Moderates, Romney Wreak Havoc at National Convention - Will They Destroy the Republican Party?

Texas Conservative Republican News ^ | 8/27/2012 | David Bellow

[davidbellow]

Update: I hear that the first issue below has been pulled from the table to avoid a fight. That does not mean that it cannot be brought up at the convention and there is also still the second important issue below that needs to be defeated!


WARNING! Romney and Moderate Republicans want Control over who the national delegates are and what is in the Republican Party Platform and Rules! They want to take this power away from the states. This is an attempt to mold the Republican platform to his moderate values and also to force state delegates to be completely loyal to him and his moderate beliefs instead of standing for their own beliefs and the beliefs of the people who voted for them from each state and congressional district.

Call All National Delegates you know and tell them This MUST be defeated!

Let me first say that I am of course voting for Romney because Obama MUST go. Romney was not my first choice but he has won and he will be better that Obama.

That being said.....

Mitt Romney Better Check Himself Before He Wrecks Himself (and the GOP)

Romney's Team (his top campaign lawyer Ben Ginsburg and other operatives) and many other moderates in the RNC have introduced rule changes at the Republican National Convention that, if passed by the convention this week, would destroy the GOP and disenfranchise Republicans all over the nation. These attacks are not just aimed at one group (like Ron Paul Delegates). These attacks are aimed at all conservatives who will not compromise or go with the flow.


Romney can court the moderates, but he will not win if the loses the base of the party (the conservatives). He needs the Tea Party. He needs Social Conservative. He Also Needs Ron Paul Supporters.

Fellow Conservative Texan Jeremy Blosser is at the National Convention and he sent me a report about these issues. I was also sent articles about these subjects from other fellow Conservatives like Cathie Adams and Debbie Georgatos.

First, one proposed change from Romney would allow  Presidential Nominee (right now that would be him) to pick the state delegates to the National Convention. SAY WHAT? Individual states get delegates for a reason. It is so each STATE gets represented. the people of each state select THEIR delegates to the National Convention, NOT HIS. These delegates do everything from voting on the Republican values in the GOP platform to voting for the Republican Presidential Nominee. Each state assigns their national delegates a presidential candidate to vote for based on things like caucus votes and statewide primary election results. Romney has won the nomination. He has the votes. Apparently that is not good enough for him. Now he wants to be able to pick the delegates to the national convention. He wants to take that right away form the states.

THIS WOULD ALLOW ROMNEY AND HIS MODERATES TO CRAFT THE GOP PARTY PLATFORM AND VALUES! That is why this is such a bad idea. This change would not just allow Romney to pick delegates to vote for him for the nomination. These delegates ALSO VOTE ON THE PLATFORM. So in effect, allowing Romney to pick his delegates instead of the states picking them will mean that Romney can pick people to represent HIS values in the platform instead of the States and Congressional Districts picking delegates to represent THEIR values in the platform.

The RNC had already betrayed the states last year, especially Texas, by forcing us to change our rules and how we select our National Convention delegates. Last year I declared that the RPT MUST STAND UP TO THE RNC. Unfortunately we did not. Well, now we see what happens when we try to play nice and go along. When we do not stand up for what we believe, we lose and then we lose more in the future because now the other side has a foot in the door to be able to force more changes on us.

Texas is Leading the Way to Defeat this Change! I am thankful to say that most of the Texas Delegation are strongly opposed to this, including our State Republican Party Chairman Steve Munisteri and our two RNC Rules Committee Members Butch Davis and Melinda Fredericks. They are leading the charge for the Texas Delegation against this proposed change and are standing for Texas and Grassroots Republicans everywhere!

Second, another rule change would allow the RNC to make rule changes between conventions, without approval from the delegates and with no checks or balances. The delegates to the national convention are from all corners of America and at the convention they are responsible for voting on the National Platform (out values) and our party rules. This change would allow the handful of RNC members to take that power away from the delegates. This change would allow the Republican National Committee members to have the ability to change this important documents between conventions and without approval of the delegates. The original threshold proposed was 2/3 of the entire RNC in order to be able to change the rules between conventions.  Melinda Fredericks, the Vice Chairman of Texas GOP and a Rules Committee Member, got this changed to 3/4. Mrs. Fredericks meant well, but it was a compromise that really does not safeguard us much. We need to stop compromising and just start standing for what is right. I urge Mrs. Fredericks and the Texas Delegation to also oppose this change just as strongly as they oppose Romney wanting to pick Delegates instead of the states.

The RNC should not be able to change our rules between conventions, even with a 3/4 threshold, because as Morton Blackwell (long-time Conservative RNC member) noted, in his many years on the RNC he has never seen a situation where the chairman did not get what he wanted on a vote, regardless of threshold.

Call All National Delegates you know and tell them This MUST be defeated!

Romney and Moderate Republicans MUST realize that they NEED conservatives in order to beat Obama and the Democrats. Groups like the Tea Party and Ron Paul supporters bring energy and passion to election. There is a belief that a candidate must go moderate to win but that is no longer true. The nation is becoming so polarized that conservatives are getting fed up and joining together. They are NOT just going along with the Republican Party anymore. They can change elections. Look what the Tea Party and conservative groups did right here in Texas when they helped Ted Cruz win the Texas US Senate Nomination against the sitting LT Governor who had limitless campaign funds. The Republican Party needs to embrace these conservative groups instead of tossing them to the side. They need us for our passion and energy to get people to the polls, but they also need our votes! They cannot just assume that conservatives will keep supporting the GOP because many conservatives are bailing the GOP because the moderates are so drastically trying to take over the party and move it more to the left. I am voting for Romney because I want Obama out and Romney is the better of the two, but I have friends who have told me that they are just so fed up with the moderates in the Party, like Romney, that they just might not even vote in the Presidential election because they can not in good concise vote for either candidate based on their values.

[jonrick46]

Yes, things are moving towards unity in the GOP. This is a unity that is necessary for the win.

[bobo1]

you know what sucked. the first time i was old enough to vote, i cast my ballot for nixon.

wage & price controls, and a whole lot of nonsense. then another moderate, ford. disappointment #2. then the peanut farmer! i left the military then, cuz he couldn’t command a toy boat in a bathtub.

should have stayed! would have served under the greatest president in the 20th century, Ronald Reagan. my mistake.

then we got bush sr. got in on reagan’s coatails, no conviction “read my lips”.

which gave us the philander in chief, the clintoons. it was a package deal.

after that, “W”. not much for compassionate conserativism. blow the piss out of their countries, no nation rebuilding, if they try something again,bomb them over. after a period of time they will learn, if not they can meet allah before their time.

then we get to the obamantion. not an american, yea call me a birther. that could be remedied with a $12 or $15 request for a real birth certificate. I will gladly pay for it at no cost to the imposter in chief.

Besides, i have a problem with muslims. i would not allow a mosque to be in america, they cannot defend the Constitution (well, hell, the rats can’t do that either). No place in America.

I actually think that you should be literate enough to vote, and if you are sucking off the government tit you shouldn’t be allowed to anyway, cuz u got no skin in the game.

of course, i am radical. got it from my dad, and goldwater, and wm f. buckley jr. and ronald reagan.

blessings, i must needs to go to bed, 1 beer too many.

bobo

[jonrick46]

Just a question: What is it for you to gain to see Zer0 win and Romney lose?

[zerosix]

This issue has not been dropped as some media/GOPe types would have you believe.

We conservative delegates have not fought this long and hard to hand our right to select our own delegates over not only to a party hack but to the left in our own party that want us shut out of everything-count on it!

Yes, today, this might be about Ron Paul but it can easily be about any pro-life, pro-family conservative in the future.

This is not about Paul, it is about a voice of the people, some might even call it about "choice."

Just as in the pro-life debate vs choice, we are for choice, we just choose life!

[piytar]

Nothing. But I am no longer sure there is anything for us in seeing Romney win.

[Marcella]

ping

[zerosix]

Don't give up on the GOP just yet.

There are more of us conservatives today in Tampa than there are of the RINOs.

A number of us from the various state conventions ousted the RINOs little by little as precinct committeemen and women and it is we who vote on our Delegates and we aren't handing that back to the RINOs to hand select us.

We control the rules and the platform committees and that's why they are trying to shut down the voices of the right, of the TEA Party but they aren't going to accomplish it.

[onyx]

the poster of the article has already received the ZOT.

[piytar]

Nothing. But I am no longer sure there is anything for us in seeing Romney win.

[jonrick46]

Edmund Burke: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

[Marcella]

Bellow is no longer here (retread).

[Marcella]

Bellow was retread. Jim zotted him.

[skinkinthegrass]

hope the kitties, are hungry/playful..
give 'em this Fmr. FReeper.

[entropy12]

You are exactly right. I can smell democrat operatives a mile away. They all post together soon after any anti-Romney thread is started.

[Sen Jack S. Fogbound]

Don’t feel too bad! I have a bit more wine than I need to have at this time but I will tell you that I am an old time Republican! Or even an old time Democrat such as Harry Truman! Or even Dwight Eisenhower! They both loved America and tried to do what’s right by it.

I am not comfortable with Romney but I believe in “Anybody but Obama” mode of thinking at this time. Any talk of third party talk is rubbish as far as I’m concerned! Remember Perot! He gave it to Clinton! Our Blowjob-in-Chief! Guess it must be nice be a President! eh?

Guess I’d better go to bed! Too many wine!

[Nifster]

precisely

[bobo1]

hey buddy, yea, i am going to bed too.

all the old people loved America whether they were rats or pubs.

now we have in office people that hate America.

they called “Ike” a golfer. the obamanation has surpassed him.

Blessings, bobo

[bobo1]

you are cool. i can relate to you. will write you back at a late time.

Blessings, bobo

[I still care]

Malkin and Palin are both going at this on FB.

We nee”There is a VERY IMPORTANT BATTLE taking place at the RNC between grass-roots conservatives and party bosses. The GOP brass want to take away the states’ time-honored power to elect delegates.”

Wonder if Rush will take this on tomorrow.

[Yosemitest]

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.

The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!