Posted on 08/26/2012 10:26:25 AM PDT by Bigtigermike
Mitt Romney’s legal advisor, Ben Ginsburg, has been attacking grassroots activism within the Republican Party during the Convention of the Rules Committee that met Friday prior to the Republican National Convention in Tampa, FL according to a source at the meeting. I was told late yesterday that one of the amendments that he offered and was passed by the committee changes the RNC rules so that the presumptive nominee and the state party can decide who the delegates are that can go to the national convention. The language of the rule states that the presidential nominee and state party can disavow any delegate.
These are essentially the people who write the platform. Think about the implications of this: If the nominee is anti-life, he or she, can essential disavow any pro-life delegate. If he is in favor of same-sex marriage, he can disavow those delegates. This gives the nominee too much influence over the party and it diminishes the grassroots who choose the delegates to send. It is a top-down approach which favors the establishment.
(Excerpt) Read more at caffeinatedthoughts.com ...
People’s hatred of Obama has them supporting someone who is opposed to the Tea Party agenda... ironic.
That would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face. We cannot afford to let Obama serve 4 more years. He will successfully ruin this nation and we will all be serfs! Wake up & be part of the solution!
Created the day it became apparent that the formerly grand old party was about to nominate John Judas McCain:
Not so. There are social conservatives in the Mass GOP (e.g. Sandi Martinez, Sean Bielat who is running against Joseph P. Kennedy III). The problem is that the democrats have been the dominant party in Massachusetts and have controlled the Massachusetts legislature for a long, long time.
The state GOP was destroyed by the Kennedy’s in the 1950’s.
In Massachusetts, a Republican governor actually has very little power because the legislature is so dominated by democrats.
Like the majority of Freepers, I had high hopes for other candidates in the primaries, but Romney is the guy left standing, and it’s either him or Obama. I don’t believe Romney is out to destroy social conservatives or push them to the sidelines, because it wouldn’t be to his political advantage to do so. His selection of Paul Ryan is a signal that social conservatives will have a place at the table.
I still don’t get how this guy is getting ANY conservative support
Welcome to Free Republic.
I smell a rat in this article. I personally know one of the people on the rules committee and she and her husband are prolife Catholics. There is no way she would let something like that pass.
There will never be a better chance to etch ones Conservative bona fides in granite than to refuse to vote for Romney against Obama.
My earlier post was a feeble attempt at sarcasm. I completely agree with you. I get frustrated at those who constantly disparage the only candidate available, as imperfect as he is, that can defeat the commie in the White House.
If mitt's your answer then your question was retarded.
Romney intends to come after the republican party first, cut our legs out from under, leaving us to look like a mob. Obama intends to come after America broadly, sweeping up and out all things traditional.
Either way, WE are out. So, which tree do we want to swing from?
Ron Paul’s organization is the only thing left standing in a position to raise hell on the convention floor, and I am all for it!
God bless the Paul obstruction efforts, if even they are not silenced.
Sean Bielat has two opponents in the primary. One is Elizabeth Childs (who styles herself a social liberal and fiscal conservative), who was apparently recruited by the MA GOP. The other is a conservative (a dentist, I think, from Fall River maybe -- never heard of him before). I don't know why the other self-styled conservative got into the race, but it looks like the conservative vote will be split.
The only surprise to me is that anyone is surprised by this.
If the GOP intended to recruit a "moderate" Republican who could actually beat Bielat, they wouldn't have chosen Childs, a former democrat and a Hillary voter who only registered as a Republican last year. Bielat is significantly ahead of both primary opponents last time I checked.
What purpose would that serve?
He'd be cutting his own legs out from under at the same time.
I’m glad Bielat is ahead. All I know is when I heard Childs on the radio, she sounded as if the party had recruited her.
Are words missing from that post - or are you saying that if a person posts in favor of a write-in or third-party vote over a vote for Romney, that person is a homosexual pedophile activist?
Isn't this the guy who ran against Bawney Fwank last time around? Let's hope he has more luck.
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.