Roger Stone, Trump supporter, issues a threat
Roger Stone has a message for voters, and for delegates to the RNC [emphasis mine]:
If Trump does not run the table on the rest of the primaries and the caucuses, we’re looking at a very, very narrow path in which the kingmakers go all out to cheat, to steal, and to snatch this nomination from the candidate who is overwhelmingly selected by the voters, which is why I have urged Trump supporters: come to Cleveland. March on Cleveland. Join us in the Forest City. We’re going to have protests, demonstrations. We will disclose the hotels and the room numbers of those delegates who are directly involved in the steal. If you’re from Pennsylvania, we’ll tell you who the culprits are. We urge you to visit their hotel and find them. You have a right to discuss this if you voted in the Pennsylvania primary, for example, and your votes are being disallowed.
“Find them”—and do what to them? I can think of many possibilities, and no doubt they can, and the Trump voters can, too. But I think Stone’s main idea is to intimidate the delegates into voting Trump’s way.
Roger Stone is no longer Trump’s “top political advisor” (he either resigned or was fired, or both, last August). But he remains one of Trump’s closest personal friends and a firm supporter—in his own words, “the ultimate Trump loyalist”:
It’s hard to overstate just how close Trump and Stone have been over the years. Their professional and personal relationship goes back more than three decades.
They weren’t just “close”; Stone was a lobbyist for Trump’s casino interests for many years. But Stone has a much longer political profile than that; you have to read his entire Wiki entry to get the full flavor of it, but let’s just say he put the dirty in dirty tricks for many candidates (although some of the candidates he has worked for along the way have not been known for dirty tricks, such as Ronald Reagan, and it’s not clear if he did that sort of thing for them). Threatening delegates may be something new, though, even for Stone. Stone also wrote an entire book alleging that LBJ was behind the assassination of JFK, which puts Stone in the sort of conspiracy territory usually reserved for the fringe.
He also has been behind several of Trump’s many presidential runs that never really got off the ground:
In 1988, Stone wanted Trump to run for president and arranged for him to give a speech at the Portsmouth, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, which garnered enormous media coverage. Stone says some of his friends in the state organized a short-lived “Draft Trump” movement, but within a few weeks, Trump had determined he would forgo a run to focus on his business career.
Twelve years later, when Trump launched a presidential exploratory committee, Stone served as its chairman…
“Three years ago, I wanted him to run for president; I thought the timing was right,” Stone says. “He did look at it seriously; he looked at both the Republican nomination and he took a quick look at the possibility of running as a third-party candidate.”
In sum, Stone is not just a passing acquaintance for Trump; he appears to be his oldest and closest political adviser, even if he holds no official political position any more with the Trump campaign. This entire episode is an interesting exercise in what commenter “Eric” on this blog keeps mentioning—that Republicans need to be political activists using leftist methods in order to win. This idea of outing the room numbers of delegates at the GOP convention (plus, of course, the rhetoric Stone and Trump use that such delegates’ exercise of their right to vote freely at the convention if Trump doesn’t win by the rules of the first ballot represents “cheating” and/or “stealing”) is a classic leftist-type ploy. I don’t like it; I think it crosses the line from acceptable activism to dangerous demagoguery, intimidation, and threats.
Someone needs to ‘find’ Stone.
Of course “it crosses the line from acceptable activism to dangerous demagoguery, intimidation, and threats”.
On the other hand, if we go to a brokered convention, we all may be witness to just how rigged are the political partys, how manipulative and in how much contempt the GOP’s puppet masters hold the … ‘ordinary people’.
In which case, ‘crossing the line’, in the larger context, becomes inconsequential because insistence upon acting civil, when faced with entrenched corruption is a formula for continued enslavement.
Oh, come on GB. How many times does it have to be repeated?
First; a political party gets to decide who runs under its banner. Note: the Dem super delegates, for example.
Second: If Trump, or any other candidate, does not have a majority of the delegates, that candidate has won nothing. Yet. And is entitled to nothing.
Third: The whole idea of delegates is to empower them to make decisions. If the candidate they were pledged to is no longer viable, and they decide at the convention to cast their votes for a candidate who is viable, that is not corruption–despite the Trumpters attempts to re-write U.S. election history. This attempt to cast a normal and legal process as corrupt is in itself a corruption. There seems to be a drift toward intimidation bordering on advocacy of lawlessness surrounding the Trump effort and it is being picked up by some of his supporters.
Neo, along the lines of my last sentence, Stone has made veiled threats against people involved in the election process, which under a different DOJ might well warrant follow up. It would certainly seem reasonable that he be interviewed in a public way by the appropriate agency as to exactly what his intent was to send a message to like-minded persons if nothing else. If you start to play hardball, you better be ready for some chin music (as they say in baseball). Of course after the Black Panther debacle in Philadelphia any federal action is highly unlikely. However, if he actually made his threat while in a state with a tough fighter as Governor, such as Wisconsin, action might be pursued at the state level.
If one does not understand the rules, or even realize there are rules, one should not play the game. Trump was clueless about the rules and perhaps believed if there were rules the rules of the game did not apply to his YUGEness. What a petulant whiner.
A political party is not a pure democracy where a sub-majority mob wins. There are rules and a party has a right to protect the viability of the party. Don’t like the rules? Form your own party. Temper tantrums, whining, threats, and ignorance and disdain of/for the rules are not the attributes of a leader. They are the attributes of another wannabe dictator ala Obama.
Trump and the horse he rode in on.
Neo:
“that Republicans need to be political activists using leftist methods in order to win”
The 1st part, “need to be political activists”, is correct. The 2nd part, “using leftist methods”, is a reductive characterization.
Like any kind of competition, in the activist game, the principles that must be honored are common, but within the contours of the arena, there’s more than one style that can win the game. You can modify your gameplay to your tastes.
That’s a reason I like to cite the example of the Ivy League pro-military movement. Their activism was not leftist in style, yet in the Left’s reputed stronghold, they competed head on and defeated the same kind of zealous and odious SJWs running roughshod on campuses today.
As such, “using leftist methods”, while not altogether wrong insofar that Left activism is the most recognizable kind of activism, is a reductive characterization since Left activism is not the only style of activism.
The nub is that activism is necessary to compete for real in the only social cultural/political game there is – not that the particular style of Left activism copied by Trump-front alt-Right activists is necessary to compete for real in the activist game.
That being said, the choice by Trump-front alt-Right activists to mimic the Left is pragmatic because leftist style activism has long been proven effective against conservatives (“cuckservatives”) of the Right and the GOP(e-lite/e-stablishment). Those are the principal targets of the Trump-front alt-Right. If conservatives insist on sustaining the open invitation to exploit the critical vulnerability that’s been exploited by the Left for their Gramscian march, it makes sense that the hungry alt-Right would jumpstart their Gramscian march by exploiting it, too.
That being said 2, noting the counter-Left Ivy League pro-military movement, it’s not necessarily the case strategically that leftist style activism is the most effective kind of activism to counter the Left and Left-mimicking alt-Right.
But that being said 3, dedicated activism of any kind is a leg up from the Right and GOP’s current anti-competitive lack of activism. Even if their Left mimicry isn’t the most effective way to compete against the Democrat-front Left, the Trump-front alt-Right’s Left-mimicking activism at least gives them a better chance to compete for real than the conservatives’ self-defeating rejection of activism.
Whatever style of activism suits your tastes, the determinative standard in the activist game is, of course, whether you win, not how you play the game.
Activism is a workshop of tools from which you can tailor your gameplay to your tastes. But ultimately, your tastes cannot bar you from doing what must be done to win, even if you have to hold your nose to do what’s needed to defeat your opponent. Because the alternative to your team winning is the opposing team winning the dominant social control that’s required to reify their social preferences and displace you (and vice versa), which is intolerable.
If you lose the activist game, at least lose it competing honestly in the arena. Defeat because you held back over distaste is tantamount to valuing your individual petty pride over the rippling social consequences of defeat.
Of course, for activists, while losing is a normal part of the competitive learning curve, there is no such thing as defeat in a permanent sense. For activists, there is dominance or insurgency.
With Stone’s message, that’s only expected given their choice of (classic) playbook.
Neo:
“that Republicans need to be political activists using leftist methods in order to win”
That part bears correction. I pointedly emphasize that conservatives need to be activist.
It’s not the GOP’s place to produce the necessary activism, nor should you want the GOP to. The power of the people should retain with the people.
Rather, the GOP depends on the Right for the necessary activism in the same way that the Democrats depend on the Left for activism. Leftists have held up their end by supplying the requisite activism. So far, conservatives have stubbornly chosen not to hold up their end of the competition, and worse, they pass the buck to the GOP much like you shift the responsibility in the quoted statement.
Again, while conservatives can and often do wear a Republican hat, the activist social movement that the GOP needs to compete for real must be established with conservatives of Right wearing their conservative hat.
“a political party gets to decide who runs under its banner. Note: the Dem super delegates, for example.
Second: If Trump, or any other candidate, does not have a majority of the delegates, that candidate has won nothing. Yet. And is entitled to nothing.
Third: The whole idea of delegates is to empower them to make decisions. If the candidate they were pledged to is no longer viable, and they decide at the convention to cast their votes for a candidate who is viable, that is not corruption” Oldflyer
Thank you Oldflyer, for summarizing exactly where the GOP has gone off the tracks.
Any political party’s validity and power is derived from the voters that it attracts to its banner. When a party’s leadership decides “who runs under its banner” and in doing so, makes choices that evince disdain for its membership, it has lost its entire reason for existence.
The delegates are representatives NOT Lords who dictate. The minute a delegate ignores the expressed will of the majority of voters that they represent, they have abandoned all claim to legitimacy.
To dispute this is to declare that political party’s rule not with the consent of the governed but at the pleasure of those who ‘call the shots’.
A ‘rule’ that conflicts with these premises is logically invalid, regardless of how enforced or accepted it may be.
Finally, for a delegate to arrogantly decide that a candidate (who has not withdrawn from the nomination process) that the voters have decided is viable is not is, essentially to assume powers not granted by their constituents.
You may not call that corruption but by any other name, it still meets that definition.
Delegates are required to vote for the candidate they represent on the first ballot of an open convention. Only candidates that have won a majority or purality in at least 8 states are eligiable as potential nominees. that means only Trump or Cruz are eligible. If Trump or Cruz come to the convention without 1237, it becomes an open convention. Depending upon the rules of an individual state, in most cases delegates are free on a second ballot to vote as they choose.
To threaten to provoke violence and intimidate delegates is to evoke images of Germany circa 1932.
Parker and Old Flyer. I agree with your assessments. Geoffrey, not so much. Not that it matters. Enjoy reading your poste in any event.
I’m aware of the rules regarding delegates freedom to vote as they choose after the first ballot. I simply find it logically indefensible. Which makes it ‘bad law’ and bad laws/regs are always counter-productive in the long run.
But as “Sturgeon’s Law” especially applies in politics; “Well, 90% of everything is Crap!” we’d normally be stuck with it but this time, insisting ‘that’s the rules!’ is liable to gut the party.
The rule allowing delegates to become unbound after the first vote is necessary to eventually reach a point where one candidate has the necessary majority of the votes to win the nomination.
What is very plain to any who will take the time to analyze it is that Trump supporters represent about 35% of the primary GOP voters. 65% favor candidates who are not at all like Trump. Kasich or Rubio supporters would not vote for Trump. What can happen on the second vote is that the delegates bound to Kasich, Rubio, etc. are free to switch to the leading non-Trump candidate, Cruz. That is not a process of theft from Trump. It is a democratic winnowing of the field to find someone supported by a majority of delegates. That is what I expect to happen. I also expect that there will be wails of cheating, rigging, sand-bagging, etc. by Trump and his supporters. It will probably lead to a sufficiently divided GOP that no matter how good Cruz is in running against HRC or the Bern, the dems will win quite handily in November.
Trump might really want to be President and think he deserves it. IMO, his candidacy has had the effect of dividing the GOP so that the dems can win. Almost like someone might have planned it that way.
“logically indefensible”?
GB,
I am surprised. By your logically indefensible logic; a political party’s convention remains deadlocked with no nominee reaching 1237. Would you choose to hold hostage the family members of Kasich or Rubio delegates unless those delegates agreed to vote Trump or Cruz on the second ballot? WTF?
JJ,
Trump was IMO a spoiler/destroyer from day one.
Geoffrey Britain:
Primaries to select a party’s nominee are a fairly recent innovation. For much of our history, party leaders did the selection and somehow it was not considered a problem.
What’s more, now that primaries/caucuses are in place, the rule about 1237 votes is also in place in order to help assure that the will of the majority of the voters IS done. If that number is not reached, then you know what? It means that the majority of voters has not voted for any one candidate, so all bets are off.
If you’re that much of a populist, you should be in favor of a runoff election for the frontrunners.
The ORIGINAL purpose of the Convention was as a super caucus.
It was at this final ‘caucus’ that the delegates from across the polity were to select a slate of candidates and a platform for them to run on.
A contested Convention merely takes us back to basics.
Lincoln and Eisenhower came to the convention with far less than the delegates to win, yet both ended up the nominee and went on to win the general election. If one does not understand that there are rules to reach a confirmed candidate, one should not vote for anything beyond local animal control officers. Sheesh.
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition, global warming inquisition, and the voting inquisition.
Get, the comfy cushion!!!
Is all the stuffing up at one end?
Good, now use the comfy cushion
out of the three, one is dead, one is deadly serious, and the last is just ridiculous… like Monty Python…
I’m opposed to the process that the GOP has implemented in getting to a consensus because in freeing up delegates to vote as they choose (superseding the voter’s will) it violates the principles of; consent of the governed and representative governance.
That the prior method the GOP used was even more egregious is not an argument in favor of the GOP’s current methodology. Less bad is still bad.
That Lincoln made it through, despite a minority of votes does not obviate the ‘selection’ of Dole, McCain and Romney. That the process is heavily weighted in favor of the GOPe candidate is undeniable and the end result of that is a party literally at war with its base.
An alternative might be that after the first ballot, Rubio and Kasich’s delegates should be split up between the remaining candidates in the exact proportion of the delegate count of the viable candidate.
If that doesn’t reach a 1237 majority, a third ballot should divide the winner-take-all state delegates according to the actual proportionate vote in that contest.
If that still does not reach a majority, the candidate with the highest number of delegates should be declared the nominee. Majority rules.
The 1237 number is an arbitrary one, chosen because it represents a clear majority, which seeks to diffuse dissension.
If it cannot be reached, then the reality is that the electorate is divided and artificial means of ‘sweeping that under the rug’ will be and are in the long run counter-productive, as the current state of affairs demonstrates.
Better to acknowledge reality and rely upon the individual voter reaching their own conclusion as to which of the two party’s nominees they wish to see as President.
“the rule about 1237 votes is also in place in order to help assure that the will of the majority of the voters IS done.” neo
On the first ballot yes but in the current system, from the second ballot on, political maneuvering takes place with deals being made that favor special interests. Result; you end up with a RINO nominee who perpetuates the status quo.
I’m not suggesting that perfection is possible, human nature alone prohibits it. There is no substitute for voter’s demonstrating maturity and common sense.
When absent, falling back upon an inherently unrepresentative selection process is not the answer because it eliminates the feedback mechanisms that allow voters to learn from their mistakes, which is what leads to increased maturity and the development of greater common sense.
Geoffrey:
“An alternative might be that after the first ballot, Rubio and Kasich’s delegates should be split up between the remaining candidates in the exact proportion of the delegate count of the viable candidate.”
It appears all of your methods push towards the conclusion that Trump should be the nominee. Because conservatives decided to split their votes again, the most conservative would not have chance.
Exit and other polls have shown in a two man race between Trump and Cruz, Cruz gets an overwhelming share of Rubio’s voters, and a narrower majority of Kasich’s, often enough to have changed the outcome against Trump.
If the GOP truly wants to listen to the people (doubtful), they’d try to figure out how to allocate the votes based on voter preferences had it been a two man race.
Not sure how that could be done – commission a poll of the largest states that voted when Rubio was still a candidate?
geokstr,
I certainly am not in favor of Trump being the nominee but even when distasteful, the consent of the governed requires that the majority rules.
The alternative I offered is not intended to be a definitive answer, merely a starting point to a discussion, one that must adhere to the premise that the voters decide on the nominee not the elite.
I’m doubtful that ‘conservatives’ split their vote. I suspect that most of those voting for Rubio and Kasich support the establishment.
Figuring out how to fairly allocate the votes based on voter preferences when the candidates are reduced to a three or two man race is something I would fully support.
Perhaps having the voters in the original caucuses and primaries choose a second and third preference, might be a way to go, something that would not be especially difficult for voters exercising simple common sense.
Geoffrey:
“I’m doubtful that ‘conservatives’ split their vote. I suspect that most of those voting for Rubio and Kasich support the establishment.”
Actually, of the states already voting, they split mostly three ways – Trump, Cruz, Rubio.
Neo had a post not long ago on how the Republicans would have voted in a two way race, based on a 538.org analysis. IIRC, Cruz got 80% of Rubio’s votes and 55% of Kasich’s. Just reallocating the Rubio votes would have made the difference for Cruz in 8 states, another 6 would have resulted in dead heats, and Cruz would be leading now.
Apparently Geoffrey B is unfamiliar with the meaning of “republican government” or of the term “delegate.”
Apparently Richard S. is in need of a refresher course in constitutional governance. Hint; “consent of the governed” does not refer to delegates in a republic deciding for the voters who their rulers will be. As soon as they are unbound and can vote for any candidate, (among those who have won the requisite number of delegates) they are in a position to disenfranchise those whom they purportedly represent.
Geoffrey Britain:
What don’t you understand about what a political party is, and what a nominee of that party is?
Because delegates to a national convention of a political party are not “delegates in a republic deciding for the voters who their rulers will be.” They are delegates at a national party convention deciding who their nominee will be.
You also write “As soon as [delegates] are unbound and can vote for any candidate, (among those who have won the requisite number of delegates) they are in a position to disenfranchise those whom they purportedly represent.” No one is disenfranchising anyone–no one is depriving anyone of his or her right to vote.
A primary is not an election for president:
Primaries were a populist, progressive method of allowing somewhat more voter participation in the party nomination process than the traditional “smoke-filled room.” But it is still a party doing the nominating by its own rules, and the party makes the final decision. Anyone can still vote in the general for anyone he or she wants, including a write-in candidate.