Floor fight: Grass-roots activists battle attempt to rig GOP convention delegate rules Updated

http://michellemalkin.com ^ | August 27, 2012 | Michelle Malkin

[Ron C.]

Drew McKissick is a longtime conservative activist and blogger who is in attendance at the Republican National Convention’s Rules Committee meetings. He and others on the ground are sounding the alarm over rules changes that he and many other attendees believe will hurt grass-roots movement conservatives. The battle is being cast by some observers as a narrow fight between Ron Paul advocates and the rest of the party. Drew says that’s not true. And many other state delegations who oppose top-down delegate choices are chiming in.

First, here’s Drew’s call to arms (my emphasis added in bold):

Fellow conservatives,

Those who are in Tampa working to maintain the influence of grassroots conservatives in the Republican Party need your help!

[JediJones]

You should probably read what I and others posted about “fake TEA party operatives.” People are getting duped. The Paulbots plan was made apparent at state GOP conventions, and many of us warned people about it.

I warned people about Paul's plans in the primaries here too, and posted quotes from their forums on what they were doing. What's going today is NOT about Paulbots. While the Paulbots are obviously against what Rove-Romney are trying to do here, so is just about every other kind of grass-roots activist and conservative you can name. As Malkin's article states, many state delegations signed onto opposing the rules. This is a states' rights vs. centralized power issue more than anything else. It goes WAY beyond something what would affect just Paulbots.

[Bigtigermike]

Update: 11:53pm Eastern Sarah Palin weighs in while campaigning on the road in Arizona.

From her Facebook page:

We have to remember that this election is not just about replacing the party in power. It’s about who and what we replace it with. Grassroots conservatives know this. Without the energy and wisdom of the grassroots, the GOP would not have had the historic 2010 electoral victories. That’s why the controversial rule change being debated at the RNC convention right now is so very disappointing. It’s a direct attack on grassroots activists by the GOP establishment, and it must be rejected.

[NoRedTape]

Ah.........no.

[JediJones]

Malkin updated the article about an hour ago. Bottom line, Romney's team isn't budging yet on Rule 12, which gives the chairman the ability to change rules any time they want, not just at the convention every 4 years, an unprecedented move. They're saying it takes a 75% majority, but the RNC chairman has so many ways to persuade people that he would get whatever change he wanted. So they are poised for a floor fight on this tomorrow. To me, I can't imagine how they could accept this. How is the compromising on the rule any good if you just give the RNC the power to change the rules back after the convention?

Please encourage people to continue to contact Rules Committee members and party leaders and keep the pressure on opposing Rule 12.

[rawcatslyentist]

Just exactly which liberal social issues are you referring to?

The Mitt ruling class ones, or the Constitutional freedom ones of the Paulies?

[rbmillerjr]

“or the Constitutional freedom ones of the Paulies?”

Hmm, aren’t you a RonPaulian?

[Happy Rain]

Apparently Mitt don't want to get primaried in 2016.

[manc]

exactly.

Libetarians and those who follow Paul can have their own nomination process, debates with their own, their own conventions.
They can talk about supporting polygamy, homosexuality, beastiality, etc they can talk about their foreign policy or lack thereof, they can talk about cutting the military, CIA, FBI etc.

I;m sure millions will flock to them after teir stances come ut in THEIR conventions etc.
ARF

[ThermoNuclearWarrior]

Our system is broken beyond repair. We will have to confront some unconstitutional laws on a large scale. We have to elect people to state governments who aren't afraid to defend the Constitution all the way. That means refusing some laws and mandates that are obviously unconstitutional. We need to start scouting state candidates who are intelligent, reasonable, but also willing to sacrifice for our Constitution by refusing certain orders while preparing for the reactions, and letting the feds no it's not getting those mandates and laws enforced unless it's them who want to attack and kill innocent American patriots. Hopefully that order would never be issued, and if so, hopefully we have enough who would refuse it, or even forcible stop it if needed. We should be working at the state level to get people willing to leave the union if they are going to have to live under this tyranny. The states can take back their power together, and violence can only be started by their actions. We CANNOT get a Constitutional government working entirely in a broken, corrupt, and unconstitutional system like we have now.

We are at a point where we need to make drastic steps to restore our Constitution, just like our domestic enemies are taking drastic steps to destroy it. We are facing a a tyranny like our founding fathers were, and it's time we do whatever is needed for a peaceful Revolution that can only turn violent by aggressive action by the federal government against any state. It's obvious they would support our states over this massive government, and some people out there need to realize they were real people who sacrificed, and took a huge risk, in making this great nation; not fairytale characters that some seem to confuse them with. Those say they love and respect them, but laugh off any talk of revolution. It's time for those wanting to restore the Constitution to band together even if they have legitimate arguments on certain aspects of it. Conservatives have to be united in revolt to win, and then debate the issues that have splintered the movement.

[CincyRichieRich]

Ok, we keep hearing about the Republican elites, those in charge...just who are those people? I am serious, I really don’t know...who are those people?

[Ron C.]

"Ok, we keep hearing about the Republican elites, those in charge...just who are those people? I am serious, I really don’t know...who are those people?"

Sad to say, the so-called GOP-E or elite vilified on this website consist mostly of a few Republicans in Congress that vote all too often with the Democrats – and supposedly bad members of the RNC.

Thankfully most of our state and federal elected Republicans are conservative, vote as such and rarely do we ever laud their accomplishments on our behalf. The same goes for members of the RNC. There are only about 158 members, 3 from each state and a few from some of our territories. A thin majority are hard-core conservatives, and often don’t agree with the current leadership.

I’d have a hard time coming up with a comprehensive list. The best thing I can say about the vilified ‘elites’ is that they are quite thankfully a minority – but they cause us a lot of pain.

The last thing I want to point to - every FReeper has an open opportunity in their own district, and state, to help determine how conservative their own GOP reps are. They can show up, easily join, and vote in their county, and state GOP meetings - and fight to keep the RINO's from climbing the ladder to the top. I've fought them, beaten them, and so can almost anyone else. There is a cost involved for everyone that participates - time and money - so the job isn't for anyone that isn't dedicated to the task.

[Ron C.]

Thank you much for your replies, your thoughts and your zeal!

I'm of the opinion that the GOP has been hurt by these rule changes, and I know for certain that there has been quite a bit of outrage over this - outrage that will be expressed at the state level, straight at RNC leadership - likely for months to come.

It may be over for now - but I can guarantee that it is far from 'over.'

[rawcatslyentist]

>"aren’t you a RonPaulian?"

How could anyone resist a man that wears fake eyebrows? /s

[doc]

The opening day of the convention was milk toast at best. Republicans across the country are foaming at the mouth when they even hear Obama’s name mentioned. Good people were looking for a speech the opening day to get them fired up. Instead of a rocket blasting off we got someone letting a baloon fizzle. Why use the old Reagan line, “are you better off today then you were 4 years ago”

Then state some of the following:

When Obama took office gas prices were $1.70 today in many states gas is over $4.00 while Obama refuses to support US oil production yet give Brazil billions of dollars for oil expoloration.
“are you better off today then you were 4 years ago”

Then state how many houses are upside down today
“are you better off today then you were 4 years ago”

State how high food prices have gone up.
“are you better off today then you were 4 years ago”

etc.........