Posted on 08/26/2012 6:40:10 PM PDT by Bigtigermike
Zeke Miller is reporting that a set of changes to the convention rules pushed through by Mitt Romney’s team is raising a few hackles among the delegates and could potentially lead to a squabble on the convention floor. The modifications in question deal – among other things – with the method used to select and approve the individual delegates from each state.
Frustration over changes to the Republican Party’s rules pushed through by the Romney Campaign on Friday may lead to a fight on the floor of the Republican National Convention on Monday.
The Convention Committee on Rules took a number of steps on Friday to weaken the power of state conventions and state parties, while consolidating the power of presidential candidates in the nominating process. Some of the changes — to require that delegations from statewide caucuses and primaries to the convention adhere to the will of voters — weakened the hand of insurgent-type candidates but have been well received by the committee. But a change allowing presidential candidates the right to vet their own delegates to the national convention has many state party officials up in arms — and they are planning to bring it to the convention floor.
The change, pushed by the Romney campaign's top lawyer Ben Ginsburg originally allowed candidates to select all the delegates bound to them in state contests. Now it allows candidates to refuse the delegate, requiring another in his or her stead to be selected by the state.
"The bottom line is that the change adopted today essentially allows the Presidential campaigns to pick there own delegates, which makes it a complete insider's ballgame and allows a bunch of Washington D.C. consultants to decide who does and doesn't get to be a delegate," said South Carolina delegate Drew McKensist
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
You are mistaken:
Originally a member of the Democratic Party, Reagan switched to the Republican Party in 1962. After delivering a rousing speech in support of Barry Goldwater's presidential candidacy in 1964, he was persuaded to seek the California governorship, winning two years later and again in 1970.
Reagan was a recent convert when he wowed conservatives with his speeches in support of Goldwater, and had only been a Republican for four years when he was elected governor enroute to eventually becoming president.
We no longer need, nor have much room for RINOs who claim to be Republican
So you don't support Romney?
Well said Charles.
Obviously you didn't.
Mr. RomneyCARE created RomneyCARE/ObamaCARE, Death Panels,
and gay marriage as Governor while he tanked the state.
And you think THAT is conservative?
For Mr. RomneyCARE, it was a start of his final agendae.
Of course I didn't, it is the first time you've written it in this thread. I've quoted from you exactly what I've responded to.
To wit:
Out of the 16 candidates I examined closely, only 3 had been lifelong conservative Republicans. All the rest had recent, or questionable ties to the Republican party.
Your criteria would have prevented Reagan from being a Goldwater delegate. If you think you can wall off the GOP from new blood and still grow the party you are further mistaken.
Best we dispose of the part that's not inclined to Conservative principles.
Well Charles, Romney may be YOUR nominee but he ain't mine, and I refuse to vote for the SOB.
And I guess all the GOP-E scheming, backstabbing, and cheating that went on before and during the primaries to clear the way for Romney was a figment of our imaginations, right?
It is no surprise that many
of the proRomney people are the same ones
who attacked Gov Palin after the GOP convention
in 2008, so as to help Obama.
They think that to have mercilessly
attacked a female GOP VP candidate and her children
for Obama has made them “conservative”.
It has not.
We knew that this was their agenda all along, and now they’ve been smoked out into the open.
You were complaining about what was happening at “our” convention. If you aren’t part of the GOP, and aren’t a republican, then what do you care what the republicans are doing at their convention.
If you are a republican, then Romney is your nominee. If you voted in the primary, then Romney is your nominee. You’d expect that if the guy YOU voted for won, the party would back them. If you don’t want to be part of the party, don’t be part of the party.
But if you are going to participate in the party, don’t be one of those who only wants to play the game if they win, and otherwise they want to throw the board over and run off in a huff.
We have to many RINOS who play that game (for example Charlie Crist, Lisa Murkowski). We rightly complain when they do.
I’m a Conservative first, Republican distant second, Charles. Which are you?
I’m a Christian first, and then a husband, and a father. Which are you?
My response is as unresponsive as yours.
Since you didn’t vote in the conservative party primary, you must have decided you were a republican (assuming you voted in the republican primary).
My point stands. If you don’t want to be in the party, don’t participate. But don’t join with the party, and then play “take your ball and go home” if you don’t like how it turns out. Or do if you want, but realize the company you keep.
No wonder the GOP is in such a sorry shape.
OK, I’ll take that as your personal feelings over God.
You are confusing them with OWS. Seems a lot of people are doing that. As Timber Rattler state “Sarah had it right:
Palin: Republicans Shouldn’t Alienate Ron Paul Supporters “
And I wholehearted agree! I disagree strongly with Ron Paul on a couple of issue, as do a lot of his supporters, BUT they are libertarians NOT anarchists, and they should NOT have been alienated. A lot of them are young voters who left the liberal “d’s”. It is a natural progression to go from liberal to libertarian and once they are older and have their own kids, most of those will become full fledged conservatives. As Ronald Reagan said, “libertarianism is the heart and should of conservatism. “ Far too many of them are Jeffersonians, to be ignored, and called kooks.
You are confusing them with OWS. Seems a lot of people are doing that. As Timber Rattler state “Sarah had it right:
Palin: Republicans Shouldn’t Alienate Ron Paul Supporters “
And I wholehearted DISagree! I disagree strongly with Ron Paul on a couple of issue, important ones, as do a lot of his supporters, BUT they are libertarians NOT anarchists, and they should NOT have been alienated. A lot of them are young voters who left the liberal “d’s”. It is a natural progression to go from liberal to libertarian and once they are older and have their own kids, most of those will become full fledged conservatives. As Ronald Reagan said, “libertarianism is the heart and should of conservatism. “ Far too many of them are Jeffersonians, to be ignored, and called kooks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.