Posted on 08/27/2012 7:00:25 PM PDT by Perdogg
Edited on 08/27/2012 7:11:41 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Link only due to Copyright
http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/08/republicans-reach-rules-change-deal-to-avert-floor-fight/
did you think Romney would bring us conservatism?
How long ago was it when he told Planned Parenthood he wants to push the right-wing out of the party??
he still does.
Nope, I campaigned against Romney and for Gingrich.
As I understand it, every state has different rules on whether delegates are "bound" to vote for a specific candidate. Some are only bound on the first vote, then can vote for who they choose. Once again, it's a states' rights issue. The GOP shouldn't be dictating to the states what their delegates can do at the convention. And if you don't like how your state does it, you can take up the issue with them.
Actually, it doesn't force the delegates to respect the primary results. It forces the delegates to respect the state party rules which may be created by the state party bosses to disenfranchise a non-establishment candidate. It may also run afoul of federal law which, if I recall correctly, prohibits the binding of delegates at conventions by anyone.
What is the point of electing delegates if their only job is to sit down and shut up. The delegates will have the right to do as they're told, and then pray that Romney or any other future nominee don't use the monarchical power they granted themselves to veto the platform points that they don't like anyway. If the party doesn't like the way way the delegate system worked this cycle, then they shouldn't hold a caucus and a primary in the same state in the same election cycle. Why did the GOP bind all delegates in some states to the caucuses and then still hold a primary that didn't legally matter?
The problem here is not that delegates won't vote for the person they were pledged too. The problem is that some states hold both caucuses and primaries and that when this happens the primary has no legal role in the selection of delegates. These different electoral methods result in a different electoral outcome. Both systems are legitimate, but If the GOP bosses don't want a contradiction between the Caucus and primary results they should either give both the caucus and primary some legally binding role in the delegate selection process, or the party should use one of these methods but not both.
It is ridiculous to hold a binding caucus while then holding a non-binding primary that has no influence on the delegate selection process and then complain that the caucus results didn't reflect the primary results. It is wrong to muzzle the delegates freedom of choice. What they should do is fix the process of delegate selection.
It is wrong to pass rules binding delegates to do as the party bosses want. What's the point of having slave delegates? (Let's say something scandalous came out on the presumed party nominee during or just before the convention?) Under these new rules, nearly the entire convention could be in agreement and vote against the candidate, but he would still win the nomination, because under these proposed rules the convention secretary would have to count all of the national delegates votes for the scandalous nominee. The GOP's nominee should be elected by fairly elected delegates who give their consent at the convention willingly, not by compulsion.
You mean Mitt "I'm-a-god-in-embryo" Romney? That Romney?
bump
The sheep would like nothing more than to simply be able to leisurely eat the grass in the pasture yet, instead, they know they have to constantly be on alert.
It's also good to see the sheepdogs are doing their job well.
No such law applies to primary Conventions.
The actual vote casting by the States in the actual election is another matter
What is the point of electing delegates if their only job is to sit down and shut up.
They are selected not elected.
A fine point to be sure, but a very important one
Mr. RomneyCARE is a cheater.
These are the plans of a cheater.
The author of DeathPanels is not even
the candidate as yet. How dare he try to change
the rules (ie. cheat) again.
But then again, it is his ONLY m.o.,
and it is the only thing from which he does not flipflop.
When is Mark Levin NOT pizzed...;-)
Under this deal, delegates bound to a candidate (say Romney) can’t rebel and give support to another proposed surprise candidate, like Paul or even a bigger surprise Palin.
So this effectively ends any hope anyone here may have had for a convention shocker. Not that it matters much anyway at this point; in a few days it’s going to be a matter of simple history that Romney has the nomination.
However going forward, what this means is, the primaries are all more important. After say March, or at latest April, there will be (or should not be) anymore hopes that at the convention, a surprise candidate will rise to the occasion and oust some elitist.
This deal also eliminates the proposal that a candidate can choose his own delegates, thus prohibiting even more cronyism and back door deals in choosing the Republican nominee.
So let’s take this to heart, take the primaries seriously next time, and by JANUARY at the LATEST, RALLY behind a clear conservative choice!
It is definately gonna get hot for Romney because if do manage to drag his lame backside across the finish line...we are then going to hold his feet to the fire on a daily basis....lol
I hope so, but Sarah Palin dropping out of her plans to be in Tampa tells me it's not going to be hot enough to fire up a brokered convention.
I'm all for Sarah ... come hell or high water.
What we have been saying all along, right? NOTHING ever good comes out of evil.
These are the same type a$$holes who did everything possible to destroy Sarah after she was nominated and they realized they were not going to be able to control her.
For those in states where Romney CANNOT win, it would serve conservatism to skip voting for Romney and write in Sarah Palin's name for President.
That message to RINOS won't be missed.
We had our last chance for it - to all those who threw PATRIOT NEWT under the bus because they saw a pix of him on a couch - meanwhile Romney is/was on the couch sleeping w/the enemy and they TOTALLY overlooked that - IN SPITE of being warned over and over.
There is no talking to those easily deceived. They fell hook line and sinker for evil Romney’s tactic. Romney being godless didn’t stir them one bit. They wanted evil, they got it! He never did one thing FOR AMERICA! Satan has come to kill/rob/destroy.
They are known as Mitt's maggots.
The proposed republican rule changes affect national delegates too, not just primary elections. The proposed rules coerce delegates at the national convention to vote for someone against their will or face expulsion from the National Convention and nullification of their vote which is then counted for the person they voted against. That is illegal. Federal law (11 CFR 100.2(e)) declares that:
“(e) Caucus or Convention. A caucus or convention of a political party is an election if the caucus or convention has the authority to select a nominee for federal office on behalf of that party.”
So the law says that the Republican National Convention is a federal election. The law also says this:
(42 USC 1971 - Sec. 1971.) "No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President"
Sounds to me like these new proposed Republican rule changes are clearly illegal since they directly interfere with the right of the national delegates to vote as they may choose, and coerces them to vote or not vote for a particular candidate.
They are selected not elected. A fine point to be sure, but a very important one
That's tyranny not republicanism. What would you do if I told you your representatives were selected not elected by you? Do you think that is right?
This rule change is not finalized. Please read my post and act on it: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2923847/posts
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.