There was going to be a floor fight on this before romneys folk backed down. This is a good lesson for what is coming:
Posted on 08/27/2012 2:32:18 PM PDT by 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!
(Excerpt) Read more at michellemalkin.com ...
Everyone needs to read Free Vulcan’s post and GET A CLUE.
How dishonest is it or R Paul to horn in and run in the Republican primary, in the first place.
Would you have stood for an Independent doing it? Or would you say run under your own banner!
Or how about hitlery klintoon running in our primary so’s she wouldn’t have to have a primary fight with ‘the Won”?
He’s a Libertarian. He’s been running forever. If he’s so ‘right’ why hasn’t he enough a following to run honestly?
Read post number 24. Buy a clue.
Then we might as well pack it in and give up on the country now, since you people have FAILED to "keep the GOP conservative." Utterly failed.
It sounds to me like some of the rules changes are designed to make it so that the RNC and Romney can unilaterally change the rules in the future without needing the approval of the National Convention. How does that kind of raw power not benefit Romney and the RNC if he wins the White House? Even if the new proposed rules don't benefit Romney in this current election cycle, the rule changes could still benefit Romney in 2016 if he runs again.
Besides, the rule changes are inherently autocratic, and lead to a gross amount of power to the Republican National Committee. Better kill the rules quickly while you still have national delegates that have some sort of voice in the process.
apparently the issue has been resolved per twitter
Thnx! MT @JEThompson: Hi Michelle [Malkin] -at first glance, I do feel the new verbiage is fair, if indeed it is as stated. Going to really study it.
Off topic, and in the fwiw department, Romney or Ryan or both, I couldn't see for sure, are eating at Berns as I type.
The SS and TPD made the First lady and I wait on Howard for about 5 minutes. I didn't think either one of them was in town yet.
5.56mm
And there will always be some who will use any justification for staying the course and continuing with the same failed strategies.
TThe sooner the gop joins the whig party on the ashheap of history, the better.
There was going to be a floor fight on this before romneys folk backed down. This is a good lesson for what is coming:
bttt
Good on Mark Levin!!!
I’m already done with RNC, so I can’t call them!
The beginning of the operational pattern of Extortion-Care.
And the fallacy for those that parade the talking points that a conservative congress will keep these Exempt Ones in check.
This stinks either way.
Well it won’t be easy and involves fighting and persuading others which after all is what politics is all about. That will be required no matter what party or organization one belongs to. That is unless you join a party formed in your own image. Those that would split off to a 3rd party are free to do so but it is a cowardly way out and will only make the problem worse. The rest of us will stay and fight.
Strange, there are no WV delegates on the committee. So who do I complain to?
That's essentially what happened at my polling place in Pennsylvania. There was a group politicking outside the poll for 3 delegates to get elected, but when I asked them who the delegates supported, they kept deflecting the question and just insisted they supported "the Constitution". Then I asked exactly who paid for the slick slate cards they were passing out. Again, they said it didn't matter, that I should vote for them if I believed in the Constitution. I said I agreed, as long as it wasn't to support any particular individual such as Ron Paul. THEN it came out and they became outraged, "WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST DR. PAUL?!?"
The jig was up at that point, but other less aware Republicans were probably falling for their deceptive schtick all day long, not understanding that the delegates would then try to negate whomever the voter actually voted for as presidential candidate at the same time.
It was a sickening deception trying to trick the party voters out of participating in a real primary contest.
Update: 10:53pm Eastern…So here’s the upshot. As you read above in Drew’s summary, grass-roots activists revolted over Rule 15 (the delegate selection provision to be renumbered Rule 16) and Rule 12 (the power grab that would allow the RNC to make executive convention rule changes and rewrite the rules between conventions without any input/consultation with grass-roots, delegates, or state leadership on hand).
A source tells me the situation on the ground and in delegate meetings right now is “tense” and “dynamic.”
As long as the proposed Rule 12 remains in place, this “deal” or “compromise” should be a no-go. Don’t back down, activists!
Some analysis on Steve Deace’s radio show now...the guest says the concern about the platform is that in a reelection year, if the candidate can select all of the delegates, then they would have presumably complete control over changing the platform.
Says it’s become such a large issue, the first time in the history of the Republican party that the candidate would have a say over the delegates. It does look like that is going away tomorrow.
Ginsburg’s first amendment was to delete the protection for the early primary voting states like Iowa, New Hampshire, etc. so other states could be pushed up (presumably liberal, bluer states). The media heard of it and the RNC stopped that change in its tracks early.
Apparently Ginsburg changed a word “shall” to “may” in the penalties for early states voting in the primaries. So now their delegates are not forced to be apportioned proportionally if they go early. They can now do a winner-take-all. So this guy is saying a large state like California can now move up its primary date, pay a penalty that wouldn’t mean much to a large state, and give the delegates winner-take-all. And this is what the Romney camp wanted.
Saying Ginsburg did “a tremendous amount of damage to Mitt Romney” and “it couldn’t have come at a worse time” because we were supposed to be uniting. Saying his proposed rule changes are basically a power grab to take power away from the grass-roots and centralize control within the party.
Thanks for the ping!
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.