E!!

Every now and then an E!! reader-commenter deserves front-and-center for noting some aspect of a story I overlooked…or for seeing it in a new way.  Here’s Mike Davis quoting and commenting on a LV Sun story about the four Nevada Ron Paul delegates who ended up voting for McCain:

“Carl Bunce claims Gestapo tactics were used to coerce him into voting for McCain, but I found Lisa Mascaro’s article in yesterday’s Sun to be particularly revealing:

“Dyer said he and Bunce, who ran recently failed in congressional primary elections, want to run for office again. So they had motivation to play nice.

“When the roll call vote came, Bunce and Dyer forfeited their seats so two McCain supporters could fill the slots.

“Not all of Paul’s supporters are pleased. Wayne Terhune, the Sparks dentist who had helped lead the fight, said ‘they should have at least abstained’

“As party Chairwoman Sue Lowden announced Nevada’s 34 unanimous votes for McCain, Bunce and Dyer were at a concert a few blocks away.

“They were listening to Rage Against the Machine, the 1990s rock band that once offered a soundtrack for a generation of politically disaffected young fans.”

After all of the nonsense over the last 4 months to get these guys there, and when the vote finally goes down, two of the four delegates weren’t even in the building.

That’s frigging sad.”

(Mike Davis is the state chair of the Nevada Republican Liberty Caucus, a grassroots org for libertarian-leaning members of the NV Republican Party who are committed to advancing the Republican majority by recruiting and electing candidates dedicated to constitutional government, economic opportunity, and individual liberty.)

UNbeLIEVEable.

After all the gripes, demands, curve balls and chaos out of the Ron Paul camp here in Nevada this past 5 months…starting with the attempted overthrow of the GOP convention in April and followed by a long, hot summer filled with bitter accusations, a rogue convention, various court filings, angry refusals to negotiate or cooperate, and a formal appeal to the RNC….

AND after being granted four delegates by the RNC – the EXACT NUMBER earned by Ron Paul in the NV caucuses and that was agreed to by the NV GOP way back when…what do you suppose happened on the floor of the convention last night?

All four “Ron Paul delegates” voted for John McCain.

What a colossal waste of time, energy, and money, for all concerned.

Well this is interesting.  The Reno Gazette-Journal is reporting that an RNC panel has rejected both the “dueling delegations” from Nevada and has recommended that a  “compromise group” be seated.  This is the first I’ve heard of it.  Let me see what I can find out.

 Update: I still don’t have anything solid to go on, but it’s hard to believe the Nevada GOP would go for a compromise delegation…since that was already offered and turned down by the Paul supporters way back at the state convention last August. (dumb, Dumb, DUMB)

Confession:

I love to predict political outcomes but so far have lacked the courage to post them on E!!  Today, I shed the shackles of fear and take a stand with some predictions…

Obama’s VP pick will be Evan Bayh.

McCain’s VP pick will be Romney (who will run in 2012 when McCain decides one term was enough).

McCain-Romney will win easily in November.

Hillary will win her party’s nominiation in 2012 after saying something like this to the Dems, “Hey Dummies!  Your arugula-eating, Maxim reading, Harvard grad Golden Boy got stomped in ’08, so stop messing around and nominate me.”

The Corner is speculating that Chet Edwards (not John) might be the pick.  Not a good idea due to the possible name confusion; don’t think it’s gonna happen. 

I think Obama should pick Hillary if he wants to have any chance of winning, but I’m not sure she would agree to take it or that he would be willing to tolerate her on the ticket – or in the White House on a daily basis. 

Geraldine Ferraro was on Hannity last night and said there is “no way” Hillary will accept the VP spot under Obama.  Others have said they think she would, if it were properly offered.

If I were a Hillary staffer, I would advise her to Just Say No to Obama and stick with the roll call vote at the convention, which even if she loses will remind people that she still has strong support in the Demcoratic base, and then in 2012 she can come back and say (to the Dems), “OK Dummies, your Golden Boy got stomped in ’08, so stop messing around and nominate me.”

One of today’s Roll Call alerts leads with this opener:  “With the controversy surrounding Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) speaking at the GOP presidential convention and his name being floated as a potential GOP running mate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) maintains that there will be no consequences for the Independent-Democrat.”

What “consequences” would there BE…? 

Does this mean Reid has called off his privately funded band of mercenary thugs?  Or changed his mind about bribing a Senate dining room server to poison Lieberman’s lunch?

And is this anything like Jack Nicholson’s order (in the film A Few Good Men) that Private So-and-So was “not to be harmed”?

This morning on the drive to work, I heard Heidi Harris say (on talk radio KXNT) that Obama will be opening four more campaign offices in Las Vegas this week.  Not surprising now that McCain has a slight edge in the polls.

The good news for the Dems is their voter registration edge of about 60,000, many of whom were signed up by the Obama campaign in recent months.  In addition, the Las Vegas Sun reports that the Dems have trained 600 new precinct leaders in addition to the 1,000+ who were trained for the caucuses.

The bad news for Obama is that he has to overcome the senate’s most liberal voting record in a state that is unwaveringly pro-gun and has a deep aversion to tax hikes.  He’s also got a problem in re: to energy because the majority of Nevadans – in both parties – support creating more energy (drill, drill, drill) vs. cutting consumption.

The question is:  will those extra voter registrations and the opening of these new campaign offices make a difference for Obama in November – and should the NV GOP follow suit?

Republicans tend to be more reliable voters, so the GOP doesn’t always have to work as hard to get their peeps to the polls.  With numbers this close, though, McCain’s people may want to take a page from the 2004 Bush-Cheney playbook.  The Republican ground operation in Nevada was huge and Kerry was defeated by 21,500 votes.

Not sure that’s going to happen, though.  The McCain campaign seems to be focusing more on Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan — states with larger numbers of electoral votes than Nevada – I guess thinking that if they can win 2 out of 3, they can win the whole enchilada.

Obama seems to be taking a different approach:  grabbing enough (other) Bush states such that losses in the big Midwestern states won’t mean as much.  Clearly, Nevada is one he wants in the bag.

In re: to my comments and questions about voting Independent/Libertarian vs. Republican this fall, reader Nicky Cheese made these comments:

I’ve never bought into that “spoiler” rhetoric. More choices are better than less, no? 

Individuals ought to vote for the candidate they believe best represents them. A vote is a reflection of one’s values. Utilize the full range of potential choices in order to affirm what is closest to your values.

Movements are long-term.

More choices are better than less.  But is it really a “choice” when we don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of actually getting what we chose?  If a vote for Barr or Paul still gets us McCain or Obama, as we all know it does, what good was our principled selection?

And is the spoiler argument really just rhetoric?  In the Bush/Gore contest, Gore lost Florida (and the whole enchilada) because of the votes that went to Nader.  No doubt the Naderites were “voting their values.”  But what about the prudence of picking what’s better when you can’t have what’s Best?  I’d sure like to ask those Nader voters what they’d choose if they had a Do-Over. 

The argument that gives me greater pause – i.e. that I think is more compelling – is that of long-term vs. short-term thinking.  As we consider the coming decades, what will best stop our slide to the Left and the disturbing hyper-expansion of the State? 

Do we stand on principle and vote ultra-conservative or libertarian every two years, win or lose, with the hope of steering the GOP to the right and/or bolstering what might someday become a viable Third Party?  And if we don’t, what will compel anyone to consider our cause?

Please chime in and pass along this post so we can hear from more folks.  I’ll post the best remarks up front to spark further discussion!

Have you heard about the defiant posse of disillusioned GOP-ers that held an unsanctioned state convention in Reno this past Saturday? Organizers claim it was a lawful reconvening of the GOP’s recessed April 26 state convention in Reno (which was shut down prior to final voting). However, the party’s executive committee has set (and stuck by) a July 26 date to resume activity.

Depending on who you ask, the late April shut down was either (1) a tragedy of epic proportions because it was shaping up to be a national delegation with more backers for Ron Paul than John McCain, or (2) a proper procedural response because there were too few delegates to call a quorum (because the promised Ron Paul reps did not actually materialize on the convention floor).

State rules say roughly 800 total delegates are needed in order to obtain a convention quorum. We didn’t have them in April, and we didn’t have them this weekend either because the Ron Paul reps barely numbered 300. (And just for extra fun, we’re not sure how many of those delegates were credentialed since Paul organizers didn’t have the official delegate List with which to cross-reference attendees.)

Depending on who you ask, the Ron Paul backers (1) asked the GOP for the List and were refused, or (2) did not follow the proper procedure for obtaining the List.

Any-hoo, this weekend’s gathering of 327 was a pretty poor showing considering the Paul camp claims that they had “over 1,000” delegates teed up. Their response? The April convention did not have a quorum and was invalid – but this one counts because this weekend’s first order of business was to change the rules of quorum and (you guessed it) decide that 327 delegates was enough.

Ron Paul devotees say they will take their fight to be recognized as The Legitimate Convention all the way to September’s Republican National Convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul and that they will appeal their case to the RNC and/or national convention committee. Many Paul backers have also said they will cast a write-in vote for the Texas congressman in November because McCain is closer to being a Democrat than a conservative.

They have my sympathy, as far as that goes, but all this Brouhaha brings us round to a familiar electoral quandary. Do you cast a principled vote for an Independent candidate who is closer to your (and your party’s) values but could also be the “spoiler” that leads to the election of the opposition? Or do you compromise and go with the safer bet to ensure we maintain at least some semblance of sanity in the White House?

In a swing state where President Bush narrowly won in 2000 and 2004, your decision could play heavily in the national election.

Your comments are welcome, because I’m still undecided myself.