This option will reset the home page of The Hayride restoring closed widgets and categories.

Reset The Hayride homepage
RSS Feed Facebook twitter

(UPDATED) Ron Paul’s Unnecessary Black Eye In the Louisiana Caucus


Update: Scroll to the bottom for an email I got from Chad Rogers, as well as a message from Austin Stukins, the Louisiana Grassroots Coordinator for the Newt Gingrich campaign.

It’s not a surprise that Ron Paul is walking away from Saturday’s Republican caucus with the lion’s share of delegates, but the lengths that his supporters in Louisiana went through to give the national party’s establishment candidate a giant middle finger is disconcerting and unnecessary to boot.

Paul is poised to head into the state convention in Shreveport on June 2 with delegates in all six of Louisiana’s Congressional Districts composed almost entirely of his people. He was mostly likely going to carry the convention anyway—the zealotry of the Texas congressman’s fans is legendary. Since Romney has the Republican presidential nomination wrapped up at this point in the game and other major contenders have dropped out of the race, the Paul-or-nobody crowd were sure to carry the day.

The delegates that the Louisiana Republican Party chooses will be shipped out to Tampa, Florida for the national convention held during the last week of August—meaning there will be that many more Paulites friending each other on Facebook to bitch about Romney being picked as the presidential nominee after the convention. That’s about the most that will come from his victory in Louisiana, truth be told.

This being said, I have to admit that I have gotten something of a dark pleasure seeing Paul supporters thumbing their noses at the establishment candidate throughout the nominating process. Romney has been the peas that momma has been forcing us to eat, while Paul has been the libertarian pie on the table. He’s tempted me, as well, but his views on foreign policy aren’t very palatable and I believe that he would go down in flames in the general election to Obama. I have eaten the Romney peas like a good boy. Getting Obama off the table is my primary concern. It would be nice to just feed Obama to the dog under the table, but I hear that works the other way around.

Paul supporters seem hellbent on seeing their guy pulling off the upset of the ages by packing the national convention with enough delegates to wrest the nomination from Romney. It’s just an Internet fueled wet-dream and it isn’t going to happen.

To the chagrin of the Romney camp, Paul supporters have clinched the Louisiana delegation, which was augmented by this flier:

It was created by Chad Rogers, proprietor of The Dead Pelican, and was handed out by Paul supporters at the caucus as a voter guide.

The problem is that what it was really guiding voters toward was caucusing for Paul. The official Paul slate was “7″, but slates 1, 4, 6, 8 and 9 were comprised of the same delegate candidates.

Here is a little breakdown from a Times Picayune article on the fracas following the caucus:

Slate 1, composed entirely of Paul supporters, bore the “Romney: Believe in America” campaign logo and was identified as the Republican Unity Slate.  The guide stated, “Voters for this slate will accrue more unbound delegates and alternates for Mitt Romney at the 2012 National Convention.” Why that was true was not explained.

Slate 2, which was originally the Gingrich slate, was also identified as “Undecided/Unknown” with the explanation, “It may be best defined as a formerly pro-Gingrich and now pro-Romney slate of delegates who wish they could be uncommitted forever.”

Likewise, Slate 3, which originated as an uncommitted conservative slate that would have been available to Santorum, was similarly dismissed as “a formerly pro-Santorum now pro-Romney slate of delegates who wish they could remain uncommitted forever.”

Slate 4 was identified as “Citizens Against Traffic Cameras” and didn’t name a preferred candidate.

The guide identified Slate 6, bearing the Santorum and Gingrich campaign logos and a red, white and blue elephant logo, as the “Republican Unity Slate,” and said, “Voters for this slate will accrue more unbound delegates and alternates for Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum supporters at the 2012 National Convention,” again with no explanation as to why that would be.

Slate 8 was identified as “Pro-Faith Pro-Family Pro-Freedom,” without mentioning a specific candidate.

Slate 9 was identified as the “Stop Agenda-21 Tea Party” slate and suggested, “Vote for this slate if you’d like to see delegates focus on inserting language protesting the United Nations Agenda-21 program in both the state and national party platforms.”

There are Republicans who are characterizing this as voter fraud—a little bit of hyperbole. It doesn’t reach that level, but it is deceptive and Paul supporters didn’t really need to go there. They worked overtime to give their guy a good showing in the Louisiana Republican caucus and a stunt like this clouds their efforts.

It’s a shame that it had to come to this, as some Republicans are now calling for the resignation of state party leaders, and recriminations for Charlie Davis, who runs Paul’s campaign in Louisiana and who’s a former Executive Director of the Louisiana GOP. There is also a boycott of The Dead Pelican underway. The Pelican is an important clearing house for news in Louisiana that makes my job a lot easier and I won’t be boycotting it. I doubt many other Pelican readers will be either. There is no great fidelity to the national Republican establishment in this state, as Rick Santorum’s victory in the Louisiana Republican Primary demonstrated.

Louisiana Republicans, however, like folks to play fair and the way in which Paul delegates won gives both their guy and the caucus selection process a black eye. It didn’t need to happen that way.

Update: I thought that is was only fair to let Chad respond to this controversy. Here’s what he had to say in an email to me in response to one I sent him earlier giving him a heads up that I was going to address the matter on The Hayride.

I wouldn’t publish a private message without permission, which he has given me:

Tom, think about what you just wrote.

By your own admission, the Ron Paul people had the caucus wrapped up.  They didn’t need the help of my flyer.

That doesn’t seem to be Austin Stukins’ version of the story. His version of the story, as I read it, seems to be that Romney (Newt?  Santorum?) had the election in the bag until I hoodwinked those poor innocent caucus voters into voting for Ron Paul.

Is that not what he and many others are suggesting? If so, are they being honest? Remember, the people accusing me of spreading misleading information are acting like Ron Paul won because of my voter guide.

So, they are claiming that my flyer is deceptive.

Which part of the flyer? Well, that seems to change from week-to-week.

The latest version of the story (I think)  is that  I presented misleading information about slate number one.

Last week, they said I was presenting misleading information about slates number 2 and 3.

I said that slates two and three were cutting a deal with Mitt Romney.  Laura O’Halloran said that I was lying. I posted her email here.

In the email, O’Halloran claimed that her slate was committed to Newt Gingrich- unless he were to drop  out.

Here’s the quote:

Since Rick Santorum has suspended his campaign, the Louisiana Conservative slate #3 will be supporting Newt Gingrich as of now. If Newt drops out of the race this week, I will keep you apprised of the changes to the slate. CONTRARY TO THE RON PAUL CAMPAIGN, WE ARE NOT SUPPORTING MITT ROMNEY, NOR MAKING ANY DEALS WITH HIS CAMPAIGN. Many Tea Party activists are on the LA Conservative slate and joined it in order to NOT support Ron Paul OR Mitt Romney.

 

IF NEWT  drops out? Really?  As I read her piece, she was suggesting that there was some doubt about Newt’s inevitable exit.

Is it completely honest for her to suggest that Newt might NOT drop out?

Even as she was writing that email, there was little doubt that Newt was going to drop out, but she  was acting as though he might remain in the race.

Moreover,  O’Halloran  was denying that a deal was being cut between her slate and the Romney slate.

Well, days later, a report surfaces in the Times Picayune claiming that a deal was being worked out between slates two and three and Romney’s people.   In other words, they were confirming what I had previously written,  and O’Halloran claims that I had lied about.  More on that can be found here. Again, I am citing a Times Picayune report:

Slate 5 originated as a Romney slate, however, Scott Sewell, who is directing the Romney effort in Louisiana, negotiated with Slates 2 and 3 so that they would include some Romney folks and he would make room for some Gingrich and Santorum folks on 5. Sewell said the Romney campaign is perfectly happy to have the convention delegation reflect Santorum's victory in the primary, and to include backers of Gingrich and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, as well. Sewell said the Santorum and Gingrich backers in Louisiana are amenable, but the Paul people are not. ... In the 2nd Congressional District, among those appearing on Slates 2, 3 and 5 are former Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao, Bryan Wagner and Winnie Brown. In the 1st District, candidates on Slates, 2, 3 and 5 include Michael Bayham, a leading Santorum supporter, Romney loyalist Shane French, Jefferson Parish President John Young, Suzanne Terrell and Polly Thomas. The only individual on Slate 2 who is not also on Slate 3 is former Rep. Bob Livingston.

It appears as though there was ample evidence to back up what I was saying about slates two and three.  It seems as though a deal was being cut with  O’Halloran’s slate, yet she accused me of  of lying about it in an email that was sent out to a tea party mailing list.

Now, this is the part where someone will tell me that this woman had no business speaking for the rest of her slate.  Well, guess what?  SHE DID speak for the rest of her slate, and she was did it rather publicly. I had proof of this,  and I published it, yet no effort was made to call her out or correct anything that she said.

In short, it appears as though many of the people accusing me of  spreading misleading information are NOT being  completely honest themselves.

I’m being accused of dishonesty by people who don’t seem to be very honest themselves.

Chad

And this from Austin:

Well folks, since I have been mentioned here, and accused of being a liar, allow me to clarify.

I am the Louisiana Grassroots Coordinator for Newt Gingrich’s campaign. I took issue with the fact that our logo and Senator Santorum’s logo were placed on the flier endorsing slate number 6.

Now, I was there the day slate numbers were issued, and knew that our campaign paid to sponsor the individuals identified as conservatives affiliated with the Louisiana Conservative Delegation.

Many of our supporters had affiliated themselves with the LCD many months ago, and remained on board with the LCD. Our campaign sponsored that delegation, and in turn was given a slate number in exchange for a financial contribution to the party.

The way this would have worked is that any person who voted for the Official Gingrich Slate (Slate 2) would be a vote cast for the Louisiana Conservative Delegation (Slate 3).

The same thing occurred for slate 6, being a vote for slate 7 (in this case, both purchased by Ron Paul’s State Chairman)

Furthermore, a simple query of the LAGOP would have provided that Ross Little was overseeing the Louisiana Conservative Delegation, and that Romney’s Campaign was sponsoring slate 5.

In addition to that, it was no secret that Ron Paul’s State Chairman, Charlie Davis, paid for the rest of the slates (read between the lines there).

Honestly, the results are what they are, Ron Paul turned out supporters at the caucus, and they won. The impact is one that our party will suffer from a conservative standpoint. I take issue with the misleading information in that flier.

A caucus-goer who was headed to vote for Pro-Romney or Pro-Santorum candidates could have easily been misled by the information disseminated. My supporters received emails right up to the caucuses informing them that they should vote for slate number 2.

The principle of the matter – is a matter of principle, the information disseminated was incorrect, and any person in the field of “Journalism” should act with responsibility and integrity. That means getting your facts straight, and if you make a mistake, you correct it by retraction.

As a contributor to The Hayride, I was always told by Scott McKay, that I don’t care what you choose to write about, as long as you have your facts straight; of course I’m paraphrasing, but nevertheless, we should demand responsible journalism as the world continues to rely more and more on sources such as the Dead Pelican and The Hayride for updates on current events.

With all that being said, Chad Rogers should never question my integrity, EVER again. I am a man of honor and integrity. With eight years of faithful service to my country, having led Marines in combat, I pride myself on the Corps Values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment.

Therefore I will stand by my honor, with courage in the face of adversity, and remain committed to boycotting the Dead Pelican until Mr. Rogers renounces that sort of misleading behavior, and vows to adhere to a sense of Journalistic integrity as other Journalists do around the world. If you want to be the face of internet news in Louisiana, I’m certain Louisiana would appreciate honesty and truthfulness as seen here at The Hayride.

If there is anyone else who was involved in the caucuses that wants to be heard, just email me at tom@thehayride.com or send me a Facebook message and I will see if I can get it up for you.


202 Comments

  1. Steve Farber says:

    They CHEATED to win for God's sake! I really can't believe the Hayride is down playing this. How is using the Romney logo on slate #1 when its delegates were unknowingly going to support Ron Paul NOT some form of vote fraud? This is the kind of crap we expect out of Marxist Democrats. Then slate #9 used the word Tea Party when I don't know of one Louisiana Tea Party that has endorsed Paul. These idiots expect the people of Louisiana to believe that a guy that only got 6% of the vote in the Primary is now flipped and is now the most popular?

    • Tom Bonnette says:

      The reason that it's not being called voter fraud on The Hayride is 'cause it wasn't. Unless the Paul people were out there forging signatures to caucus, it doesn't fit the criteria. Was it dishonest? Yep, which is what it is being called out for here. What this comes down to is Paul people distributing literature to influence the vote in a deceptive way. While it shouldn't be downplayed, it should not be overplayed.

    • Paul Vicknair says:

      Is The Dead Pelican a creation of the Ron Paul campaign? I've never read it.

    • Doesn't matter if he is the most popular, it matters if he gets the most votes.

    • Also, you might as well drop that Gadsden patch if you are going to back Romney because he will tread on the liberties of all.

    • Trent Hill says:

      Paul Vicknair You must not be terribly active in the Louisiana Republican circles or blogosphere. DeadPelican has been around for years. The blogger used to not even like Ron Paul and still isn't part of the campaign in any official capacity.

    • Trent Hill says:

      Steve–we cheated to win? The slates besides Romney and Paul–if you discount them entirely–we still beat you guys by a wide majority. So…how did we cheat to win?

    • Ed Jones says:

      Tom Bonnette : Thanks for putting the word out about the deceptive practices of the Ron Paul workers. They don't care what is right, all they care about is themselves and winning at all cost.

    • Tom Bonnette is correct. I believe Chad should still be called out for what he did and how slimy I believe it was but it's not technically "fraud". Misleading. Deceptive…whatever, maybe. But it certainly was low-ball.

    • Trent Hill says:

      Robin Harris Edwards Plus–all Paul supporters are "UnAmerican, UnConservative, Libertarian Retards!" right? I noticed you deleted that status last night. Too bad, it shows exactly what you and the BR Tea Party think of unity and libertarianism (Which Reagan called the heart and soul of conservatism), and about civility.

    • Michael Blache says:

      Travis, you are absolutely right,,,Ron Paul has laid out the strategy and it doesn't include primary states. Paul supporters knew where the meat on the bone was in Louisiana and skipped the primary. This is happening all over the country to include Iowa, Alaska, Minnesota, Colorado ect.

    • Trent Hill , there is no more BRTP.

    • Paul Vicknair says:

      Trent Hill: I'm not particularly politically active, nor do I pay attention to political commentary as most of it is abject hackery. I have been a registered republican since I turned 18, but I got sick and tired of being herded into having to hold my nose when I go to the polls when November comes around. I am interested, however, to learn that The Dead Pelican has been around for years (presumably before the 2012 Ron Paul campaign) and that the blogger in question didn't even like Ron Paul and isn't affiliated with his campaign.

    • Clifford Bullock says:

      Trent Hill ….. so the part where you cheated was OK then? OK cool I'll remember that cheating is OK if it is not the ultimate reason for victory.

    • Clifford Bullock says:

      Trent Hill ….. Hey clueless….Robbin Edwards left BRTP three years ago. I'ts run by moronic infiltrators, moles of the left and Paul-bots now.

    • Jeff Blanco says:

      Steve, the Ron Paul campaign did not cheat, commit voter Fraud, etc. They won outright, they got the most votes. What I have a terrible problem with, is not the Ron Paul campaign, unless they distributed those fliers or paid for them. Chad is responsible for the fliers. Well, that's what you get for trusting the Dead Pelican, right?

    • Joshua Dean says:

      Ed Jones Ooooh so scary, Ron Paul Supporters, boo-hoo! Maybe had you gotten of your ass and campaigned like we did, we "Paulbots" might be talking about a Romney victory! But no, even Santorum and Gingrich supporters can't stomach Romney, so we won! Fair and Square! Moaning and bitching is all y'all are doing…

    • Joshua Dean says:

      Clifford Bullock We didn't cheat to win. How about in Maine, where the state party there wouldn't count the remaining 13% of the vote in a county that Rep. Paul had won in '08? That's cheating, and Romney just barely edged out Rep. Paul on that. My bet is that is cheating, but that's okay right? Since it favored the "presumptive nominee"?

    • Ed Jones says:

      Jeff Blanco -Ron Paul's workers did pass them out in Pineville.

    • Randy Hebert says:

      Paul Vicknair No it is not. Chad is a straight up guy and if you knew him the way some of us do, you would have an appreciation of his integrity. Unlike some I know. If you like Moon Griffon you will come to love Chad as well. Some would have you believe he should not be a bias conservative with an reading audience. Well guess what… He is and some of us have an appreciation for it! Especially since Chad and I are on the same side of issues. During the last presidential cycle some of us suported the same candidae. We are divided this time and attacking any and all bystanders.

  2. Ed Jones says:

    I was involved in the Pineville caucus and saw this being handed out and thought it was an official explanation and could not believe what it said. I knew something was fishy. My daughter was a running as a delegate and became disgusted at the out right lies of the Ron Paul people. This handout was not correct, slate 3 was only Rick Santorum delegates, however it was misrepresentated by Dead Pelican and Ron Paul supporters. I agree with Steve. They cheated with this type of literature and should be punished by the party.

    • Santorum's out, so there are no more "Santorum Delegates"…..only Romney or Paul delegates. Choose sides….

    • Spencer Burns Pearson says:

      Completely inaccurate. I was at one of the caucuses where multiple Romney delegates were asking people to vote for them on slate #3. If we're characterizing delegate slates as "dishonest" then the Romney campaign is just as guilty for evidently tricking Santorum supporters into thinking he still had a slate.

    • Ed Jones says:

      Travis Kirkland , We are chosing sides, anyone but Ron Paul and his dishonest workers.

    • Ed Jones says:

      Spencer Burns Pearson , dont tell me what is not accurate. I was there the entire process. The slate 3 delegates knew Sanatorum was no longer on the ticket, but they were misreprensented by the Ron Paul surrogates. They were going to be delegates for the principles that Santorum stood for. You are in Baton Rouge and were not in Pineville last Saturday, so you can not address what did or did not happened there.

    • Ed Jones, I have done nothing dishonest. It baffles me how you would support someone who has stated that he is pro choice, thinks that gun control is a good idea, stated the he supports NDAA which gives the president the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial, supports an individual mandate, supports assasinating American citizens by un-manned drone, and supported the bail outs…..It would seem as if you have chosen the side that shows complete and utter disregard for the Constitution of the United States.

    • But Ed, it does not explain Paul's win at caucus sites where the flyer wasn't present.

    • Michael Blache says:

      Cheated? are you serious??? Roger Villere and his cronies moved the caucus back to April 28th only because they knew Paul could win and they were sure that by doing so the race would have already been decided in Romney's favor. Guess what? It wasn't and Paul's supporters showed up to vote. Now the status quo has egg on it's face and wants a scapegoat.

      The LAGOP has a long history of cheating Ron Paul and his supporters going back to 2008 when they did the identical same thing for McCain claiming they were all uncommitted candidates and pro life candidates. When it became apparent that Paul could represent a win in 2008 they changed the date of qualifying at the very last minute and enlisted several high profile candidates who had just won elections. Then to make matters worse they brought out of date voting roles and made recent converts to the republican party vote provisional. I was a delegate candidate and had to vote provisional. There were so many other things I could tell you about like how the uncounted provisional votes disappeared into the night after the driver carrying them to Baton Rouge called the State Police to say he was being followed and feared for his life. This was after the Paul supporters identified themselves and asked if they could follow him to Baton Rouge because the "unsecured" ballot box would not be protected, but what it sounds like is that you wouldn't care either way.

    • Another reason for the caucus move: Villere believed the "young people" would be busy partying at the many festivals around the state. Every Saturday in April is the season.

    • Ed Jones "Travis Kirkland , We are chosing sides, anyone but Ron Paul and his dishonest workers."

      Thank you for proving our point. You are FOR one of two candidates. That's all those that voted in the caucus wanted to know because they don't know who the heck the delegates are. They ONLY want to know what candidate they support. Understand?

    • Spencer Burns Pearson says:

      Ed Jones Unfortunately if the Republican partycontinues to dismiss and alienate the Ron Paul supporters, they will NOT win the general election. You can say what you want, but your candidate needs us much more than we need him. We have no need to trick or lie to people, our message of constitutional government and individual liberty is more than enough to win at the local level. There's a reason why Ron Paul consistently polls better than Romney in a general election and it's because his message resonates beyond party lines- Something Romney has failed to accomplish within his own party. If he does get the nomination, good luck in the general election, you're going to need it, and you're going to regret dismissing the Ron Paul constituents.

    • Michael Blache says:

      Well said. They really are gonna need every vote they can get if Romney is the nominee. Quite frankly, if Paul opts for a third party run, Romney is in serious trouble and the republican party will have a really tough decision. It appears that Romney will get slaughtered by Obama whether there is a strong 3rd party candidate or not.

    • Spencer Burns Pearson says:

      Ed Jones And if I was in Baton Rouge on Saturday, that is news to me! I could have sworn I was in Natchitoches. It must have been my simple Paul bot mind playing tricks on me.

    • Spencer Burns Pearson says:

      Ed Jones "They were going to be delegates for the principles that Santorum stood for."
      …and then vote for Romney.

    • Ed Jones says:

      How can the LAGOP cheat Ron Paul when he only got 6.1% of the vote in the primary & finished in last place. Ron is not popular outside of his limited base. He has not win a single state up to this point & will only get a few more delegates with this type of manuvering and is alienating the majority of the GOP voters.

    • Ed Jones says:

      Sandra Earles Downs –I have no idea what happened at other sites, but I am sure it was all organized & part of the plan.

    • Ed Jones says:

      Michael Blache – It is because Ron Paul is unelectable. I like some of his ideas, but he trust no one and will not work with anyone. He has only had 2 bills passed in 20 something years in Congress. He comes across as an angry old man.

    • Joshua Dean says:

      Ed Jones Lol part of the plan! Sounds like a conspiracy theorist! And you call Ron Paul supporters crazy…

    • Joshua Dean says:

      Ed Jones Unelectable? Yet, he's in congress? Grab a dictionary…

    • Ed Jones says:

      Spencer Burns Pearson – You were not in Pineville, which is my point. So don't tell me that what I saw & heard with my own eyes and ears did not happen. Concerning the former Sanitorum delegates, Ron Paul and his supporters are very disrepectful of anyone that does not agree with them 100% of the time. Just reading through these comments proves it.

    • Ed Jones says:

      Joshua Dean , Yes Unelectable to a national office. He can not even win a single state primary.

    • Ed Jones says:

      Joshua Dean , Yes Unelectable to a national office. He can not even win a single state primary.

  3. Kermit Hoffpauir says:

    Will there be a boycott of SLC, if it is held again, and if Charlie Davis is still associated with it?

  4. Kirk Taylor says:

    last time I checked I didn't need a guide to tell me who to vote for.. and please if you want to talk about fraud and cheating ask the GOP what they did in 2008 and changed the rules last minute or just look at what happened in Missouri they refused to follow the rules of order and dismissed the caucus because Ron Paul was going to win. that is cheating don't believe me youtube it. it's there. the flier was not a Ron Paul campaign funded deal do not charge the us with this one guy one action that it everyone who voted was legal and everyone who ran for the delegates were legal no fraud.

    • Kevin Hussey says:

      The total votes for slates other than 3, 5 and 7 – was 28 total votes. It would have made ZERO difference. I dont condone decietfulness, nor do I claim any responsibility for that flier, but lets be serious. Did it play a role or not??? Less than 5% of the vote. C'mon.

    • Well written Kirk and Kevin. I was there – an EYEWITNESS to the cheating of the GOP central committee in Jefferson County, Missouri on 3/17. When they lost the chairmanship and realized that they were outnumbered by the Dr. Paul supporters, they also "lost" the certified roll call listings … AND THEN called for a roll call VOTE on the Rules! My experience there has proven that I will NEVER AGAIN TRUST THE VOTE COUNTING IN A PRIMARY, where these cheats can make the count come out any way that they want it to. I will only trust a Caucus – where everyone can *SEE* how the votes are ACTUALLY going.

      "It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."
      - A Truism often attributed to communist Dictator Joseph Stalin

  5. Ryan Booth says:

    Wow, Tom. I can't believe that you're OK with the Paul campaign's distribution of a fake "voter guide" that flat-out lied and put the Romney logo next to the Paul slate. You obviously don't believe in holding people to much in the way or moral standards.

    • Trent Hill says:

      It wasn't the Paul campaign. It was some blogger who likes Paul. Not the same thing at all.

    • Tom Bonnette says:

      hmmmm, Ryan, missed the part where I said I was okay with it. Go back and read though it again and email me that part.

      As for those who think it wasn't Paul supporters giving out fliers…who else would do it? Doesn't make a difference what website they are associated with, if any. And those Santorum delegates on the Romney slate vice-versa were a trade-off worked out to show party unity, the way I understand it.

    • Trent Hill says:

      Tom Bonnette Don't care what sort of "unity" it was intended to show. There was certainly no attempt to show "unity" to Ron Paul delegates.

      And I didn't say it wasn't a Ron Paul supporter that created and handed out the fliers. I said it was an independent blogger, not a member of the campaign. He did so without knowledge of the campaign.

    • Ed Jones says:

      Trent Hill : They used them and distributed the flyers at the Caucuses. That is dishonest, but the Ron Paul people don't care about the integrety of the process. All they care about is winning and "the revolution". They don't care what or who they destroy in the process of their run for the GOP nomination. It will all be for naught because, he can't do this in enough states to get close to Romney. All the Ron Paul supporters are doing is alienating the rest of the Republican party who now will never support Ron Paul. At this point, I would be inclined to vote for President Obama over Ron Paul, if this is how he treats fellow Republicans.

    • Tom, but it was THEY that were accusing the Paul slate of colluding with Romney initially? They condemned it!

    • Trent Hill says:

      Ed Jones You're clearly misunderstanding my point. One Ron Paul person (and perhaps a couple helpers) does not represent the entire campaign. That was something he did on his own. I knew tons of people who were central to the campaign operation in LA who did not know what the flier was and whom had distributed it. It even clearly said on the bottom of the paper that it was from The Dead Pelican.

    • Trent Hill says:

      Ed Jones As for accusing people about not respecting the integrity of the process…that's just laughable. Other slates were horse-trading, the Louisiana Conservative delegation was saying they were backing Santorum (who dropped out already), Gingrich (Who was dropping out imminently), or no one (while privately admitting that meant Romney).

      Not to mention the tricks played on us by the Pro-life, Pro-Family delegation in 2008 and the numerous times that state conventions and caucuses all around the country have been shut down because Ron Paul supporters got organized and had the votes to win (See Nevada 2008 for a good example that got lots of press).

    • Ryan Booth says:

      Tom Bonnette If you don't think there should be any consequences for it, then you're OK with it.

    • Ed Jones is just upset because his candidate lost. He doesn't care about the integrity of the Constitution of the United States. He only cares about the preservation of the status quo….

    • He talks about Ron Paul supporters not caring about the integrity of the process. Evidently, more than just the Ron Paul supporters must not care since only 9 people showed up from Asumption parish, and less than 250 in Ascension parish.

    • Ryan Booth says:

      Trent Hill The fliers were defended by Charlie Davis, so he's quite comfortable with them. So, even if he didn't officially do them, he's still responsible. And the idea that he had no knowledge of the fliers is preposterous. Where's the official denial?

    • Spencer Burns Pearson says:

      Ed Jones We know you'd pick Obama over Ron Paul, isn't that what you have done by supporting Romney? More of the same, Obomney for another 4 years.

    • Mark Parham says:

      Trent Hill , there were several Paul supporters handing out the fliers in Lake Charles with gusto and knowing they were deceptive. They were called out on them and said just as you said: we ain't doing nothing wrong. We didn't print em. But they utilized them knowingly none the less. Deceptive? YES. Wrong? YES
      One thing that is of utmost importance, the Paul campaign make not having needed us(TRUE REPUBLICANS) on Saturday but you will should the unspeakable happen.

    • Mark Parham says:

      Ryan Booth , It is my understanding you sit on the central comm?
      I agree with you, this is deceptive and WAS used by many Paul supporters knowingly and must answer for the deed. I don't care if Ronald McDonald created the flyers, this must be followed through with the CC Thank you

    • Ed Jones says:

      Trent Hill – You keep bringing up 2008 as if that justifies what went on at this caucus. Admit it, you know it was wrong and I can not believe the central office was not aware of this. The campaign was too well organized and I see that it also happened in Lake Charles. Tthe Ron Paul campaign is loosing what little credibility it had trying to deny this happened. We all know it was coordinated.

  6. Spencer Burns Pearson says:

    The two slates that were relevant were slates 7 (Ron Paul) and 3 (Romney). Even if the "deceptive" slates are discounted (by the way this is exactly what the Romney Campaign did in North Dakota which for some reason got no coverage) it would not affect the outcome. The GOP needs to stop force feeding us their candidate and let the best possible candidate for the GOP make it to the general election.

    Anyone who claims that the Romney campaign hasn't engaged in dirty politics throughout this entire process is suffering from either ignorance or stupidity.

    • Kermit Hoffpauir says:

      Last time I checked, Slate 5 was filled with Romney's backers.

      The biggest problem which I have in this entire mess are those delegate candidates in Slates 1, 4, 6, 7 8, & 9 who publicly call themselves Libertarians. Are they lying about their political affiliation to do nothing more than subterfuge? Are they nothing more than a pack of liars?

    • Kermit Hoffpauir , most caucus goers only wanted to know a concrete candidate affiliation behind the delegate. There were only 2 candidates.

    • Kermit Hoffpauir Well, Kermit, then why are you and the GOP going crazy backing a guy who's a flip-flopping liberal Yankee Democrat calling himself a Republican? That must be some sweeeeet Kool-Aid they be passin' round over yonder…

    • Paul Vicknair says:

      little-L libertarian. The kind that Ronald Reagan said was the heart of the Republican party.

    • Kermit Hoffpauir says:

      John Michael Sudol , look obviously Paul had the most active and did get the greatest amount of support for these caucuses, but to what end? The entire thing reeks to the average citizen, multiple slates with the same delegates is something that I am not for no matter who they support. I merely pointed out the obvious that the multiple slates with same candidates gives the stench of playing 3 card monte. This is something that the state GOP needs to address, and only serves to further voter apathy.

    • Spencer Burns Pearson says:

      Kermit Hoffpauir It's a sad day when people are called liars for having libertarian principles and being registered republican…

      "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism…The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

      -Ronald Reagan

    • Kermit Hoffpauir says:

      Spencer Burns Pearson publicly stating that one is a member of the Libertarian Party then running as a Republican isn't lying?

    • Kermit Hoffpauir Reagan was trying to explain that to be a TRUE CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN you MUST have LIBERTARIAN principals.

    • Paul Vicknair says:

      Kermit Hoffpauir can you point to someone who did that? I'm pretty sure you have to be a Republican in order to run for delegate.

    • Kermit Hoffpauir says:

      Paul Vicknair Facebook search is your friend.

    • Paul Vicknair says:

      Kermit Hoffpauir, if YOU are going to make an accusation, then YOU have to back it up.

    • Spencer Burns Pearson says:

      Kermit Hoffpauir No, it's NOT. Saying someone is libertarian does not mean they're registered to the libertarian party. You can only be registered to one party at a time. It's complicated, I know. What you seem to want to do is bar people from participating in the process because of their personal beliefs. If that's the case I find your point disgusting and not worth another post. IF that's not your point I'd love to know what exactly you're upset about.

      Did you not read my post?

      Libertarian principles are at the core of conservatism and the Republican Party, and to think otherwise is a telling example of why the Republican Party has failed its constituents. If the Republican Party refuses to recognize the importance of individual liberties and constitutional government they will continue to LOSE general elections.

    • Clifford Bullock says:

      John Michael Sudol …..Hey dude let me clue you in for a second. Romney IS the GOP nominee at this point and he IS a damned sight better than Barrack Hussien Obama! Maybe we like backing a winner down here even if they cheat. Which they all do as Ron Paul supporters in this state have proven.

    • Clifford Bullock maybe you need to read the Newt supporters on Republican Party of Louisiana's FB wall, they are in sharp disagreement and the majority.

    • I should also add Santorum supporters.

    • He will not win the nomination. His "Ron Paul Revolution" is a cause and it is really not about the presidential campaign. Its goal is to fundamentally change the Republican Party from conservative to radical libertarian.
      They want the GOP to adopt neo-liberal positions on defense, foreign policy, trade and war on terror issues. They are simply using the Republican Party because they know they can’t get elected by running as radical Libertarians.

    • Paul Vicknair says:

      I keep seeing that phrase, but I have no idea what it means. What, exactly, is a "radical" libertarian? People who like freedom too much? People who support too much of the constitution? Please clarify.

    • Trent Hill says:

      Kermit Hoffpauir No, actually, claiming to be a member of two parties is as old as the party system is in the United States. In many states, like Texas, there is no registration by party–so you are a member of whichever parties you pay dues to. In other states, there is legalized fusion–meaning one can even appear on the ballot under multiple party names (see New York, Connecticut, South Carolina, or Oregon). For many years, in many states, individuals have been able to identify themselves as members of multiple parties. Perhaps you ought to look into the history of parties in the U.S.?

    • Trent Hill says:

      George Peterson Not neo-liberal. Classical liberal. But you were close.

    • Randy Rank says:

      Clifford, key things to look for in the announcements of Romney 'clinching' the nomination. the words, "presumed candidate', "likely candidate", "estimated delegate total" … Even after Texas, he only got 13 and not 155 delegates as the bulk are not selected until the caucuses. And, hmm. I think we are seeing how that goes.

  7. Nicolas Soniat says:

    Ron Paul's slate 7 alone had more votes than Romney's 2,3, and 5 combined. This article neglected to mention the deception Romney used as well. He was advertising Slate 5 for his own but had delegates on 2 and 3 too.

  8. Isn't that damned flier the one the Dead Pelican was handing out, and not from us at all? This type of commentary is a crock of shyte, in any event. There are some big states with big numbers of delegates to be won by us. Don't let them psyche us, or our potential supporters out. Mitt Romney IS NOT the nominee, at this point, and he may never be if us like-minded across America keep on doing what we are doing.

  9. …and, if any of you critics of the Caucus were actually there at the sites on Saturday, you would have certainly seen that no Ron Paul supporter asked anyone to vote for any slate other than slate 7. The official count reflects this clearly.

  10. We have enough problems coming our way without this junk!

  11. I will let Laura O'Halloran speak for herself on this but I can tell you that those of us 'newbie delegates' had no idea what was going on in the background and who was making deals with whom. As far as we knew and were told, our slate would remain uncommitted…and it was until the end. Any deals that were tried to make were shut down from what I understand. Now that I know what took place behind the scenes and within the party, I'm disappointed to have participated at all.

    • Sarah Roy says:

      I was put on a slate #2 without my knowledge or consent. Never mind the Paul campaign, the state party's rules allow someone (who knows who did it) to hijack me for who knows what causes. I don't think I'll play in 4 years.

    • Sarah Roy Slate #2 was the official Newt Gingrich slate. Since he dedicated or committed his votes to slate #3, they used the same delegate candidates. That's all that was about.

    • Trent Hill says:

      Robin Harris Edwards You were putting delegates on other slates without even notifying them?

      Sounds pretty dishonest and underhanded to me.

    • Trent Hill No, I wasn't. I work for no campaign and never will again after Herman Cain. It's not dishonest to have the same delegates on different slates, Trent. It's dishonest to misrepresent the slates as Gingrich when they're actually Ron Paul slates. That's the beef with Chad.

    • Trent Hill says:

      Robin Harris Edwards Then why'd you call all Ron Paul supporters, "UnAmerican, UnConservative, Libertarian Retards!"?

    • Renee Stelly Amar says:

      I love how Chad does nothing but deflect in this article! He wouldn't know honesty if it slapped him in the face!

    • Trent Hill For lying, cheating, threatening the life of a friend…and his wife, their tactics I've seen….that's the short list. The fact that liberty is great as long as they're the only ones with liberty is a start.

    • Renee Stelly Amar HaHa! I said that very same thing this morning :)

    • Trent Hill says:

      Robin Harris Edwards I haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about, but it sounds like B.S.

      I'm a Ron Paul supporter and I've never done any of that. I know plenty more like me. There are bad apples in every cart, but you said all Ron Paul supporters were "UnAmerican, UnConservative, Libertarian Retards!" didn't you? Does that show why we're not interested in unity with certain people?

    • Good for you, Trent. Ron Paul supporters don't bother me. Paulbots do and I delete and ban them from my wall every chance I get.

    • Trent Hill says:

      Robin Harris Edwards No idea what a Paulbot is. No idea what the difference between one and a Ron Paul supporter is. But, you didn't say "Paulbots are…libertarian retards", you said "Ron Paul supporters are…libertarian retards".

    • You should always strive for unity no matter what. Find the common ground. I find it with Ron Paul supporters…not Paulbots.

    • Trent Hill says:

      Robin Harris Edwards You completely ignored my question. You called Ron Paul supporters "UnAmerica, UnConservative, Libertarian Retards!". Not Paulbots (whatever that term means).

    • Trent Hill Just like a Paulbot (A Ron Paul is my hero and is the only one who can save us type) . Deflect. Keep it up. I've explained why I consider them what they are. Now, explain why it's ok for Chad to lie and misrepresent the slates to trick people into voting for Ron Paul. Liberty for one side is UnAmerican. Social liberalism is UnConservative. Retard…well…that's been proven over and over again by the majority I've run into these past 4 years…as Paulbots. Again, not the mature Ron Paul supporters I've met. Those are excluded from the retard comment and I apologize for including them in that group. Now, apologize to me for accusing me of something I didn't do.

    • I wont' respond again until I get that apology and then I'll simply say thank you. Enjoy your day!

    • Robin Harris Edward – Can't be. He hasn't officially quit the campaign yet. He can't give his delegates to anyone.

    • Clifford Bullock says:

      Trent Hill ….. you got a thing for Robbin? I mean really dude put the kool-aid down and grab a valium. Calling someone dishonest in a public forum ain't just un-cool it can land your ass in court.

    • Jeff Blanco says:

      Trent Hill , seems to me that Paulistinians want everybody else to be perfect, while excusing anything the Paulistinians do. Do as you say, not as you do, right?

    • Trent Hill says:

      Robin Harris Edwards So, you just called me a Paulbot because I've been consistently pointing out that you did, in fact, call all Paul supporters UnAmerican, UnConservative, Libertarian Retards. There, you called me unAmerican and Retarded. Very mature.

      I never. Ever. Said the voter guide was okay. That's a lie.

      I've no idea what you're asking me to apologize for.

    • Trent Hill says:

      Clifford Bullock — she called me and a lot of my friends Retarded, UnAmerican, and UnConservative–as well as liars. I merely suggest she was dishonest. And no, I haven't got a thing for her and it couldn't land me in court, that's ridiculous.

      Jeff Blanco–no clue what you mean. I think Chad's voter guide was dumb and it hurt the Paul campaign more than it helped (which is not hard, since it helped almost none).

      But calling everyone in the opposition camp "retards" hardly meets the standard of civility we're being asked to uphold, does it?

    • Trent, you should, because I'm awesome! But what you need to apologize for is accusing me of wrongdoing by adding names to slates. That ain't my job…I'm just a pee-on.

    • Jeff hit the nail on the head. I've been fighting Paulbot insanity for 4 years from nearly every single one of them I've encountered. I have met a small handful of good folks who are Paul supporters. The rest have behaved….well….very badly. I can only go by my experiences with them and the vast majority of those experiences have been extremely negative.

    • By the way, Trent. I went back and read my post that contained that language. Put it in context. Be honest! Stop trying to make it sound like I described them all in that way. Just like a Paulbot to distort the truth! However, I shouldn't have used the word 'retards'..that was an insult I posted out of anger. I should have used the description: mentally challenged. It was insensitive and I apologize to the mentally challenged for that remark and comparison.

    • Jeff Blanco says:

      Trent Hill the reason they are called Paulbots is because they are like robots, programmed to say the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

    • Jeff Blanco says:

      Trent Hill then you need to speak up about that. Whether or not Ron Paul's slate would have won because of it, doesn't really matter. In fact, I will even be so bold to say that RP's people would have won regardless. My issue is the fact that Chad's flier misled people.

    • Trent Hill says:

      Robin Harris Edwards Robin–you said that about all supporters of Ron Paul because you were upset we had won and claimed we had cheated, rather than just directing it at "Paulbots" or "Chad". I highly doubt you just went back and read it, since you deleted it from your facebook 2 days ago.

      @Jeff Blanco — I assume you've spoken out about the GOP convention frauds in Nevada or Missouri? Or that you were concerned with how the date was suddenly pushed back for the LA Caucuses this year without input from membership?

      I said Chad's flier was misleading. I stand by that. It's hardly a big scandal, though, since we wouldn't won anyway–even if all of those slate votes were retro-actively applied to Mitt's delegate slate.

    • Trent Hill Hey doofus, it's still up there and yes it is directed at the cheaters. Don't start shit with me boy!

    • BTW, that's the 2nd thing you've accused me of doing which I didn't do. If you were a man, you'd apologize.

    • Jeff Blanco says:

      Renee Stelly Amar According to Chad Rogers, Mitt Romney did very well. His own "voter guide" states that slate 1 were "Romney" supporters and they are sending a lot of "Romney" supporters to the state convention. Chad Roger's apparently doesn't know a lot of "Romney" supporters are going to the state convention, unless he was being dishonest.

    • Trent Hill says:

      Robin Harris Edwards Ah, I see it is still there. I thought it'd been deleted. I do apologize for that.

      It doesn't say it's directed at "cheaters". It is directed at Ron Paul supporters. If anyone should apologize, it's you.

    • Jeff Blanco says:

      Trent Hill, actually yes I was concerned, but according to Paulistinians pushing the date back favored Romney and would hurt Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney's slate #1 sent a lot of delegates to the state convention, so you are probably right.

      I understand why the caucus was pushed back until April, and it did hurt Louisiana Republicans by pushing the date back. However, nobody knew who it would hurt or benefit at the time it was pushed back. An early caucus would have given previous presidential candidates an unfair disadvantage (Romney and Paul) while a later caucus would probably benefit the candidates who are now out of the race.

      That being said, they are out of the race. Am I concerned about other states? Nope. It's not my place to decide what the GOP does in other states. I do not live in those other states and it would be "Neoconish" of me to want to dictate what they can and can't do. Think of other states as being like "Israel".

  12. OHalloran DID know that Gingrich announced his departure. Why she continued to play others on her slate is beyond me and she knew she was deceiving caucus goers through her emails. I think she was taking advantage of those on her mailing list that don't keep up with the nightly news. The same can be said for her fiery overzealous communications for Jindal's voucher program, but that's where she fell straight off the cliff.

    It then became an issue of what slates NOT to vote for. Period.

  13. Scott McKay says:

    I think the lesson of all this is that it's time to do away with the caucus process. When you're already spending taxpayer money on a primary election, there's no reason to hold a caucus when chaos like this is the ultimate result – particularly when the primary process is all but over anyway. The practice, which is not really all that uncommon historically and nationwide, of presenting a multiplicity of slates with the same candidates on them while promulgating a "voter guide" that further muddies the waters makes it crystal clear how inadequate a caucus is.

    Congratulations to the Ron Paul people for getting their vote out. But Paul got six percent of the vote in the primary, and that's a better indication of the level of his support among Louisiana Republicans than this weekend's fiasco was.

    • Not to mention that State employees are not allowed by state law to participate at caucuses. My wife would have been in violation of state employee political rules if she had gone.

    • Michael Blache says:

      Does the primary count towards acquiring delegates? Paul people knew the rules and played them exceptionally well. What was the Romney turnout for the caucus? Should we apply the same standard and if so, apparently Romney folks aren't as dedicated to getting the vote out as Paul supporters are.

    • Robert Rosamond says:

      If I'm not mistaken, the winner of the primary receives 10 delegates and the second place candidate receives 5.

    • I think Louisiana Ron Paul supporters clearly understood that the Caucus was the deciding contest in Louisiana, and not the primary. Which by its ridiculous discrepancy with regard to such a massive difference in winning percentage from the former vote, to the Caucus vote, one would have to question either a. – the validity of the primary tally, and / or b. – the intelligence of the Romney; Santorum; Gingrich supporter…

    • Kevin Hussey says:

      That is correct Robert. Santorum received 10 delegates, and Romney received 5 delegates. Newt and RP received no delegates at the primary because both received less than 25% of the popular vote.

      Scott, I am strongly opposed to any mechanical version of ballot counting. The caucus is a paper ballot system, and the only way that voting should occur. So, in moving forward, if we were to eliminate one or the other, the primaries would need to be cut out in my opinion. That is, unless the primary changed to a paper ballot, and then the popular vote would be fine with me.

      I think that the RP campaign did a fine job of turning out voters when it mattered the most – at the caucus. His staff understood that the primary was basically a beauty contest and that it would only account for a small portion of the delegates.

      Hats off to the RP campaign!!

    • In a Caucus, everyone can *SEE* how the votes are going. In a Primary, only the GOP *insiders* are counting the votes. This is how Santorum won the primary on February 7th in Missouri … but lost to Ron Paul in the Caucuses on March 17th. I will *NEVER EVER AGAIN TRUST THE VOTE COUNTING IN A PRIMARY*.

      I hate Primaries because you can't see the votes being counted, but in a Caucus, you CAN! :)

      "It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."
      - A Truism often attributed to communist Dictator Joseph Stalin

  14. Kermit Hoffpauir says:

    Technically, several candidates are still "in" but have suspended their campaigns. Technically and legally both Gingrich and Santorium are still in the race, as well as a few more.

  15. If you really want to know why some moder5ate Republicans voted for Paul instead of Romney, head on over to Republican Party of Louisiana's FB wall.

  16. I don't hold the Ron Paul campaign at any fault for anything. But that "Caucus Voter Guide" is essentially fraudulent. I don't think a poorly written knock off of the Drudge Report has the power to influence elections to any great extent, but it sure looks like it tried to influence the outcome through disinformation, a classic Alinsky tactic.

    • John Gainey says:

      Nice way to make sure Louisiana's interest are negatively affected when Romney wins.

    • Freedom Works teaches them to use "Alinsky" in every post, I think.

    • Clifford Bullock says:

      Sandra Earles Downs … Wow really? Freedom Works must be a George Soros funded Marxist plot to destroy the GOP from the inside. Kool-Aid for paranoids is a dangerous thing.

    • Clifford Bullock says:

      John Gainey …. This is the smartest comment on this thread. Pay-back is a bitch.

    • Saying someone uses an Alinsky tactic is not the same as saying that they are Alinsky followers. Perhaps if you all bothered to read about Alinsky you would understand why what The Dead Pelican did with that Caucus Voter Guide is classic Alinsky.

    • Christopher Holton No, I'm pretty sure you and Robin use it in every other post.

    • Sandra Earles Downs Good Grief. You don't know me. I have never met you and you have no idea what you're talking about. Disinformation is a tenant of Alinksy and what The Dead Pelican did was distribute disinformation. You clearly are simply ignorant on the subject matter. I am sorry that the subject matter extends beyond your reach. Ignorance is simply a state of being. You should seek to educate yourself on Alinksy before you comment on the subject matter.

    • Christopher Holton I am very very familiar with your posts on FB and BRTP. You removed my posts and barred me from posting, so quit playing stupid. Knowledge of Alinsky isn't my problem, it's your improper overuse of the name thats annoying.

    • Kermit Hoffpauir says:

      Christopher Holton It's useless to try to inform her. She's been conned into buying into all sorts of conspiracy theories.

    • Gee Sandra, are you now stalking me? You can go back and do a word search on every post I have ever made on FB and you won't find a single reference to Alinsky. I merely pointed out that what The Dead Pelican did by spreading disinformation is classic Alinsky doctrine. For some reason that really bothers you. I hesitate to speculate as to why…

    • She will stalk you, Chris. She's done it to many of us. Do you know what bliss is? Blocking her on your FB so you never see her posts again….well, it's a small part of bliss….like the lower left-hand corner of bliss…but it helps!

  17. Mark Parham says:

    A Paul supporter recently made the statement on the Southwest Louisiana Tea Party FB page and I quote: Ron Paul Supporters are the ONLY Republican Conservatives that have earned the Right to support the Republican Party. All the other Republican's have to vote for Romney! unquote
    Excuse me, but a year ago, how many Paul supporters were actually Republicans? Or Dr. P for that matter. And with that I will only say: RINO'S in the truest since of the Acronym.

    • Paul Swain says:

      I think Moon has the best take on this; the Paul weed heads just out worked the GOP and "Baby Huey" and his strong arm tactics backfired.

    • Michael Blache says:

      Paul Swain very cheap shot…Just because you are a Romney supporter are we to assume that you are a Mormon and believe one day that you will be a God and reign over your own planet realm populating it with virgins? See how silly that remark was! Try to keep your remarks civil…we all want what is best for our kids and the personal attacks get us farther from that goal.

    • He will not win the nomination. His "Ron Paul Revolution" is a cause and it is really not about the presidential campaign. Its goal is to fundamentally change the Republican Party from conservative to radical libertarian.
      They want the GOP to adopt neo-liberal positions on defense, foreign policy, trade and war on terror issues. They are simply using the Republican Party because they know they can’t get elected by running as radical Libertarians.

    • Randy Hebert says:

      Just to make it clear, I AM THAT RON PAUL SUPPORTER! Thanks for allowing me to claim these "couldn't be truer" words Mark.

  18. Austin Stukins says:

    Well folks, since I have been mentioned here, and accused of being a liar, allow me to clarify. I am the Louisiana Grassroots Coordinator for Newt Gingrich's campaign. I took issue with the fact that our logo and Senator Santorum's logo were placed on the flier endorsing slate number 6. Now, I was there the day slate numbers were issued, and knew that our campaign paid to sponsor the individuals identified as conservatives affiliated with the Louisiana Conservative Delegation. Many of our supporters had affiliated themselves with the LCD many months ago, and remained on board with the LCD. Our campaign sponsored that delegation, and in turn was given a slate number in exchange for a financial contribution to the party. The way this would have worked is that any person who voted for the Official Gingrich Slate (Slate 2) would be a vote cast for the Louisiana Conservative Delegation (Slate 3). The same thing occurred for slate 6, being a vote for slate 7 (in this case, both purchased by Ron Paul’s State Chairman).

    Had Mr. Rogers taken enough initiative to do research, he would have found in a press release from the Gingrich Campaign, issued right before the Primary, that Charlie Buckels was our State Chairman, and I was the Grassroots Coordinator. I would have told him, or the Times Picayune, that our candidate was still officially in the race, and that our slate was slate 2.

    Furthermore, a simple query of the LAGOP would have provided that Ross Little was overseeing the Louisiana Conservative Delegation, and that Romney's Campaign was sponsoring slate 5. In addition to that, it was no secret that Ron Paul's State Chairman, Charlie Davis, paid for the rest of the slates (read between the lines there).

    Honestly, the results are what they are, Ron Paul turned out supporters at the caucus, and they won. The impact is one that our party will suffer from a conservative standpoint. I take issue with the misleading information in that flier. A caucus-goer who was headed to vote for Pro-Romney or Pro-Santorum candidates could have easily been misled by the information disseminated. My supporters received emails right up to the caucuses informing them that they should vote for slate number 2. The principle of the matter – is a matter of principle, the information disseminated was incorrect, and any person in the field of "Journalism" should act with responsibility and integrity. That means getting your facts straight, and if you make a mistake, you correct it by retraction.

    As a contributor to The Hayride, I was always told by Scott McKay, that I don't care what you choose to write about, as long as you have your facts straight; of course I'm paraphrasing, but nevertheless, we should demand responsible journalism as the world continues to rely more and more on sources such as the Dead Pelican and The Hayride for updates on current events.

    With all that being said, Chad Rogers should never question my integrity, EVER again. I am a man of honor and integrity. With eight years of faithful service to my country, having led Marines in combat, I pride myself on the Corps Values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment. Therefore I will stand by my honor, with courage in the face of adversity, and remain committed to boycotting the Dead Pelican until Mr. Rogers renounces that sort of misleading behavior, and vows to adhere to a sense of Journalistic integrity as other Journalists do around the world. If you want to be the face of internet news in Louisiana, I'm certain Louisiana would appreciate honesty and truthfulness as seen here at The Hayride.

  19. [...] I read your response on TheHayride.com, and I must say, you’re sinking your credibility even more. Usually the leader/spokesperson [...]

  20. Randy Hebert says:

    To Steve. Please read Austin's comments above. He admits of being listed on multiple slates just like you accuse the Ron Paul slates of cheating. So much for non cheaters…

  21. Jeff Blanco says:

    The sad thing about this is the many Ron Paul supporters who treat this as ok. You know the man you hate, you look more like him every day… hypocrites.

    • David Persyn says:

      Character matters.

    • Renee Stelly Amar says:

      Integrity matters. Very true statement Jeff!

    • Ask Jeff why he's being hypocritical when he did the SAME THING in 2008.

    • Jeff Blanco says:

      Sandra Earles Downs , not even close. In 2008, the people who put Ron Paul's ticket together misled me into believing that I was going to be on the ballot, and at the last minute (the day prior to) told me that I wasn't on the ticket. Your people made me mad, and I went through the list, found people that I could support, and endorsed those people. Your people did not want my support so I threw my support behind other people, including Charlie Davis. I did not try to fool people into voting against any slate, I only encouraged them to vote for people under the name of Louisiana Conservative, just as I did this year. I do not have any issue with a "Ron Paul Slate", a "Newt Gingrich Slate", a "Mitt Romney Slate", etc. so don't even try Sandra, but thanks once again for giving me the opportunity to explain another reason why I don't like Ron Paul.

  22. I think that's enough for this idiot forum. Don't get sucked into the "poor loser" finger pointing, and fabricated "wrong-doing" accusation game they are trying to prop themselves up with, in lieu of knowing enough about how the world works, to choose to cling to the side of the vanilla option of the same thing we've already got, that they've been told to vote for, if they want to stay off of the terror lists. It's not their fault, entirely. You'd have to have an internal sense of what's true, and what's being shoveled down your throat, and the smarts and courage to know the difference, and get off of the couch, think for yourself, and make an effort to dump the fraud that's being masqueraded as conservative reform, when it's just the same pig wearing a silk hat. We've got too much to do, to waste time and energy here.

  23. They'll never learn. They keep ordering the steak off the same menu, only to get served the chicken again.

  24. Its apparently obvious that Chad Rogers had dishonest motives or lacks credibility. His actions are substandard.
    I agree with Austin.
    Chad, why don't you just admit your mistake. Your pride is getting the best of you.

    Austin is a very honorable person.
    In every situation that I have seen….he has always….and I MEAN ALWAYS been honorable!

    So Chad…..what do you have to offer? Nothing of substance…..only another problem…..Chad. please take the truth…..the hard truth…..and admit to yourself and all, your misjudgement. Don't let this be your defining moment in life.

    • This part was funny: "Supporters of Paul staggered away from the rally in disbelief and dismay, many tossing their "Ron Paul 2012" posters and other campaign paraphernalia on the ground, retreating home or back to their college frat houses."

  25. [...] I read the commentary offered in The Hayride (http://thehayride.com/2012/04/ron-pauls-unnecessary-black-eye-in-the-louisiana-caucus/) I saw there were 154 recorded comments on this subject; impressive. But of the available comments [...]

  26. Melissa Cagle Penuell says:

    The lesson here is this is what happens when an entire delegation turns their back on a viable candidate (Mitt Romney) months ago for reasons that have nothing to do with politics.

  27. Here's our guy. Where's your guy? I'd be checking the validity of your vote counting before I'd be questioning ours.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mfrNz_2hvvM#!

  28. The whole thing is a farce. It got hijacked from the party establishment and now they cry. Well boo hoo! Give us an honest system with each candidates name would you? Geesh, how much money was spent on the primary election and to what purpose?

    ~ U B Lyan.

  29. It seems that this obsession with the misguided Dead Pelican voter guide, (or flier, or whatever it was supposed to be), by the Ron Paul detractors, is there only claim to some kind of underhanded tactic to sway caucus voters. 1. – Isn't the Dead Pelican an independent publication that is in no way related to the RP campaign? 2. – I can personally swear to the fact that no one from the RP campaign ever ordered, suggested, or mislead any of us delegates, or campaign volunteers, or staff, to inform any potential voter to choose any slate other than the official Ron Paul slate # 7. In all pre-caucus correspondence from the campaign, this was expressly communicated: "Tell your voters to vote slate # 7". And that's it.

  30. Kyle Juneau says:

    This is sad, LOL! It appears that neither side knew what was on any of the Slates. Each side accusing the other of fraud and it appears that neither side had a clue what was on any of the slates.

  31. Hmmmmm… why did Boycott the Dead Pelican disappear all of a sudden?

  32. [...] means were used, like a voter guide that might be said to have misguided voters to choose Paul delegates, but the Paul people dominated [...]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.