E!!

In a political move obviously intended to win support from — and undermine Mitt Romney with — Nevada Mormons, the Ron Paul campaign today released testimonials for his candidacy from Nevada members of the Church of Latter-Day Saints.

Here is the press release in its entirety:

HENDERSON, Nevada – The Ron Paul 2012 Presidential campaign announced today new members of its “LDS for Ron Paul” nationwide coalition.  The Latter-Day Saints Church members and member families joining the coalition hail from Clark and Washoe counties, both Nevada.

“It’s such a rare thing to find a politician that respects, and supports, our values.  How lucky we are to have a presidential candidate, Ron Paul, with a congressional record of supporting our faith’s understanding of the proper role of government,” said David Loyd Isbell of Las Vegas.

Mr. Isbell is a former Political Director of the Clark County Republican Party.

“We support Ron Paul because he is the only candidate we trust to defend our liberties.  He is a true believer in the U.S. Constitution and limited sovereign government.  We support Ron Paul because he knows that you cannot pick and choose freedom,” wrote Adam and Jorja Leavitt of North Las Vegas.

“Ron is a man of conviction and principle.  He is a man who has followed the Constitution, even if he stands alone.  I am happy to stand and support Ron Paul, as he not only talks about freedom, his actions and life have shown he truly believes in the principles of liberty and freedom.  His principled life is something we all should emulate,” said Jeff Gleason of Henderson.

“My primary consideration in electing any individual to public office rests on their belief in and adherence to the constitutional principles the founding fathers established 236 years ago.  During the last 35 years Ron Paul has proven that he believes in the inalienable rights of the men and women of our country.  His voting record proves that he’s a man of integrity and that he’ll stand for those rights – even when his fellow ‘conservatives’ are voting to the contrary.  I want my children to live in a free country.  I want them to be prosperous and help others because they choose to help others, not because they’re forced to do so.  Ron Paul has my vote because he is the only candidate that truly believes in my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” Dustin Olenslager of Las Vegas.

“The direction given in the Doctrine and Covenants, and the fervent pleas and warnings of President Benson and other prophets, have made it clear – there’s no question – we are to support the candidate who defends the Constitution.  The other candidates are what would be called in the business world, ‘company men’ who support those laws and institutions that have sidestepped the Constitution, minimized our God-given rights, and legalized criminal acts such as the looting of our treasury.  Brother Romney voted for the bailouts and supports the corrupt Federal Reserve,” said Chloie Leavitt of Overton.

“As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, we support Ron Paul because he completely and unequivocally supports, follows, and votes in favor of the Constitution.  Thus, he follows the admonitions found in the Doctrine and Covenants regarding the sacredness of this Divinely-inspired document.  Ron Paul is consistent in his voting record in favor of the Right to Life and has never changed his position regarding this fundamental principle,” said Terry and Raina Stump of Overton.

“The consistency which Ron Paul has shown through his voting record while in Congress is a concrete, documented proof revealing his character, which is true and genuine and has not been swayed by any outside political, religious, or financial agenda.  Ron Paul, like many great leaders of the past, emulates Judeo-Christian values, blending these beliefs with the principles of freedom and thus raising the level of public and private virtue.  It is not the religion that makes a man great, but the way in which the man carries forth his religion with truth and justice in his private and public life that makes him great,” added the Stump couple.

“As a husband and a father, my personal relationship to Christ and His Gospel has led me to care deeply for civic duty.  The standard that Constitutional government is a divine gift to be protected has become a crystal clear motivating force for my full support of Ron Paul for President.  As I have spent long hours examining key political issues espoused in my faith, I discovered that adhering to the guiding principles I have been taught since my youth is far more important than getting caught up in fanfare or personality.  Ron Paul and no other will restore the freedoms for our families that our Creator gave us,” said Jesse Law of Las Vegas.

“I support Ron Paul because he is the only candidate advocating for the principle of Agency – a principle that we as LDS hold near and dear to our hearts.  He has also shown tremendous integrity for 12 congressional terms in understanding and following the tenets of the Constitution – another principle we LDS are taught to revere.  Lastly, as if channeling President Ezra Taft Benson, Ron Paul has promoted and taught that the proper role of government is to protect our liberties, not rule by force and fear,” said Heidi Woodbury Kiene of Reno.

As a first basic step, those wanting to join the active “LDS for Ron Paul” nationwide coalition should visit the official page by clicking here.  Those residing in Nevada should email Meghann Walker, the Nevada Voter Outreach Director, at meghannw@ronpaul2012.com.

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.

After carrying herself in a fair, patient, and professional manner over the past eight months, it seems Sue Lowden must now bear up under the label “inept” by the RNC Committee on Contests.  This tag seems harsh and unfair in light of the extreme difficulty and complexity of Lowden’s position this election cycle.

The real story – which is not one of party ineptitude but instead of the combative and unreasonable demeanor of one Mr. Jeff Greenspan – began early this year.  Greenspan, an official Ron Paul campaign representative with whom Lowden was working after Paul received 14 percent of the vote in our presidential caucuses, agreed that the Nevada GOP would give Paul 14 percent of the state delegation (equating to four delegates).  Lowden invited Ron Paul to speak at our state convention, and Greenspan submitted the names of four Ron Paul supporters to the Nominating Committee for consideration.

But on the morning of the convention, April 26, for reasons I have yet to understand, Greenspan went back on the deal with the Nevada GOP.  Instead of moving to an up-or-down vote on the delegate candidates pre-screened from the dozens that had been submitted for consideration, Greenspan teamed up with a Paul supporter named Mike Weber, led a floor “revolt,” and threw the convention into chaos.  How did they accomplish this?  By insisting on opening up nominations from the floor.  This resulted in some 287 new nominations for 31 delegate slots and 31 alternates.

There was no way the convention and/or state party could hear and vet 287 last-minute nominations in one day.  In fact, in light of the time it takes to hear individual speeches/pitches for candidacy, eat meals, take bathroom breaks, allow for interruptions, and take care of other necessary convention business, it is doubtful whether full, fair and proper vetting of 287 new delegate candidates could have been done in two, three, or even four days.

And so it was that the well coordinated, pre-arranged delegate selection process put in place by the party and agreed to by Jeff Greenspan turned into an unholy mess.  The convention fell apart.  And to outsiders, the process meltdown probably did appear “inept.” 

After the convention fell apart, Greenspan, Weber, and other Paul supporters like Wayne Terhune continued their crusade, doing what they could to impede reconvening and even holding their own unsanctioned “convention” in June.  Due to the boycott by the Paul people, the GOP was unable to obtain enough RSVPs to obtain a quorum for the reconvening of the official state convention.

This week the RNC Committee on Contests reviewed the matter, ruled that the Paul “convention” in June was unauthorized, rejected the “delegates” that were “elected” at that meeting, and recommended a compromise by which the Nevada Republican Party will replace four of the current convention delegates (which the Nevada GOP’s Executive Committee appointed last month) with four Ron Paul delegates. 

Readers will note that four delegates is exactly the number of delegates the Nevada GOP had originally agreed to include before Greenspan reneged on the original deal.

Chairwoman Sue Lowden has agreed to the compromise.

“It was always my intention and hope to bring the Ron Paul people into our party,” she said yesterday.   “In fact, I was the only state Republican party chairman to invite Ron Paul to speak at our state GOP convention.  So I’m more than happy to accept the compromise proposal from the Contest Committee, especially since it’s exactly what we had already agreed to last April.”

The matter is scheduled to move to the national convention’s Credentials Committee next.  If the Paul camp also accepts the compromise proposal, this mess will be at an end.

Either way, Greenspan and his minions owe Sue Lowden an apology for their antics and the tremendous amount of time and energy that has been wasted trying to work with them and around them.  And Ron Paul should dismiss Greenspan from his campaign.

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)

On the subject of delegates to the Republican national convention, a few readers (who don’t normally follow politics but are now perking up) have asked me what the stats from Nevada’s state caucuses were.  You can view them here. 

Romney got 51.1% of the vote; Ron Paul got 14.73%; and McCain got 13.75%.

PragmaticallyPolitical writes in re: to the election quandary:

It’s not a sacrifice of values to recognize that Barr (or any other 3rd party candidate) won’t win.  However, if you want to make a political statement, DON’T DO IT IN A SWING STATE!  Libertarians for Barr are far less detrimental in Illinois or Utah than in Ohio or Nevada.

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.