It is now official that the results of the roll call vote total(s) announced by the presiding officials at the Republican National Convention were fraudulent, false and inaccurate.
It is also clear that the individual vote totals announced by the delegation chairs' of many states were false and misleading, and that the delegation chairs' from numerous states ignored and fraudulently mis-counted (at least) dozens of votes cast by Ron Paul Delegates.
For example, Sue Lowden, the delegation chairman from Nevada, fraudulently announced on National TV from the floor of the Convention that all 34 Nevada delegates voted for McCain, when in fact Nevada had (4) delegates on the floor of the convention that voted for Ron Paul. By refusing to accurately count the votes cast by the delegates from Nevada, Ms. Lowden has willingly and knowingly participated in voter fraud and corruption.
Many other state chairs' similarly mis-counted the votes of their states' delegates, and also willingly and knowingly participated in voter fraud and corruption.
Thankfully, Washington's delegation chairman Ralph Munro did the honorable thing and properly counted and announced 4 votes cast by Ron Paul delegates, and 33 votes cast by McCain delegates.
Finally, it is also clear that the convention chairman's announcement of "5" delegates for Ron Paul was false and contradictory to the vote totals for each state cast for Ron Paul that were actually announced by the delegation chairs'.
Posted by natedawg1604 at September 03, 2008 11:22 PM | Email ThisAre you telling me the Rs are the frauds? I am telling you that Ron Paul, the supposed R, is the fraud.
Posted by: swatter on September 4, 2008 11:12 AMDevil Dawg: I never accused the RNC of committing any "crimes". Indeed, you are correct in stating that the RNC is probably not required under any state or federal law to accurately tabulate, record and/or report the votes cast by National Delegates.
I never accused any RNC/GOP officials of committing any "crimes". Rather, I accused the convention chairman and numerous delegation chairs' of willfully and intentionally refusing to accurately count, tabulate, and/or announce the correct vote totals cast by the national delegates from numerous delegations'.
IF the RNC convention chairman and/or numerous delegation chairs' intentionally and knowingly altered or miscounted the votes cast by their national delegates, such conduct could certainly be reasonably characterized as "fraud", regardless of whether such conduct would be redressable through the judicial system.
It may well be perfectly legal for the convention chairman and/or delegation chairs' to intentionally and willfully alter, miscount, ignore, or otherwise inaccurately tabulate and report the votes cast by the national delegates.
Also, I never alleged that the intentional and willful misconduct of numerous delegation chairs' in refusing to accurately count the votes cast by their delegates had a material affect on the outcome of the nomination proceedings. That was not the point of my post.
The point of my post was to ask why the Convention Chairman and/or numerous delegation chairs' were so obsessed with securing "unanimous" support for Senator McCain, that they resorted to miscounting and/or altering of the votes cast by their own delegates?
Rule 38 of the National Rules of the Republican Party clearly provides that
"No delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or congressional district to impose the unit rule."
It is thus clear that no delegation chair had the right to even attempt to force or coerce any delegate(s) to vote "as a unit". Such conduct violates national party rules and is unethical and immoral, particularly when committed by persons bestowed with the high honor and responsibility of leading their delegations' at the National Convention. That was the point of my post.
Finally, I never accused the Republican Party or Republicans generally of committing fraud. Rather, I accused a very small number of individuals of fraudulent conduct, namely the convention chairman and/or the delegation chairs' from numerous states.
Bob Clark: I'm afraid you are confused about the sequence of events. The "Rally for the Republic" was held at the Target Center Arena on Tuesday, September 2, 2008. The voting for the Republican Presidential Nominee at the National Convention occurred on Wednesday, September 3, 2008.
There was no Ron Paul meeting on Wednesday, September 3, 2008, which is when the voting took place at the National Convention.
Posted by: natedawg1604 on September 4, 2008 03:47 PMSource, please.
Bob Clark wrote:
"...the Ronulans in question WERE NOT THERE when the vote was taken so their votes did not count."
Source, please.
Posted by: Michelle on September 4, 2008 04:41 PM"Considering that this is a private function, there is no vote fraud."
So, you're saying, private functions are not capable of fraud?
Posted by: Michelle on September 4, 2008 04:43 PMNone other than Fox News.
Are you serious?! That article was dated in April, when Ron Paul was still running for President. What's more, the article was quoting and linking to a blog called "FITS News--Unfair. Imbalanced." The blog predicted that Ron Paul would endorse Barr. I think they also predicted that, "Ralph Nader, who will run on the Green Party ticket, is slated to receive the endorsement of Frequent SP blogger and Washington Republican who goes by the handle 'swatter'."
Posted by: Michelle on September 4, 2008 08:50 PM1. "Ron Paul endorsed the Libertarian and not the Republican."
Ron Paul has, to date, endorsed no one. Swatter is engaging in whole fabrication.
2. "Considering that this is a private function, there is no vote fraud." Absurd.
"Fraud":
a. intentional deception resulting in injury to another person
b. a person who makes deceitful pretenses
c. something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage
NONE OF THE DEFINITIONS stipulate government involvement.
3. "...a single digit percentage of delegates" Ron Paul had between 10 and 31 percent of the delegates. We'll never know how many he'd have had (and others beside McCain might have had) IF the Republican Party Structure, working on McCain's behalf, had not broken rules and violated ethics systematically and repeatedly at every level, the Precinct Caucuses, the Primary, the Legislative District Caucuses, the County Conventions, the State Credentials and Rules Committees, the State Executive Board, the State Conventions of numerous States, the National Credentials Committee and subcommittees and on the National Convention Floor (as just reported by eyewitnesses, including natedawg) including ballot fraud, rules violations, parliamentary cheating, slander, censorship, violence, threats of violence, and breaking numerous State Laws.
4. "... the Ronulans in question WERE NOT THERE when the vote was taken"
Bob Clark has no source and no clue. This is total fabrication by a man who is adding nutrients to the enormity of his posterior in his Snohomish County living room while lying to the press and contradicting people who were actually AT the convention. WHO WAS NOT AT THE CONVENTION? BOB CLARK WAS NOT AT THE CONVENTION.
5. "OK then why weren't they there for the vote?" Clark, again, making it up as he goes along.
6. "None other than Fox News"
Read the link. It was written long before Barr entered the race and doesn't even make the allegation of a Paul endorsement, but says Barr predicts one.
Two third-grade-level incidents of name-calling:
1. "Has Doctor Ron Paul yet diagnosed his own dementia?"
2. "THE IDIOT RONULANS"
Keep it up, gentlemen, you're sinking the McCain ship in its own karma.
Were you blogging last week when the DNC cut short the roll call vote in order to prevent the image of a party divided?
There was no fraud since the votes were called out on national television. We all heard it, noticed that the women conducting the roll call vote missed it, and then realized that it didn't mean a thing.
If you're a party member then please make your feelings known to the RNC. They may already have corrected the CLERICAL ERROR in the official records.
Just like a Ron Paul acolyte--always looking in the shadows for someone to blame for their candidates lack of success instead of recognizing a fringe candidate for what he is: a smart, accomplished man who is out-of-step with what the country wants and needs.
Posted by: Bryan Myrick on September 5, 2008 10:01 AMI think, instead of arguing reasonably over facts with them, we, too, should embrace the oppressed victim status of the "Reagan Wing" and Ronulans and have ourselves a little GOP affirmative action. Let's give Reagan Wing members two votes a piece at every KCGOP and WSRP convention. Let's give Doug Parris TWENTY votes!
They'd still lose every election, but we might be spared their incessant sour grapes whining act. :D
Posted by: AD on September 6, 2008 04:20 AM