Ron Paul denied opportunity to speak at Republican National Convention

www.examiner.com...

The question is not "if" but "how much" this decision to not let Rep. Paul speak will hurt the Republican Party and its effort to win the White House in 2012.

www.examiner.com...

Just yesterday they said he was qualified to be on the nominee ballot. How can he be on the ballot but not be allowed to speak? Unless they don't really intend to allow him on the ballot. Sounds like more underhanded double cross from the RNC. And people wonder why I so despise Republicans.

the examiner is a propaganda tool.

its edge is dulling.

I went to the story used as a source. The last line of which is:

The primary source of the article is Chicago’s WIND.

Clicking on the furnished link does take you to WIND, but I can't find that story being discussed there. I used their search function an well as my normal rummaging around technique.

Is there some other source?

Just like the other thread that states he can be nominated because of the RNC rules, this seems like total speculation based on the delegate count and in no way is this an announcement from the RNC...correct me if I'm wrong and please provide a link.

The RNC is still a private club and will change rules as they see fit. Truth is, only the RNC and the Ron Paul camp know their respective battle-plans for the convention.

From what I've come to learn, RP has had a plan all along to deal with exactly what's transpired over the past few months and has played the best game of poker one could ever play in his situation.

Of course this, as well as the OP's article is just speculation. Time will tell.

One thing for sure...The seed of Liberty has been planted and will continue to grow and make this country great again.

reply to post by maddog99


The sources I've seen (I googled - Ron Paul speak convention) say that he doesn't have enough delegates. The GOP doesn't want him to speak. They don't want anyone muddying the Romney-bath water... Of course they're going to prevent him from speaking. The GOP doesn't want the world to see the Republican party is SPLIT down the center.

Source

But I didn't find the rule. I think you may be right. Because since when have the speakers had to even be running for president and accrued delegate votes?

Here's the closest I can find:

The Hill

Under RNC rules, candidates need a plurality of delegates from five separate states to be formally nominated. Paul already had four — Iowa, Louisiana, Maine and Minnesota — but fell short in Nebraska, with presumptive nominee Mitt Romney taking the remainder of the 35 available delegates.

The DailyPaul claims Paul meets the the five-state rule...

I don't know the truth.

So, according to the GOP, he can't be a nominee, and give a speech as a nominee. That I understand. And I'm sure the GOP has plenty of other speakers to fill up the other slots. People who DIDN'T split the vote with their Golden Boy.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The GOP doesn't want him to speak. They don't want anyone muddying the Romney-bath water... Of course they're going to prevent him from speaking. The GOP doesn't want the world to see the Republican party is SPLIT down the center.

I disagree
It's not because of a potential of a split
It's because Ron Paul's message will be a peaceful anti-war message
He will talk about Iran, Syria and the entire middle east.

That is why

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Yes. And doesn't that indicate a split in the party? I think we agree, just using different words. There are MANY Republicans who want us OUT of the wars and to mind our own business. Romney's GOP doesn't want that.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Maybe the RNC will be more receptive to have Ron Paul speak now that the Jennifer Carroll Fiasco is blowing up, and they probably will NOT want her speaking.

Between Carroll's snafu, and Huntsman refusing to attend, and Romney's Bain Capital problems, I would think they would be eager to have Ron Paul say a few words from the Conservative side of the party.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I would think so, too. But I gotta say, our two main political parties have recently shown that they are pretty stupid. Seems to me that a Ron Paul speech would serve to unite all the people of the party, showing those on both sides of the "split" that they stand together in the GOP, even though Paul didn't win the nom.

But I can't even pretend to guess their motivation for what they do anymore... It will be a VERY interesting season! I'm really looking forward to it.

He hasn't got a lot of votes behind him and he isn't the nominee so of course the GOP doesn't have to let him speak. I still think he would have done much better running as an independent or on the Libertarian party ticket. But ... It's a done deal .... Romney v Obama. Obama will win. Whatever.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Yes. And doesn't that indicate a split in the party? I think we agree, just using different words.

There are MANY Republicans who want us OUT of the wars and to mind our own business. Romney's GOP doesn't want that.

I see what you are saying but I think it goes deeper than that
See my thread here and you will understand what I mean
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's a very interesting topic

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

The DailyPaul claims Paul meets the the five-state rule...

The DailyPaul and other Paul supporters are counting states where Ron Paul supporters were elected as delegates, but they are bound to Romney or Santorum.

They are claiming that since the individual says they are Ron Paul supporters, even though they are Romney/Santorum delegates, that this gives him the majority in some states.

I think they are wrong...most media think they are wrong...and it seems the RNC doesn't go by those rules because they haven't congratulated him publicly for making the ballot (nor has Romney).

So we will hear this from Paul supporters all the way up until the Convention...and then when he isn't on the ballot and doesn't get to speak...they will say the RNC broke their own rules. It's their standard MO...they have played it over and over again throughout the primaries.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I agree. Associating himself with the party that is self-destructing before our eyes is NOT the move of a winner. One reason I think he never intended to win. He'd have to be a masochist to want to be president in these times, at his age...

But don't give up on Romney just yet. The GOP has a strong following and will unite, even if they unite behind something they disagree on. That's been proven. I'm not suggesting that you support Romney, I'm just saying don't give it to Obama yet. Some in the GOP will do ANYTHING to win... and the big businessmen who are buying this election have yet to play their trump card (no pun intended. )

Thanks for the explanation, OutKast. I shouldda known.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I agree. Associating himself with the party that is self-destructing before our eyes is NOT the move of a winner. One reason I think he never intended to win.

The GOP is not self-destructing
The country is

Abortion, social issues, gay rights bla bla bla.... it's all a distraction
Nobody makes money whether gays can get married or not
It's all distractions, both parties are pro-war

It is not at all a coincidence that the country that is the most divided on social issues on the planet is also the one engaged in never-ending but expanding wars.

You got people who will vote for Romney because they think he can handle the economy with his business backround despite all his shady associations and lobbyist money from Goldman Sacchs and such companies.

Then you have people like OutkastSearcher who thinks voting for Obama is the right thing to do despite him expanding the war and killing innocent brown people every week in the middle east and having pretty much the exact same top campaign donors as Romney.

Everyone is lost in the sauce

reply to post by ModernAcademia

Abortion, social issues, gay rights bla bla bla.... it's all a distraction
Nobody makes money whether gays can get married or not
It's all distractions, both parties are pro-war

Absolutely correct. I would give 1000 more stars if I could.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Any idea how to place a bet on the election? There have to be some Vegas odds makers for such a thing. I'm betting Obama by 7 points or more. It will be the biggest landslide since Reagan beat Mondale. (Won't be that big, but it will be shockingly bigger than the Bush (I and II) or Clinton wins.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I hesitate to agree. The reason I hesitate is that we still have a few months. A lot can happen in that time. I hope you're right. But I wouldn't place a bet. And no, I have no idea how to make a bet on the election.

If he speaks or not, on the ballot or not, I'm voting for him. There is no other choice that would let me sleep at night.
Every time I see one of the others on tv, I just see our country going to the highest bidder.