Who's a delegate?

I am.

It took some convincing, but the local republican chair confirmed me after I proved to him that I am traditionally republican. He said he's turned a lot of people down who are just out to vote for Ron Paul, who happens to be the most traditional republican of all.

I left a voicemail for melissa but haven't heard back.

Those who are confirmed will know who each other are once it all gets settled. Since they can still get challenged it might be best if they don't come forward on here, especially if the chairman expressed to you a desire to limit the number of Ron Paul supporters to the convention.

Any of you who are delegates, if you have not yet contacted Melissa or Bill, please do so ASAP.

I was one of the "not allowed". I thought it interesting that I could be excluded. Why wouldn't I be able to support anyone I wish, just because I'm not a card carrying member? Wonder what he would've said if I told him I support McCain... makes me question our "open" elections.

... Since they can still get challenged it might be best if they don't come forward on here, especially if the chairman expressed to you a desire to limit the number of Ron Paul supporters to the convention...

Well, he didn't sound too interested in following up, and I bet he could just as easily go through his list of delegates and check the members of the group. Either way, he just asked me to confirm that I was traditionally republican, which I am.

I agree though, if there's time to contest maybe posting your candidacy here isn't a good idea.

I was one of the "not allowed". I thought it interesting that I could be excluded. Why wouldn't I be able to support anyone I wish, just because I'm not a card carrying member? Wonder what he would've said if I told him I support McCain... makes me question our "open" elections.

I was also annoyed when he said, "I've turned down a lot of people who just want to vote for Ron Paul." Maybe I should change the thread to "who's been turned down for a delegate position?" Maybe I'd get more responses :)

Thanks for trying Jeff.

Why wouldn't I be able to support anyone I wish, just because I'm not a card carrying member?

One answer to this is that if a political party opened up its conventions for just anyone to come in and vote for whomever they please for party leadership positions, and whatever they please for changes in the party platform, etc., then they would be setting themselves up for sabotage by outsiders who don't really have any commitment to the party to begin with. Honestly, I don't see how it could be any other way.

Imagine, as our group moves forward, when and if it chooses to become something other than simply a Ron Paul group, if we were to establish a more detailed structure than we now have. And imagine if we were to have elections to choose our officers and to determine by laws for the group. It wouldn't be wise for us to open up that process to people who have never been a part of this group.

I'll also just offer my personal opinion that our efforts at getting delegates will be most effective if only those who are the more traditional Republicans within our group participated. I don't mean any offense to those who are not. But if we just stormed the convention with the largest number of us possible, including large numbers of peace activists, 9/11 truthers, and single-issue voters for legaizing marijuana (you know who you are), then, sure, we might end up with the majority there and stack our state delegation to the national convention with Ron Paul supporting delegates. But we would lose more than we gain by setting ourselves up as enemies of the party and losing any potential for changing it in the future. And for all our efforts, we still would never see Ron Paul get the nomination. Instead, we need to think more long term. We need to send our best (i.e. most Republican) representatives to this thing. These representatives need to seek ways to build bridges and work with other Republicans on areas of common ground. And they need to convince the party that it stands more to gain by including them than by excluding them. They may even end up sending a few of our own to the national convention. But they have to be smart not to overplay their hand.

The reason Ron Paul has lost every primary isn't because he was cheated out of victory. It's because winning elections requires persuading tens of millions of people to agree on what or whom you support, and we, as a nationwide movement, have not yet succeeded at that, or even come close. Nor will we ever succeed by following a strategy of beating people into submission. We need instead to proselytize them. And we will only ever do that if we see it as a long term process that is only in its infancy. We're going to have to accept that sometimes in pursuing our cause turning the other cheek will accomplish more than fighting back.

wow, I hate to follow that amazing reply, but I'll try to comment something anyway.

You made an excellent point that since the RNC is a private organization that we would be setting ourselves up for sabotage. This makes even more sense when you mention the single issue voter.

Unfortunately, the Republican party has sabotaged itself from the inside out and not the other way around. Ron Paul is the one trying to restore the party and it's outsiders who are trying to help. It's very ironic.

Unfortunately, the Republican party has sabotaged itself from the inside out and not the other way around. Ron Paul is the one trying to restore the party and it's outsiders who are trying to help. It's very ironic.

I completely agree on that. I just think we have to make sure to understand that as things are now, we're in the minority in the party, at least when it comes to power (though I think at the lower levels we have more friends than we sometimes think). So if we try to go into things like this demanding that we get our way at the expense of those in the majority and offering nothing in return, it will backfire. But if we are smart about it and look for win-win arrangements, we can make positive strides and lay a foundation for serious changes in direction in the future.

And if we're prepared for it that future could come soon. Who knows? Maybe with an Obama presidency we could have a 2010 repeat of the 1994 revolution in Congress. And with the Iraq War being a mess that will then belong to a Democrat rather than Republican president, you could start seeing the GOP become more welcoming to noninterventionist Republicans who oppose the Iraq War (like it was during Clinton's tenure), and it could be a great boon for Ron Paul Republicans, but only if we get our foot in the door well ahead of time.