Paul delegates (after the convention offered to seat each and every one of them as delegates and/or alternates), WE’RE the villains?

        Just wanted to make sure.

      • maryg2g says:

        I stand by what I’ve already said. Your interpretation of that situation is way off-base…much like your excessively exaggerated interpretation of “shouting out to interrupt every four seconds.” Every 4 seconds? Really??

          • maryg2g says:

            Do I hear “6 seconds,” anyone? Maybe it’s “time”–get it?–for the 2-year olds to get new watches.

            • nicholastjohnson says:

              Maybe we should be more like the regulars and sit silently even if we didn’t understand exactly what was going on…

              On the contrary, we wanted to fully understand every single step, which is why we asked if we didn’t.

              • maryg2g says:


                Who are “we”? Are you including me in “we”? Please elaborate.

                While you’re at it, could you BRIEFLY explain Ron Paul’s foreign policy? Please keep it simple for those of us who are not critical thinkers. And, please only cite facts. BTW, if you’ve already posted this elsewhere, just point me to it. I might have missed it among all the disinformation on this site.

  12. Andre says:

    The Washington Times has details of the antics occurring at Saturday’s DeKalb County Republican Convention.

    Given the reports of chaotic meetings, full of dilatory motions and requests, I wonder about the possibilities of a 1988 repeat at either the district conventions or the state convention.

    For those unfamiliar, 24 years ago, the state Republican convention adjourned without electing at-large delegates to the National Convention due to actions by supporters of then-presidential candidate Pat Robertson. The New York Times reported on May 23, 1988 that Robertson supporters, “quickly took control of the convention hall and selected 18 delegates, and then considered a party platform and changes to party rules.”

    At the Fulton County Republican Convention, Saturday, a loud chorus of boos was heard from delegates and alternates who, I assume, support Ron Paul. There were plenty of dilatory motions that extended the convention’s proceedings past the comfort level of most in attendance. And there was a question about whether a quorum would be maintained for the official transaction of convention business.

    Now I’m not one to advocate for procedural rules that restrict the rights of delegates to participate fully in convention business, but I have a high level of disdain towards dilatory motions.

    Maybe an option that could be considered is rules of procedure that requires a threshold of support (twenty percent is a nice round number) from seated delegates to amend convention committee reports from the floor. I’d also suggest that, if there is any discussion and debate on the convention committee reports, especially the nominating committee report, that debate be limited to 10 minutes, evenly divided between opponents and proponents.

    With regards to the excessive points of order, at a certain point, I’d just stop recognizing folks from the floor.

    Being under the Gold Dome taught me that a lot of people like to use points of order and parliamentary inquiries as a method to extend debate after the previous question has been moved and ordered.

    Former House Speaker Glenn Richardson used to just stop recognizing members with parliamentary inquiries after a certain point, and tell the clerk to unlock the voting machines.

    So there they are; those are my notes on procedure.

    • CNFPP says:

      Andre, Robert’s allows for just that at the discretion of the chair. Randy over-indulged the nonsense far more than I would have, but that also means that there is no legitimate claims that the Ron Paul folks were railroaded.

      • nicholastjohnson says:

        Yes there are. Unless you studied the nearly five hour recording of the proceedings and compared what happened to the rules (as we have), I doubt you’re in a position to say that there are “no legitimate claims”.

  13. Doug Deal says:

    We had a very calm convention in Bibb, even though we had a fair number of Ron Paul supports (25-30%). I wrote our party rules and also served on the Nominating committee and we did our best to make both the rules and nominating process as fair as possible. Where we had spouses of members of the executive committee wanting to be delegates, we dropped them (including my wife) to alternates and allowed others to be delegates. We had enough slots to allow everyone to either be an alternate or delegate, so no body went home empty handed.

    I think the main reason so many counties have so many problems is that they do not want to share power and compromise is defined as getting only 95% of what you want. Perhaps if delegate qualification rules were better defined and less priorty was given to who is a friend of someone in power, there would be less argument.

  14. ptctruth says:

    Over 200 people in Fayette watched the teaparty replace Lane Watts as convention chair, by an overwhelming margin. This led to open confrontation as Tea Parties rebelled at the rule commitee not allowing a vote. Peachtree City councilman George Dienhart came to the rescue by confronting the Watts family and convention chair David Studdard and demanding that the people be allowed to vote. After the Dienhart’s applause died down, a short confab between studdard, watts and the party lawyer allowed the vote. This decision appeared to be made by Studard alone- to his credit, he did the right thing and allowed a vote. The first item up for vote may have resulted in Mariyln Watts losing her position on he executive board. Tea partier Bob Ross continued to present a slate of changes to be voted on, untill time ran out and the meeting adjourned.

    In summary, it was a bad day for the Watts familly and the establishment that is slowly killing the Fayette County GOP. It was a great day for the FC Teaparty, Fayettes conservative youth, many of whom are delagates and Dienhart, who was the one person to stand and lead in a positive direction from the floor. His confrontation with Lane Watts near the end of the meeting may be the beggining of a much needed regime change in Fayette County.

  15. Harry says:

    Couple of thoughts on both sides of the issue. A lot of those nice, clean-cut Ron Paul supporters are idealistic libertarian-conservatives and need to let their voices be heard. A minority of them are schoolteachers and Democrats and are there to be agent provocateur. Don’t kid yourself. However, those among the Paulistas who are sincere do have a point….the GOP at state and national level has at various times been aligned with special interests and all too often become an insider game. On the national level, the period of 2004-2006 comes to mind. On the state level the period of 2008-2010 comes to mind. Things may have gotten better…but only marginally so.

  16. CobbGOPer says:

    I wonder when the Ron Paul people are going to realize that the GOP doesn’t want to be changed, so doing it from the inside won’t (and hasn’t, as we’ve seen demonstrated over and over) help.

    The GOP is a lost cause. It’s time for a new party.

    • CNFPP says:

      This wasn’t about ideology. The only think I disagree with on Paul’s platform are some of his beliefs on foreign policy. Most of the people at the Cobb convention think that the party is drifting too far to the center, and would like to see a President, who was electable, who could pull the party back to those values again. You want to get a good feeling for the beliefs of the people in Cobb or Gwinnett or anywhere else in Georgia, look at the resolutions that are passed.

      What the Ron Paul people don’t understand is the issue is one of form, not substance, because, by and large, we all agree on the substance part.

      However, their candidate cannot even win in his own party. There have been about a zillion debates for Paul to get his message out, but, for whatever reasons, people don’t buy it.

      The website lined above shows what many of us who have been paying attention already know, the Paul people do not believe in a democratic process and believe it is up to them to save America from its own voters. For all of the cries of this massive amount of support he has, I have a news flash for all of the Ron Paul supporters: RON PAUL HAS YET TO WIN A SINGLE STATE.

      Some times even the best message goes nowhere if it is not carried by the right messenger. Barry Goldwater was not a good messenger, but Ronald Reagan was. Ron is not the best messenger, but maybe Rand is.

        • Jimmie says:

          I really don’t want to make this a candidate battle of sorts. The proof is in the huge discrepancies in the various Primary and Caucus elections. Missing precinct ballots, unrecorded totals, one candidate called winner by minute amount of votes to get the huge initial push then to have it reversed at a meaningless time, State Chair Persons telling entire Counties there votes do not mean anything. Enough is enough. The election process is so simple that grade school children perform it more effectively and efficiently than the GOP has this election. 2008 too! The Reagan Republicans of yesteryear are back. Many of us were young tykes back then. We actually had the luxury of not growing up as a child and not being at War our whole life. Remember those days? The one thing that sickens me the most about the National Identity of the GOP party is the thirst for War. Unnecessary Trillion dollars of war. My kids no nothing but War. In the name of what? Other than 911 and the 19 Hijackers, has our Homeland been attacked? Has Congress ever convened and deemed it nec. to declare War on another nation?

            • CNFPP says:

              No Jimmie, we just had the Cold War looming all over everything those days. I’m old enough that I was taught to duck and cover under my school desk when I saw the flash. That was the secure feeling I grew up in. What about you?

              Meanwhile, peaceniks were protesting things like Reagan’s invasion of Grenada, his bombing of Libya (remember how the French wouldn’t even let us use their air space?).

              Let’s also not forget the backing of the anti-Communist Contras and the Mujahideen, all part of the Reagan Doctrine to support anti-Communist forces.

              Reagan did not back America out of engagements. He committed force to protect America’s interests when needed. He stood strong against America’s enemies. He believed in peace through strength, but that didn’t just mean just building enough bombs, ships and planes to destroy the world 1,000 times over.

              If you want to call yourself, “[t]he Reagan Republicans of yesteryear,” then how about his bombing of a nation that did not attack us first (Libya) or the invasion of a sovereign nation that also did not attack us (Grenada)?

              It seems your memory is a bit selective, or maybe you were just too young to really remember the 1980’s.

              But is that Ron Paul’s plan? Build a big enough military that the fanatics in Iran and Syria won’t attack us? That the fundamentalists who have taken control of the other nations that went through the Arab Spring will start loving us? That North Korea will stop spending all on their military and start actually feeding their own people? That the same people who strap bomb vests on teenagers would suddenly beat their swords into ploughshares? That they will leave Israel alone? Oh wait, that doesn’t matter because part of Paul’s plan doesn’t allow us to actually have foreign allies that we agree to protect.

              Jimmie, I’m sure your answer would be, “yes.”

              However, all of human history would disagree with you. Reagan himself would disagree with you.

            • maryg2g says:

              Actually, H.J.Res. 114 wasn’t a declaration of war. For anyone thinking “Declaration of War, War Powers Act, H.J.Res. 114, what’s the diff?” consider this: When there was a motion on the floor of the House to declare war on Iraq, Chairman Henry Hyde rejected the motion by declaring:

              “There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events,
              by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer
              relevant to a modern society. Why declare war if you don’t have to? We are
              saying to the President, use your judgment. So, to demand that we declare
              war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this
              situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn’t done anymore.”

              Hyde knew the difference between a declaration & resolution, & in summary, implied, “Even tho’ we have a Constitution which enumerates the powers of the federal govt. & its separate branches with regard to war, & even tho’ that Constitution has provisions by which it can be amended if deemed necessary, today we choose to ignore the supreme law of our land & call it invalid & archaic b/c I/we say so.” He must have been right b/c nearly everyone agreed with him.

              What’s so important about a declaration of war? Here’s a good read:

      • nicholastjohnson says:

        I think that Paul and Romney are the only two who are shown beating Obama in the polls – and Paul more handily…

  17. AMB says:

    So amused. You want to run the country and you can’t even hold a county delegate convention? Sorry, boys, but that is pitiful.

    • nick says:

      I assume you’re referring to the GOP, in general.

      Vigorous debate is healthy and leads to growth; perhaps, the other party could use a little dissension among the ranks.

    • Andre says:

      If you want to go there, the Democrats want to manage Georgia’s multi-billion dollar budget, when the Democrats can’t even manage the budget of their own party organization.

      Sorry, Dems, but that is pitiful.

    • nicholastjohnson says:

      I assume you’re referring to the GOP, in general.

      Vigorous debate is healthy and leads to growth; perhaps, the other party could use a little dissension among the ranks.

    • nicholastjohnson says:

      I’m curious – do you know Ron Paul’s stance on foreign policy?

      Or, more specifically, what is it that you disagree with him on in regards to foreign policy?

    • maryg2g says:

      Also, Debbie, what are the differences between Ron & Rand’s foreign policies? With which part(s) of Rand’s do you agree/disagree?

  18. Captain America says:

    the establishment lost, the new folks won.
    This also happens on the floor of Congress and at the State Level.
    Just because your a highly influential Chairman of a committee does not mean your resolution or bill should pass because you worked hard on it.

  19. Mize1970 says:


    Since (like at Cobb GOP on Saturday) there’s about 2,000 different conversations going on at one time, I thought I’d just start anew . . .

    I’m sure you won’t believe this, but if the Paul folks had simply gone through the process, and gotten on the slate through the same open and reasonably simple avenue as I did (and I assure you, I’m nobody’s “insider” . . . in fact, I’m just plain “nobody”), if there was any question about any of it, I would be among the first to argue for your inclusion, and sending you on to Columbus (I’d also submit that you may have jumped the gun a bit . . . no direct vote was ever taken for or against any specific candidate . . . I believe that happens at the next levels anyway). Having a well-rounded slate of supporters for each of the candidates makes the next level more even-keeled and, frankly, more interesting (once you get to the national convention, bear in mind that for at least the first couple of rounds of voting, I believe, some proportion of the delegates are bound to vote for the winner of the state’s primary).

    However, from what I saw and heard both last month, and on Saturday, you cannot convince me that getting yourself added to the slate was your complete goal . . . because I’m not on your team, your goal was to remove me as well.

    • nicholastjohnson says:

      Many of us did go through the process, but as I outlined above, we’re getting hundreds of new volunteers and supporters signing up every week in Cobb, and thousands per week across the state. Those people gave up their Saturday to come to a political convention – to be the change they wanted to see in the world.

      Our goal was only to remove those people who couldn’t be bothered to show up on Saturday or who had to leave early, as if they were the only ones with lives outside of the GOP. If it wasn’t important to them to support that party at that critical event, it shouldn’t be important to the GOP to make sure they become delegates or alternates. And, to be honest, barring injury to self or a loved one, I can’t think of any excuse that could be considered legitimate.

      If you stayed the entire time, we would have never requested that you be removed.

      The situation devolved quickly, though, and I blame low sugar for that. Things were said, tempers flared and the majority got tired of hearing our side. Jason (who is a good guy, in my estimation) shut it down.

      If you look back, though, we were up against a pro in Randy in one of the most Republican counties in the nation with a significant establishment base, and we had nearly 45% of the people in the room. I’d say we did pretty well considering.

      This wing of the party is not going away any time soon – we’ll continue to grow. Eventually, we’ll be the majority, and I’ll do my part to ensure that the minority isn’t treated the same way we were on Saturday when we are.

      By the way, did you see the Secretary take away that guy’s microphone? That was craziness.

      • gaexaminer says:

        I stayed the whole time, but your attempts to toss the committee’s whole slate means that you asked for me and those who were there to be removed as well.

        • nicholastjohnson says:

          Not, necessarily, the committee’s slate – rather, any slate. Those in attendance should have taken precedence over those who were “too busy”. If there were alternate spots left after everyone present was either a delegate or alternate, we would have been glad to support people who weren’t there.

          Remember, the first choice we were given was whether or not to use a slate, but because of what I can only describe as laziness, the majority voted to use slates. We didn’t want the convention before the convention to decide who would be moving on – that’s what the real convention is for. Once you all had voted to use slates, we did the best we could.

          Oh, and I was on their slate, so I guess you’re suggesting I wanted to toss myself.

      • Mize1970 says:

        A few “for what it’s worths” . . .

        1. In general, try a little harder to work within the process. It ain’t perfect, but it’s vastly superior to anarchy.

        2. Just because we didn’t vote in favor of your motions on Saturday doesn’t make us enemies. We are probably more in philosophical agreement than you realize, but if you come at folks in an angry, adversarial manner right out of the chute, you’re just going to turn everybody off. Remember that you’re dealing with human nature, most people’s perceptions are their realities, and you’ve got a heck of a lot more people to convince than just the Cobb GOP.

        3. If you estimate the neighborhood of 45% of the room being in your camp, yes, I’d say you did darn well, all things considered.

        4. You make a fair point . . . if you’re going to participate and intend to go all the way, stay until the bitter end. I stayed. I wanted to leave, and almost did, but I knew that if I did, the way things were going, I stood a fair chance of getting kicked off the slate (I’m taking you at your word here that you wouldn’t have voted for my removal, although I still don’t believe that holds true for the rest of that bloc). That’s a lesson for all of us.

        5. Might things have gone a little smoother if your bloc (not a fan of that word, using it for expedience only) had chosen one or a small handful of spokesmen to interject on its behalf? Have the list of folks you wanted added to the slate prepared beforehand, and yes, if you intended to bounce me and the rest of the majority in favor of an all-Paul slate, have that alternative slate prepared ahead of time? Not only would the whole thing been more orderly, but I can almost guarantee you’d have earned some big-time respect from the majority.

        6. Keep all this stuff in mind if/when in four or six or eight years you ARE in fact the majority . . . and YOU have a convention to run and, by golly, we’ve got to have us some rules or things will just get out of hand. If you truly felt mistreated, remember how it felt. If you forget, there are those of us around who be glad to remind you.

  20. CNFPP says:

    Starting to stall a bit. Only up to 156 comments. Pretty good for PP these days, but still way short of the Thread of Dreams™!

    • maryg2g says:

      I was sooooo into that video that I didn’t see the ending coming. It really got me soul-searching about whether or not I could possibly be 1 of the “Evil Capt. Kirks” on this site. But, I came to the obvious conclusion of “no.” However, some of you closed-minded know-it-alls might want to watch the video at least twice.

      • saltycracker says:

        The ending was dead on – Shatner’s agent/lobbyist/benefactor ‘splained things to him…….

Comments are closed.