Replies

I disagree with most of the opposition to these changes. Most of the opposition to these changes this time is coming from people who wanted to create a floor fight at the convention. The opposition seems to come from three groups. They are Ron Paul people who genuinely want a libertarian shift in the GOP, Ron Paul people who are really leftists supporting Paul to try to disrupt the GOP, and the foolish end of the conservative movement that wanted to remove Mitt Romney in favor of someone who failed to win the primaries. These people wanted to manipulate the system in order to create three days of chaos in Tampa. The outcome would either be a candidate of their choosing or a weakened Mitt Romney who would lose to Obama and allow them to continue their civil war fantasies. Having their schemes frustrated has left them angry about the rules, but that attitude is short sighted.

The rules that stopped them from derailing Mitt Romney this year could protect them in the future. If state parties quietly change their rules in the future to put more delegate choice under the power of the party hierarchy and less in the hands of voters, we could have a situation where a "Tea Party candidate" wins a state but is represented at the convention by "establishment" delegates chosen by the "establishment." The new rules would give the candidate some power to veto delegates who were clearly being sent to the convention as patsies for the state party hierarchy.

The whole controversy seems to be one more example of people trying to derail Mitt Romney's campaign.

Can you expound on exactly what the states can do to minimize the effects of these Rule Changes?

The rules that stopped them from derailing Mitt Romney this year could protect them in the future.

You actually expect people to believe that nonsense?

The issue is whether local and state Republican Parties designate a national Republican Party, or a National Republican Party designates local and state administrators. It’s not more complicated.