UPDATED: Minnesota Delegates Back Ron Paul at Republican National Convention

Delegation chair Marianne Stebbins says state's delegates are "overwhelmingly Ron Paul supporters" and that she "doesn't think Mitt Romney is a strong candidate."

UPDATE (Tuesday, Aug. 28, 2012): In today's roll call of delegates at the Republican National Convention, Minnesota gave 33 votes to Ron Paul, 6 votes to presumptive nominee Mitt Romney and 1 vote to Rick Santorum, who bowed out of the race last spring. 

Despite the move, Mitt Romney earned the nomination later down the "alphabet" of states, as New Jersey put the presumptive candidate over the top. 


Minnesota’s delegation to the Republican National Convention will not back Mitt Romney when the party gathers in Tampa next week. Instead, 32 of the state’s 40 nominating votes will be cast for Ron Paul during the roll call of states, according to —chair of the delegation.

Stebbins lives in and was elected by Minnesota’s contingent of 77 total delegates, 37 of which are alternates, as chair earlier this year. While conceding Romney would capture the GOP endorsement for U.S. President, Stebbins said her state’s delegates are “overwhelmingly Ron Paul supporters” and made clear they would vote accordingly. 

“I don’t think Mitt Romney is a strong candidate,” she said. “He represents old ideas and what the party has stood for over the last couple of decades, which is not necessarily what the voters want.” 

While there remain rank and file Republicans who are “still sore” following Ron Paul’s strong showing in Minnesota’s caucus back in February, Stebbins says she has been feeling more acceptance of late and believes many in the party recognize Ron Paul’s level of support.

“They understand that we mean the party is growing, and that there are growing pains when an organization is growing,” she said. “But we’ve brought in so many people—disaffected Democrats, Independents, Libertarians and people who had been sitting on the couch and not interested in politics. We are growing the party, and it’s not always easy when there is a conflict of ideas.” 

, the Republican challenger for Minnesota House District 46B, echoed those sentiments and said Ron Paul supporters like him aren’t trying to destroy the Republican Party; they’re trying to save it. Arvidson is contemplating writing in Paul’s name come election time. 

“It’s a curious thing, and it’s politics at work,” he said. “It’s a grassroots movement trying to have an effect at the national level. To me, the two parties have become either big government or big business, and we just think it should be big people.” 

Stebbins also stressed Ron Paul supporters are “not abandoning the party” and many are volunteering for a variety of Republican candidates seeking state and federal office this fall.

Minnesota is not the only state in the Union sending a healthy helping of Ron Paul delegates to next week’s Republican National Convention. A large percentage of delegations from Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts and Maine also back Paul. A deal was reportedly struck Tuesday afternoon between Paul supporters and the Republican National Committee that would seat more Paul delegates and allow Paul’s son, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, to speak during primetime in exchange for Paul supporters not holding up the nomination process. 

For her part, Stebbins has supported Ron Paul since he first declared his candidacy for president back in 2007. 

“At one point the campaign asked me to coordinate Minnesota, in late 2007, and so I did that,” she said. “We had decent success for that year and elected six national delegates. Of course the 2008 state convention was pretty infamous for the party kind of squashing the Ron Paul movement.”

When the Texas congressman again announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination in 2011, Stebbins was among the first to join his campaign. 

“In the fall of 2011 they asked me to chair the Minnesota campaign,” she said. “We went ahead and did what needed to be done. This movement is just getting started. You’ve got people here in Minnesota who are just now running for city council. So those people aren’t on the radar yet. Some of those will win and some won’t, but that’s where it starts. Those are the acorns, the shoots, that will spread out.”

Romney is scheduled to visit Minnesota this week for a —a reception at the Lafayette Club in Minnetonka Beach and a private dinner at a home in Shorewood. Stebbins said she would not be attending either event. 

Stebbins is herself a candidate for public office this November. She has declared her and will run against two others for a pair of seats up for grabs. It’s not her first race for public office. After moving to Minnesota after high school the New York native ran for State Senate back in the 1990s to represent Richfield’s district.

Stebbins has been active in the Republican Party for more than two decades and has been a state delegate most of that time. She has volunteered for “untold” campaigns during those years, and defined Libertarians as “classical liberals” who believe in controlling their own lives and self-determination as opposed to having government controlling their lives.

“I’ve put a lot of effort into the Republican Party, but I’ve always been fairly liberty minded," she said. "So when Ron Paul ran it was a natural fit for me. Practical liberal and Libertarian are fairly similar. Modern liberals came out of the progressive movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s. There is obviously quite a distinction now, however modern day liberals have a lot of good things about them.”

Tim Walsh August 22, 2012 at 04:21 AM
In all reality, the "deal" struck by delegates from that "state" or whatever it was by the anonymous "representative" from the Paul campaign is inconsequential. With a plurality of 5 states, Dr. Paul can be nominated from the floor by true conservative delegates from any state and win the nomination. I try to be patient with the "presumptive nominee" status from the main stream media, but come on, where is the reporting on how the nomination process really works? We need a real conservative to turn this country around, not a flip flopping RHINO who is backed by the same corporations as the incumbent who is ruining our republic, and who offers little difference in ideology.
DIY in Orono August 22, 2012 at 11:32 AM
I don't begrudge anyone for supporting their own ideology, but please don't screw this up. Tim, if you honestly think that Dr. Paul can 'win the nomination', you need your head examined. At this point in the process, you need to concede that this time around it didn't go your way, get on with things and don't mess with the convention. Marianne Stebbins doesn't speak for me, nor does she for the majority of the party. This manuever won't endear you to your local electorate, and may harm your ability to make gains in local elections. Nobody likes a sore loser.
Ducky Bro August 22, 2012 at 01:05 PM
DIY, that was a pretty douchey thing to say. OF COURSE RON PAUL CAN STILL GET NOMINATED FROM THE FLOOR, YA DORK! That's what the convention is for. Oh you forgot. Or you accepted a fairy tale about how the nominating process works. If Mitt Romney has already won the nomination of the party, why is he still called the 'presumptive' nominee? The delegates can ALL vote their consciences at the convention. Ron Paul has a plurality in five states.
I'm awake August 22, 2012 at 01:35 PM
@ DYI Orono, It looks to me as if Tim can't bring himself to vote for any thing that offends his principles. He will preserve his princibles, and stay true. Kind of like Ryan did with TARP huh? That worked out well.. Those fatcats we bailed got a bonus! Chew on this, If we have no debt, we have NO money. You and your princibles get this? Funny how the centeral bank and income tax were created in the same year huh? You really think Tim's a sore looser huh? I think that he is praying with every last breath that he will be able to vote to save his family, our country. Both sides have the same agenda this is just a power struggle, they will continue eroding our rights.
Bill Greene August 22, 2012 at 03:20 PM
She said "classical liberal," not "practical liberal". Have NONE of these reporters ever taken a political science class???
DMO August 22, 2012 at 03:24 PM
I'm not seeing how Republicans and Libertarians have anything in common. I am a conservative and I am willing to pay taxes for a strong military and police, clean water, good schools and roads, a war on drugs, and no abortion-ever (parents screw up so kill the innocent baby??) Libertarians gave us Mark Dayton by their support of Horner for governor. Now they want to threaten party division with the possible end result of 4 more years of Obama. Liberarians are not conservative and need to start their own party, you are not representing the conservative republican majority.
Mike Rudolph August 22, 2012 at 03:46 PM
DMO, a self-proclaimed conservative that favors taxes yet can't comprehend that the United States could go back to the spending levels of 2002 and completely abolish the federal income tax and still pay for everything (even the things Libertarians despise). How does our military grow by 80% in spending over 10 years and not show an 80% increase in goods and services? You're being ROBBED by the Military Industrial Complex and you take it like a champ by biting the pillow as they go in dry. Fools will be fools. Do you even know what conservatism is? Libertarians represent what true conservatism used to be. Your precious GOP has strayed far from the trough and needs to be reclaimed.
bigbadtxboy August 22, 2012 at 04:07 PM
Ron Paul is a TRUE patriot and IF the people of this county were NOT so brainwashed he would be the next president! It's the ONLY way to save this country!
Diane V. McLoughlin August 22, 2012 at 06:52 PM
Re 'happy to pay taxes to support a 'strong military' - we are headed [dragged] to total world war with nuclear-armed Russia and China. 12-term Congressman Ron Paul, August 20, 2012 statement: 'Military cuts don't believe the hype': 'When the Obama administration calls for an 18% increase in 2013 military spending, those who propose a 20% increase portray this as a reduction! 'Even the supposedly draconian cuts called for in the “sequestration” budget bill would keep military spending at 2006 levels when adjusted for inflation, which is about as high in terms of GDP as during World War II. It’s also more than the top 13 foreign countries spend on defense combined. Furthermore, sequestration only cuts military spending for one year after taking effect. In future years Congress is free to reinstate higher military spending levels-- so under sequestration the most drastic case would mean spending $5.2 trillion instead of $5.7 trillion over the next decade. 'Is there any amount of money that would satisfy the Pentagon hawks? Even if we were to slash our military budget in half, America easily would remain the world’s dominant military power. Our problems don’t result from a lack of spending. They result from a lack of vision and a profound misunderstanding of the single biggest threat to every American man, woman, and child: the federal debt. ' Full statement: 1.usa.gov/PrqUfI
DIY in Orono August 22, 2012 at 07:46 PM
I didn't say he couldn't be nominated from the floor, I said he couldn't win the nomination. Ron Paul will not be our next president, just not plausible or feasible. Focus on preventing BHO being re-elected, that's the greater threat. Keep your movement going by focusing on tactics that have a chance to work, for Pete's sake! You're spending your energy on the wrong things.
Diane V. McLoughlin August 22, 2012 at 08:05 PM
Romney or Obama - both are the two faces fronting for the military industrial complex - you're living in a fascist hell that is leading directly to perhaps the final cataclysm. Please, wake up.
Tim Mcdonald August 22, 2012 at 09:19 PM
Random fact: Every last penny of our income tax revenue isn't even enough to cover the INTEREST on the national debt. We are way, way too far in debt. Our military has troops stationed in more than 130 countries (there are only 196 countries in the world) we have more than 700 bases around the world. The base we built in Iraq is bigger than the Vatican! It cost a billion dollars! I mean, this is crazy, things have gone way to far. And now that there is a spark, now that people are starting to stand up to defend their quality of life, you push them aside and say you can't be a part of my club? Is everything going ok for you? Are you not impacted financially or in anyway by the current state of things? Is it still business as usual? Sheesh, is there no seriousness at all? Are we still in high school with the cool kids and the nerds and the jocks? Holy crap man, don't you see there is a crisis happening here! If not, I suggest talking to people every once in a while, you might find that not everyone has the luxury of being as divisive as you
DIY in Orono August 22, 2012 at 09:45 PM
@Diane, I am wide awake. Here's an analogy: Jesus Christ would be a better candidate than BHO or Mitt, so would Abraham Lincoln. But there is no chance that they will win the nomination. Same applies to Dr. Paul. I will repeat- I respect the heck out of him, he is courageous, brilliant, and while I don't agree with all of his policies he is legitimate and has inspired new patriots across the country. That is fantastic! He just won't be winning the nomination, it's a math thing at this point. If you don't move on from this you risk annoying people that you are trying to win over.
Diane V. McLoughlin August 22, 2012 at 10:53 PM
reply to DIY reply below, Hi nice to talk to u. Listen, I get the analogy completely, and it's a false one. In essence, you are doing just what the ptb want u to, follow orders. What is the most prominent order? 'Don't vote Ron Paul because he can't win.' Well, of course he can't freakin' win - if you follow the order not to vote for him! Of course that doesn't take into account the cheating, which also happens, but we currently don't have as much control over things like the voting machines or the counters at the moment as we actually should. No, all one can control with any certainty is what each chooses to do themselves with their one vote. Does the voter choose to vote his conscience? Or not. That's it. That's the only choice that counts. Otherwise, it won't matter; a vote for Romney or Obama: bankruptcy and world war. The economy part may be a done deal even with Paul.
DIY in Orono August 22, 2012 at 11:42 PM
Hi Diane, ditto nice talking with you as well. The premise that everyone would vote for Dr. Paul if they didn't feel obligated to 'follow orders' isn't quite right- if that were true there would be a much closer tally going into it, much more controversy, Dr. Paul might not have ended his campaign (I know, not dropping out), and it would be conceivable that the tactic would work. That just is not the case. There are more people that find favor with Mitt Romney that Dr. Paul. I trust both of them over the other on selected points, so I understand the frustration- we don't have the 'perfect' candidate. But when is there ever a perfect candidate for all? That is the beauty and the beast of our democratic system. It's REALLY tough to get to a consensus, for the better of the masses, even at the expense of some of our own individual, deeply held beliefs. However, I do not believe that there is an equal risk in catastrophy when faced with a choice between BHO and Mitt. BHO, in my opinion, presents a cataclysmic risk to our America for his deliberate reasons, and Mitt does not. I believe that we need to ask, what is the worst case scenario, and try to avoid that even if it means compromising on what we feel is the best choice.
Greg Strand August 23, 2012 at 12:17 AM
DIY- voting for the "lesser of two evils" is still....yep you guess it....still EVIL!....do you know what the military industrial complex is? do you know how the federal reserve robs EVERYONE through inflation? do you even know what the hell you are talking about?? it's big business vs big govt with ZERO discussion of the real issues affecting this country...it's you and the rest of the ignorant zombies that have allowed this country to become the sh*thole it currently is...your boy mitt is not going to change that...wake up
DIY in Orono August 23, 2012 at 12:38 AM
@ Greg, I do know what the military industrial complex is, I do get the Fed Reserve, I do know what the hell I'm talking about. I'm not an ignorant zombie, I am awake, and I am realistic and mature enough to understand what is possible. I am not ignorant enough to think that by wishing and hoping on a star that things will turn out the way I want. This is the real world, it's tough, there are more people that disagree with me than agree, and I know that I can't bully my way into making people do what I want them to do, like you've just tried on me. You are demonstrating a lack of finesse in getting people to come to your point of view- you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, Honey. You should take notice of how ineffective your methods are, perhaps you could be more effective if you weren't so offensive. I wish you well, I just don't think you'll change your methods and don't expect much.
Greg Strand August 23, 2012 at 01:01 AM
the problem is this: you truly believe that things will be better if Mitt is elected. it's two wings of the same bird friend
DIY in Orono August 23, 2012 at 01:09 AM
I do truly believe that things will be better if Mitt Romney were elected instead of Barack Obama. Challenge, tell me why it would be better if Barack Obama were re-elected.
Blasius August 23, 2012 at 01:22 AM
Ronald Reagan's speeches - the early ones that got him elected - were written by one of the Founders of the Libertarian Party, Karl Hess. The Libertarian "wing" of the Republican Party developed when people who call themselves Conservative forgot about "conserving" the Constitution.
Greg Strand August 23, 2012 at 01:22 AM
no WWIII? (but U.S aggression in Syria/iran would probably go down the same with either) and having the neocons realize they can't win without the support of the multitude of TRUE conservative Ron Paulites
Blasius August 23, 2012 at 01:30 AM
So you are saying we should vote for Romney/Goldman Sachs instead of Obama Goldman Sachs. So you are in favor of the NDAA, TARP, the Patriot Act, multiple undeclared wars, killing hundreds of thousands of innocents to get alleged bad guys, and a National I.D. card, and, of course, printing fiat money without cutting spending, and you are saying that Romney/Goldman Sachs is a better spokesman for these positions that Obama/Goldman Sachs?
Greg Strand August 23, 2012 at 01:35 AM
I, for one (but not alone), am sick of the same establishment RINO, rammed down my throat, who wouldn't be any different than GW or any other prez when it comes to liberties and understanding how the game is really played....it's sickening
DIY in Orono August 23, 2012 at 02:05 AM
Silly, it's a simple theoretical question about the relative merit of two choices. Remember back to your Logic courses in college. Why would re-electing BHO be a better choice than to elect Mitt? The truth is that one or the other of them WILL be our next president. I challenge you to set aside your reliable positions that you use when making your case for Dr. Paul and present a compelling case for one over the other. I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to share.
Diane V. McLoughlin August 23, 2012 at 04:09 AM
Me again DIY - as Mitt and Obama are both reliably going to be disastrous leading the country for the next four years, the question is, should it be Obama for 4 versus Mitt for possibly 8. Mitt was the architect of Obamacare and wrote an oped urging Obama to adopt it. Both Obama and Mitt are cool with shredding the Constitution, the right of habeus corpus and basically the rule of law as we know it. With the NDAA Obama signed over the Christmas holidays, he now feels he has the power to kidnap anyone, even American citizens, whisk them away to secret locations, deny them the right to be charged with a crime, be brought before a judge - anything - and hold them indefinitely. Obama et al believe he has the legal power to assassinate American citizens, and has done so. Mitt is cool with it. Both are enthusiastic cheerleaders for the march to global war. The above makes a compelling case for looking elsewhere for leadership. Personally, I recommend Ron Paul.
DIY in Orono August 23, 2012 at 11:46 AM
So you can't or won't answer the question..... I'm out!
Chaz McCloughan August 23, 2012 at 01:27 PM
Diane V. McLoughlin August 23, 2012 at 04:33 PM
DIY respectfully, I did answer your question. If the poor [false] choice is strictly between Obama or Romney, then one is guaranteed to be only for the next four years (unless he declares martial law) and the other could be two terms or eight years.
Greg Strand August 24, 2012 at 04:55 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWDJEc92d38 DIY, watch and truly ask yourself is there a difference...apart from what has been blasted to you by MSM
Greg Strand August 24, 2012 at 04:58 AM
it would be comical if it weren't so sad....lol i love how the "catch phrases" are all the same....don't you realize DIY that you are being played like a fiddle?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something