=Thank God you’re not!

But I will say this was the most positive thing the CP has done in quite a while. Too little, too late, though.

= Alan was a joke. I would have supported him if he reconciled with the CP on the foreign policy issues.

He did no such thing, and even didn’t say nice things about Constitutionalism either. That’s why he lost.

I must agree with Trent – Jeanine was vehement about the proposal

If he had, you and I (and Mike Peroutka and numerous others) would be active members of the CP today.

But I will say this was the most positive thing the CP has done in quite a while. Too little, too late, though.

Your right, im speculating—as are you.
Point being, the motion was basically dead in the water because of the Pledge to a Platform thing.

You don’t know that. As I mentioned, many of those who were in favor of the change did not want to bring it up at that moment and were content with the tabling.

Id say thats REALLY low-balling the number. 65% seems fair to me,considering no one formally challenged the ruling of the chair (which someone would be certain to do if it were 55-45).

“BTW…In addition to Howard Phillips supporting the by-law change, the change has the support of the Executive Committee as well.”

This makes it all-the-more important to oppose this measure then. I’ll not agree to any proposal where I’d need to sign a pledge to the platform—because i DO NOT adhere to the platform on SEVERAL issues.
A platform, by its very nature, is a compromise. Therefore NO ONE should fully agree with it.

“The by-law change is not meant to be hostile to Nevada or any other affiliate. It’s a forward thinking change designed to protect the party from a hostile takeover.”

Im not concerned about Nevada. Im concerned about Louisiana. We are more libertarian on the issues than the ExecComm, and the party as a whole (except perhaps Idaho and Texas). I oppose up to 4-5 planks of the platform, and much of the language. The whole notion of pledging to a platform (which is by nature a compromise) is farce.
You want to avoid a hostile takeover? Build a state party that has all delegates spots filled. Or, make sure thevarious state affilliates don’t allow delegates to attend who are politically incongruous with our objectives and goals.

Tabling was an obviously unfriendly manuever by Janine Hansen to end debate on the matter. The vote would have been very similar, if not the same, if it were an up-or-down vote.

The by-law proposal was introduced in committee. To sum it up, it simply dealt with now the national committee would deal with affiliates who do not uphold the platform. It was not a direct attack on Nevada, merely a way for the national committee to prevent a hostile takeover. It tied in committee 40-40 but still well short of the 2/3 needed to take effect. However; a by-law proposal only needs a simple majority in the convention.

The MN and GA delegations were going to introduce the by-law to the national convention and Howard Phillips agreed to second the motion. However; Chuck Baldwin specifically asked MN and GA to put off the proposal until Orlando in the interest of party unity. We agreed, but Phillips was never notifed. Thus, Phillips made the motion himself. It was them immediately moved to TABLE. The motion to table was very close…probably 55-45. Someone challenged the chairs interpretation of the results and 75% of the convention thought the chair was correct in saying “The yea’s have it”. So Trent is mistaken in saying that 75% of the convention voted down the resolution. About 55% of the convention voted to table…which is different than defeat. By having the motion tabled, it can be reintroduced at any future meeting and not be declared out of order.

BTW…In addition to Howard Phillips supporting the by-law change, the change has the support of the Executive Committee as well.

The by-law change is not meant to be hostile to Nevada or any other affiliate. It’s a forward thinking change designed to protect the party from a hostile takeover.

In the National Committee the motion tied, but needed two thirds. I wasn’t there for the National Committee so I don’t know details.

I’m not sure what the Keyes delegates have to do with this, and if so I’m not sure they understood what was going on. The fact that Nevada was not disciplined was a matter of concern for some Keyes supporters on his forum when they were considering the CP.

I agree they shouldn’t have to support the entire platform. There are certain parts I don’t agree with. This issue needs to be boiled down to the abortion issue only.

Nevada, California, Louisiana (thats my state), the Keyes delegates, and most people who were sympathetic to the Paul movement.

I’ll give you the reason why it was defeated so easily though. It demanded that delegates, candidates, and chairmen sign a “Pledge to the platform”. I told all the delegates about how I was asked to sign something similar during mywork for Ron Paul in the Republican party. The Keyes people were also opposed to it because they disagreed with the foriegn policy and foriegn aid parts of the platform.

Phillips did sponsor a resolution at the convention that would’ve allowed the ExecComm to take action against Nevada.

It was easily defeated, 3-to-1.