Calling BS on Bootlickers Hannity, Gallagher et. al Because I Don’t Slobber at the Altar of Donald Trump

Loading

NOTE: Previously I suggested Dennis Prager as part of this group. I actually meant Mike Gallagher. From what I have heard, Prager is decidedly anti-Clinton and not a Trump apologist. My apologies…

Carl von Clausewitz famously said “War is the continuation of politics by other means”. He is of course right. But it’s also true that politics is war by other means.

Frankly, I’m tired of listening to guys like Sean Hannity, Dennis Prager, Herman Cain and others suggest that I’m not a real conservative or that I must be a closet Hillary supporter or something of that ilk because I do not support Donald Trump for president. (Which probably explains why I listen to a LOT more sports talk radio these days…) These paragons of conservatism gripe “Why aren’t they focusing their attention on Hillary?” or “Why haven’t you been focusing this much energy on President Obama?” Well, the fact is, since my first blogposts seven years ago: Racism: America’s Original Sin  and The Gift of Freedom, I have done little else than write about the perils of the cancer of liberalism, tried to highlight the irrefutable fact that free markets, individual freedom and limited government are the keys to prosperity, and argue that our Constitution is the greatest document in human history.

Now I don’t harbor the conceit that Hannity, Cain or any of the others are actually talking about me specifically. They don’t know me and I’ve no idea if they’ve ever even read my blog. But there are no doubt more than a few conservatives who have spent years listening to the talking heads on “conservative radio” opining that if we only had a real conservative carrying the banner for the GOP then we’d have a chance to save the nation, who are now stunned to watch as those same talking heads have swooned like teenage girls as they fawn over Donald Trump. And now they lecture us that we’re somehow traitors to the conservative cause because we don’t become sycophants too?

The reality is, standing for conservative principals applies whether a candidate is in the Democrat or the Republican Party. Principals don’t bend just because the liberal candidate is on your side of the isle. That’s why I supported Christine O’Donnell over RINO Mike Castle. Sure, she may have been a flawed candidate, but she was an actual conservative rather than being part of the squish GOP establishment that has proven itself to be all about power and privilege – its own – as opposed to standing for limited government and actually trying to stop Barack Obama.

So today we find ourselves subjected to tirades that the #nevertrump movement – of which I’m not a member – and conservatives who are trying to figure out how to push an illiberal liberal from the perch the media anointed him with – via $2 billion in fawning coverage – atop the GOP are somehow not true conservatives at all but are really Hillary supporters. Somehow if we still fight, even if it’s only for the flicker of hope that somehow Trump will implode or the convention will somehow figure out how to nominate someone else, we are somehow turncoats who were never believers in the first place.

That is, frankly, bullshit. It’s not that we don’t have disdain for fascist Barack Obama’s extra constitutional progressive policies. It’s not that we don’t despair at the thought of a vain liberal, crony capitalist opportunist sitting in the White House. We do. But the point is, we don’t want a vain liberal, crony capitalist opportunist running for president under the banner of the party that claims to represent conservatism and limited government. While I agree that a President Hillary Clinton – or Bernie Sanders or Pocahontas Warren – would be a disaster for freedom and prosperity that doesn’t mean that I have to support Donald Trump as the savior. The reality is, Donald Trump is every bit as much a big government crony capitalist as Clinton is. Well, maybe he’s a bit less of one, but at least Clinton only whined about the “vast right wing conspiracy” where as Trump has actually suggested that Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post as a tax dodge with the implicit threat that once in office he will use the mechanisms of government to punish Bezos and Amazon. Maybe he’s right about Bezos, but his threat, along with a similar approach to dealing with Ford and Carrier certainly suggests that a President Trump won’t be much of a free market and limited government guy.

Which brings us back to the point… conservatives are conservatives because they are (generally) conservative and believe in things like limited government, individual freedom and free markets. Conservative does not equal Republican, particularly when the Republican banner is being carried by a guy who is anathema to all of those things. That does not mean that I won’t vote for or even argue for Trump against Clinton in the general. I may do both, albeit reluctantly, but we’re not there yet. Strange things can happen… I remember shaking hands with Gary Hart in Florida a few months before he shot himself in the political head when he invited reporters to follow him, and they did.

Until Donald Trump is absolutely the only real option for keeping Hillary Clinton out of the White House, he will not get my support and I will continue to do what I can to highlight the fact that he is no conservative savior, no conservative and no savior at all. He is a petty, spiteful, manipulative crony capitalist narcissist who would continue Barack Obama’s assault on the Constitution. Maybe it will be all for naught and maybe I’ll end up pulling the lever for him in the general as a nod to the reality that the other crony capitalist in the race would be even worse, but don’t accuse me of being a closet liberal because I don’t rejoice that bootlickers like Hannity et al have turned the party of Abraham Lincoln into the party of Bozo the Clown.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
214 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Jeff Sessions Open to Running as Trump’s Vice President

The Alabama senator and Trump’s chief whisperer on Capitol Hill also offers a divided perspective on the importance of party unity.

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama says he is open to serving as Donald Trump’s running mate, describing it as a potential opportunity to work in a “historically positive administration.”

The 69-year-old Republican, currently in his fourth term, made the rare acknowledgement of interest in a higher office to U.S. News in an interview on Thursday, stressing that he has had no conversations with the Trump campaign about the vice presidency.

“I would have no objection to serving in a Trump administration, but I’m not pushing for that. I’m not expecting it to happen, but I don’t want it being reported that I wouldn’t take and wouldn’t consider serving in a Trump administration because I think it could be a historically positive administration,” Sessions says.

Sessions, who became the first sitting U.S. senator to endorse Trump back in February, is the New York billionaire’s chief liaison on Capitol Hill. He speaks to Trump several times a week by phone, including on Thursday morning before Trump clinched the 1,237 delegates officially needed to become the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

Retire05 and D.B.”Ph.D” probably think Session is a traitor to the ‘true’ conservative cause for his support of Trump. I however think it is very promising that Sessions has been one of Trump’s advisors. While I think it’s great having Sessions in the Senate, having the Senator as Trump’s VP would put him in a prime spot to run after a Trump administration. Sessions is no Biden, and is not know for making gaffs. What better way to position a staunch conservative for President?

Or maybe Retire05 and D.B.”Ph.D” would rather have Hillary or Sanders win in their dedicated obstinacy to “Stop Trump”.

@Ditto:

I don’t know how much this may concern you, but it concerns me:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/can-social-conservatism-survive-trump/article/2002592?custom_click=rss

The real scandal is that Christians ever voted for Trump at all in the primaries.

As I have said repeatedly, while I believe the convention ought to rid itself of Trump, I do not personally see them doing so. That does not lessen my obligation to urge them to do so.

Failing that, I would hope that we get a third party run with a candidate I can vote for in conscience. The hope would not be to win, but to force the election into the House of Representatives. That, in turn, requires that Trump take a couple blue states — as he keeps claiming he can, while a conservative third party nominee takes just enough states to assure neither Trump nor Hillary win in the electoral college. Now I hope no one tries to tell me that this is not legal either, since it is provided for explicitly in the Constitution.

@Dennis Bonnette: So did they refund your money for your PhD? I see you’ve been stripped again. I guess you just don’t want to be labeled one of those smug superior Academe’s But:

Failing that, I would hope that we get a third party run with a candidate I can vote for in conscience. The hope would not be to win, but to force the election into the House of Representatives.

Ah yes, that happens so often. When was the last time a third party candidate even took an electoral vote? 1968 maybe?

If a third party ran Mitt Romney solely in Utah, he would likely take six electoral votes off the map. Were Trump and Clinton really close, it could actually prevent either from winning — thereby putting the election into the House, where Republicans would deny Clinton and possibly even Trump the Presidency.

In fact, there is a further scenario where an impasse in the House leads to a final decision in the Senate. After all, 2016 is unlike any year in memory.

@Dennis Bonnette:

I don’t know how much this may concern you,

Why do you think I should pay any attention to an opinion article in the GOPe progressive biased rag Weekly Standard?
Why don’t you try using a legitimate site rather than a political opinion site?. Bill Kristol, (the editor for The Weekly Standard,) is a progressive-establishment wonk who (like you) has an over-inflated opinion of himself and his influence, and it is well known that he has it out for Trump. Kristol is so rabidly anti-Trump that he is trying to mount a “third party” challenge to Trump and the Republican party, to ensure that Hillary wins instead of Trump. One problem, …he can’t seem to find a candidate for his anti-GOP plan. Perhaps it’s because any GOPe Republican who makes the stupid decision to become Kristol’s Presidential candidate can kiss his political future goodbye. Not to mention it’s past the deadline to file a third party campaign. Do you think Bill Kristol and his gang really give a crap about evangelicals and “social conservatives”? Don’t be absurd.

In lecturing RT and I about “the power of the delegates” you both seem to have forgotten “the power of the chairman and officers.” It is they who set the order of business in all meetings, in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order, not the delegates. It doesn’t matter what a small number of delegates might want to do, they don’t control the meeting or agenda. Nor does the Chair have to recognize them, allow them to speak, or allow them to put forth a motion.

What I want to know is: Why do you want Hillary to win the presidency? If you are really this ‘true’ ‘staunch’ die-hard conservative that you claim to be, why is it that you would rather put another extreme, far-left, fascist-socialist radical in the highest office in the land so that she can finish destroying this nation, instead of a successful businessman, who is promising to do what the conservative base has been demanding for decades? What makes your aloof, sure to be suicidal plan so much better, than our taking a chance that Trump might turn out to be a good president?

@Ditto:

You said it all in your last line. You are willing to take “a chance that Trump might turn out to be a good president.” I, for one, am not willing to just take “a chance” with the Republic our forefathers gave their blood to create and defend. That is why I am suggesting alternative ways we might assure that voters have a decent and honorable candidate to vote for in November — given that neither Trump nor Clinton fulfill that definition.

The following article, published just today, should give you your morning headache:

http://www.redstate.com/diary/blbennett/2016/05/28/flash-report-delegates-enough-votes-nominate-cruz-1st-ballot/

Please note that I am not, personally, saying that the delegates should nominate Cruz. But this article makes it clear that the nomination of “unfit Trump” could be legally and morally blocked.

@Dennis Bonnette: http://www.redstate.com/diary/blbennett/2016/05/28/flash-report-delegates-enough-votes-nominate-cruz-1st-ballot/

What a deceptive title for this article, Dennis.
From the group that disinvited Donald Trump to its RedStateGathering event last year.
And for what?
Because Eric Erikson incorrectly thought Trump said something about a Fox News woman’s period.

Did you READ past the headline?
Like this?

“….informed sources indicate that, were they allowed to vote their consciences on the first ballot, delegates believe they have sufficient votes to nominate Ted Cruz….”

Pretty tenuous.
And this:

“….state rules dictate that delegates are bound, or pledged to vote for their designated candidate on the first ballot….”

OOPS!
And this:

“RNC spokesman Lindsay Walters told CNBC that delegates are not free to vote their consciences on the first ballot: “‘Delegates are bound according to the rules written by the state party.’”

But I think Red State’s being ”forced” into using ThinkProgress, an uber-left site, as a source was most telling.
Grasp at straws much?

@Ditto:

If you are really this ‘true’ ‘staunch’ die-hard conservative that you claim to be, why is it that you would rather put another extreme, far-left, fascist-socialist radical in the highest office in the land so that she can finish destroying this nation, instead of a successful businessman, who is promising to do what the conservative base has been demanding for decades?

Do you have a reading comprehension disorder? Where did Bonnette say he wanted Hillary over Drumph? Seems he has, repeatedly, said he wants neither.
As to Drumph’s promises, how are they any different than the age old promise “I promise I will love you in the morning?”

Here is my question to you, RT and Nan: have you ever been national delegates? If so, did you sit on the Rules Committee? Because if you had you would know that the rules from 2012 are not cast in stone to be used in perpetuity.

Ted Cruz has said that he expects the convention to nominate Trump. I concur in that judgment. That does not stop me from urging the delegates to use their legitimate authority to save the nation and the Party from the historical embarrassment of having nominated Trump — whether he wins or loses in the general election in November.

Why, then, is Cruz still seeking delegates loyal to himself? It is because the convention will also draft the platform that will state the principles of the GOP in this and future elections. His hope is that, regardless of the liberal orientation of Trump, the Party can preserve its genuinely conservative nature going forward, especially with respect to its pro-life position. Should Trump become President, this will give some leverage to inhibit his naturally leftist tendencies. Should Trump go down in flames, as seems more likely, then the Republican Party may still retain its proper role as the conservative opposition party to the leftist Democrats.

@Dennis Bonnette:

You said it all in your last line. You are willing to take “a chance that Trump might turn out to be a good president.” I, for one, am not willing to just take “a chance” with the Republic our forefathers

seems as if you would rather have the certain death of the republic with Hillary than the ‘chance that Trump’ might actually do a good job. I still believe you are one of the trolls hired by the Hillary super PAC. I see you didn’t get your PhD back since yesterday. You forget to send in your $1.25 for it’s daily usage?

@Dennis Bonnette: Bonnette you are a clown. That link above is just one of those comedy web sites that are known for pulling the leg of the un-informed. did you notice that they even quote Curly (one of your favorite guys). They make reference to ‘nominating an un-qualifed person for president. There is no such thing, since Obama has occupied the office, there is no way to go but up. The bottom of the barrel has been established. Only upward from there.

@retire05:

Because if you had you would know that the rules from 2012 are not cast in stone to be used in perpetuity.

no one spoke of ‘cast in stone’ or perpetuity. But they were ‘cast in print’ for use through the nominating process in 2016. Once the nominee is decided this year, they will then work on the rules for 2020.

@retire05:

You seem to have an ‘ignore uncomfortable facts’ disorder I’ll post it for you again:

In lecturing RT and I about “the power of the delegates” you both seem to have forgotten “the power of the chairman and officers.” It is they who set the order of business in all meetings, in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order, not the delegates. It doesn’t matter what a small number of delegates might want to do, they don’t control the meeting or agenda. Nor does the Chair have to recognize them, allow them to speak, or allow them to put forth a motion.

You conveniently don’t want to face the facts (in Robert’s Rule of Order) that the Chairman does not have to recognize a demand from a minority of petulant, faithless delegates who want to change the rules so that they don’t have to honor their pledge. The Chairman knows full well that giving in to these ethically challenged vipers will utterly destroy any remaining faith the base has in the party. The chairman is not as stupid as you seem to think he is. He and his fellow officers represent all Republicans, not just the delegates.

It’s not going to happen.

@Dennis Bonnette:

and the Party from the historical embarrassment of having nominated Trump

Historical? Hardly. That honor would go to the current resident of the White House.

@Ditto: Another rule they seem to want to ignore is that only a delegate from a state delegation may challenge a vote cast by the members of that state delegation and only immediately after that vote is cast. Once the next vote is cast, a previous vote may not be challenged. Seems as if they have a lot of rules in place to prevent the ‘shambles’ that Curly, Bonnette and 05 seem to desire. I think we should stick with the American system and leave the dictatorship to Cuba.

@Ditto:

You conveniently don’t want to face the facts (in Robert’s Rule of Order) that the Chairman does not have to recognize a demand from a minority of petulant, faithless delegates who want to change the rules so that they don’t have to honor their pledge.

Oh, please, stop with the pretense that you have even a working knowledge of Robert’s Rules Internet Cliff notes does not a parliamentarian made.

The Chairman knows full well that giving in to these ethically challenged vipers will utterly destroy any remaining faith the base has in the party. The chairman is not as stupid as you seem to think he is. He and his fellow officers represent all Republicans, not just the delegates.

And your premise can be found on what page of RROONR?

@Redteam:

no one spoke of ‘cast in stone’ or perpetuity. But they were ‘cast in print’ for use through the nominating process in 2016. Once the nominee is decided this year, they will then work on the rules for 2020.

Get this through your think head; the temporary Rules Committee meets to write rules for the current convention rules since the rules passed in 2012 expire. The temporary Rules Committee, where the chair of the Committee is selected by the chair of the RNC and the members of said committee are chosen by the National Committee members, write temporary rules that are then submitted to the permanent Rules Committee. The permanent Rules Committee can then amend the Rules, or not, which are then provided to the body as a whole for a vote. Any delegate can run for the permanent Rules Committee.

How many times have you been a National Delegate, RT? Because you just flunked parliamentarian rules 101.

@Redteam:

Another rule they seem to want to ignore is that only a delegate from a state delegation may challenge a vote cast by the members of that state delegation and only immediately after that vote is cast. Once the next vote is cast, a previous vote may not be challenged.

Which applies to what?

Got link?

@retire05: I thought you were an expert.

@retire05:

Get this through your think head;

The temporary Rules Committee, where the chair of the Committee is selected by the chair of the RNC and the members of said committee are chosen by the National Committee members, write temporary rules

I thought you were an expert.

Then again, maybe not

I hate to tell everyone on both sides of the debate, but the RNC convention in Cleveland is not, in fact and in truth, using Roberts Rules of Order.

See this: http://www.cleveland.com/rnc-2016/index.ssf/2016/04/gop_votes_against_move_to_chan.html

This in no way alters the basic truth that the delegates, acting as a whole, possess the requisite powers to change the rules governing the convention in the manner that retire05 and I have maintained consistently, including the power to permit a free vote by all the delegates on the first or any other ballot.

@retire05:

How many times have you been a National Delegate, RT?

Just once, it was a lifetime appointment.

Because you just flunked parliamentarian rules 101.

You were using the wrong answer sheet, the course was 401.

@Dennis Bonnette: Geez, Bon’et, another day without your PhD? If you can’t afford the $1.25 a day rate, maybe you could take up a collection.

@Redteam:

Any rules changes recommended by the [temporary] committee, composed of a few dozen people, would have required approval from a majority of the 2,472 convention delegates who will gather in Cleveland to pick the GOP’s presidential nominee.

There will be a permanent Rules Committee, elected by the delegates themselves, and they can propose adopting existing rules again, or an amended form of the rules created by the pemanent Rules Committee.

— a larger, convention-specific committee will gather the week before convention in Cleveland to draw up rules for the event.

Yep.

it was a lifetime appointment.

There is no such critter, so…………….either you were being facetious, or you are trying to hide the fact that you have NEVER been a National Delegate, or both.

the delegates, acting as a whole, possess the requisite powers to change the rules governing the convention in the manner that retire05 and I have maintained consistently, including the power to permit a free vote by all the delegates on the first or any other ballot.

Yep. A motion to amend [the rules] can be made from the floor and will have to be voted on.

@Redteam:

@Dennis Bonnette: Geez, Bon’et, another day without your PhD? If you can’t afford the $1.25 a day rate, maybe you could take up a collection.

Being a Trump supporter seems to have turned you into a vindictive, hateful little man, RT. How disappointing.

I don’t know whether this is good news for the country, but it sure could be bad news for The Donald.

http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2016/05/29/help-way-bill-kristol-hints-impressive-independent-candidate/

Notice Donald already whining down below in his Tweets.

@Dennis Bonnette:

I don’t know whether this is good news for the country, but it sure could be bad news for The Donald.

So, you are so vindictive and petulant that you are gloating about trying to block Trump in hopes of putting Hillary in office?

No, don’t bother answering that. There is no need. You have just proven that you can’t possibly be a conservative Republican. Only the establishment #nevertrumps are falling in line with Kristol in hopes of electing Hillary. It is one thing not to vote for the Republican candidate because you don’t like him. Having held my nose to vote for GOPe candidates, I can understand that. It is a whole different thing to try to undercut “your” party to get a Democrat socialist elected.

@retire05:

Oh, please, stop with the pretense that you have even a working knowledge of Robert’s Rules

Actually, being a 14-year officer, Vice, President President, and again Vice President of a 501 (c)(3) organization that uses Robert’s Rules of Order, I am very well versed in in how it works. You can’t dispute what I pointed out to you about the powers of the Chairman/President and Pro-temp officers chairing meetings, so in your typical hypocritical style, you shoot the messenger.

@Ditto:

I am very well versed in in how it works. You can’t dispute what I pointed out to you about the powers of the Chairman/President and Pro-temp officers chairing meetings, so in your typical hypocritical style, you shoot the messenger.

Page and line[s] in RROONV?

Show us just how “well versed” you are, Bubba.

@Ditto:

Your paranoia sees inferences that are not there. My first statement is merely a statement of fact. If you see more, it is in your own subjective emotional response.

My statement about Trump’s whining is merely pointing to another example of
him whining when things don’t look like they are going his way. Again, merely a statement of fact.

I notice that Trump supporters live in a world filled by emotions more than objective reason. I know, this will elicit an emotional reaction from you.

As for your further illicit inference to the effect that I want to put Hillary in office, just why do you think I said that “I don’t know whether this is good news for the country?” That makes sense only if I perceive a possible danger in a third party run. I do. The danger that it might elect Hillary.

I don’t want either Hillary or Trump. Remember? I am well aware that any third party run must thread the needle of stopping Trump without electing “crooked Hillary.”

@Ditto: Bonnette like many including Kristol is against HRC and Trump
Now is the time for a legitimate 3RD Party run against these two with 60% negative ratings–those numbers are unprecedented.

Why is Trump too cowardly to debate Bernie?—what a loud mouthed loser.

@Richard Wheeler:

I don’t understand why some of these folks cannot grasp that Trump is in himself so unfit for office that we might oppose him for that reason alone — without regard to any other motive.

I supported Ted Cruz. So, any suggestion that I secretly support Hillary or any Establishment candidate is silly. I would admit that, at this point, I would prefer some of the Establishment candidates to Trump — for the simple reason that almost anyone else on that stage when we had 17 candidates was better qualified and has more character and is less of a threat to the nation than Donald Trump.

@retire05:

Being a Trump supporter seems to have turned you into a vindictive, hateful little man, RT. How disappointing.

Just trying to keep in tune with the atmosphere created by all these new Clinton trolls. I’m surprised you just threw right in with them, was sure you would recognize them for what they are, but not so far. Maybe you’ll get them figured out and rejoin the American system of government and stay away from their proposed dictatorship.

@Ditto: Ditto, Bon’et has all the earmarks of a Hillary troll. He showed up about 2 days after the big announcement of Soro’s SuperPac hiring hundreds of trolls for Hillary. Bon’et must have been short of funds. Notice he’s stopped renting his PhD label.

@retire05:

Show us just how “well versed” you are, Bubba.

have turned you into a vindictive, hateful little man,

Seems to have infected some others also.

@Dennis Bonnette:

My statement about Trump’s whining i

Your whining makes Trump seem like an amateur. Where can I send you a crying towel? It should have an unloading dock, it’s gonna take a large package for you.

@Richard Wheeler:

Why is Trump too cowardly to debate Bernie?—what a loud mouthed loser.

why would Trump want to debate with someone not involved in the presidential election? Why won’t Hillary debate with Sanders? She’s still trying to get into the election. Trump is already in.
Siding with trolls now? Don’t tell him the truth about you.

@Dennis Bonnette:

I supported Ted Cruz.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that you would support an ineligible person for the office.

@retire05:

I never said that the following was in Robert’s Rules:

Ditto: “The Chairman knows full well that giving in to these ethically challenged vipers will utterly destroy any remaining faith the base has in the party. The chairman is not as stupid as you seem to think he is. He and his fellow officers represent all Republicans, not just the delegates.”

You are the one who made that assumption, Not my place to prove your incorrect assumptions. Part of my phrase was regarding the intelligence and likely thoughts of Chairman Reince Priebus in regards to unruly delegates trying to change the rules. Why you think a Chairman’s possible thinking process would have anything to do with Robert’s Rules defies logic. Do you deny that the Chairman and Executive Committee have the responsibility to represent ALL Republicans and not only the delegates? Perhaps you should read this before you answer:

THE RULES OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AS
ADOPTED BY THE 2012 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION
TAMPA, FLORIDA AUGUST 27, 2012
**AMENDED BY THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON
APRIL 12, 2013, JANUARY 24, 2014, MAY 9, 2014 & AUGUST 8,
2014**

PREAMBLE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Republican Party is the party of the open door. Ours is the party of liberty, the party of equality, of opportunity for all, and favoritism for none.It is the intent and purpose of these rules to encourage and allow the broadest possible participation of all voters in Republican Party activities at all levels and to assure that the Republican Party is open and accessible to all Americans.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the following be and hereby are adopted as The Rules of the Republican Party, composed of the rules for the election and government of the Republican National Committee until the next national convention, the rules under which delegates and alternate delegates shall be allotted to the respective states in the next national convention, and the rules under which such delegates and alternate delegates shall be elected and under which contests shall be considered, and the rules of business of this national convention.

THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
RULE NO. 1

Organization of the Republican National Committee
(a) The Republican National Committee shall have the general management of the Republican Party, based upon the rules adopted by the Republican National Convention. The members of the Republican National Committee shall consist of one (1) national committeeman and one (1) national committeewoman from and the chairman of the state Republican Party of, each state.

(b) For the purposes of this rule and all other rules, “state” or “states” shall be taken to include American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, except in Rule No. 14, and unless the context in which the word “state” or “states” is used clearly makes such inclusion inappropriate.

I also note that while on your diatribe you neglected to comment on D.B.Ph.D’s informing us that you (Retire05) were in fact wrong when in your assertion that the convention would be using Robert’s Rules, : D.B.”Ph.D” Did however neglect mentioning the following:

“”This is a discussion we need to have again someday,” said GOP Committeewoman Enid Mickelsen, of Utah, who had proposed the change to the party’s primary calendar. “But I would submit… that in the super-charged political environment in which we find ourselves, this is not the time to be debating changes to our rules.”

“We’re basically in the seventh inning of a ball game,” said Georgia Committeeman Randy Evans, “and I don’t think it’s right that we change the rules of the game in the middle of the game.”

So, no changes. The rules stand:

To win the Republican nomination, a candidate must get support from more than half of the delegates at the convention. This year, the needed number is 1,237.

If a convention arrives and no candidate has won that number, the convention will be contested.

Trump has won over the required number of delegates, and will surely win more in the final states. What about D.B.”Ph.D’s” Unbound delegates on the first vote?

The nuclear Stop Trump option would be to change the rules to make all the delegates free agents before the convention arrives. This seems unlikely — eradicating months of voting by Americans would surely bring protests.

As I have been saying. It was one thing before Trump got the required number of delegates. So what about the Nuclear “Stop Trump” option?: The Nuclear Option: ‘Big Tent’ Trump Forcing Party to Attack Itself

we watched as the GOP establishment forced a flawed and flimsy candidate onto Republican voters. It was like trying to stuff a cat into a trash can.

Loyal conservative voters fought valiantly, thwarting Mitt Romney in state after state. But, in the end, they finally submitted and got behind the Olympic flip-flopper.

For the sake of the party. For the good of the cause. Or, so they were told.

The upshot of the autopsy was that the Republican Party needed to stop being so terrible, stop “talking to themselves,” start appealing to more voters and start listening to them.

Four years hence, we see a juggernaut front-runner who is reaching and appealing to new voters in creative ways with a fresh message the likes of which Republicans have not seen in recent memory. Donald Trump is precisely the candidate the GOP autopsy envisioned, down to the clarion plea that Republicans once and for all finally deal with illegal immigration.

Establishment Republicans’ response, however, has been anything but in keeping with the autopsy. They are pulling out all the stops to thwart the will of Republican voters.

(Snip)

Which brings us to the biggest problem with today’s Republican Party. Apparently, the thing they hate more than anything — even Donald Trump himself — is actually winning an election.

@Ditto:

Re: http://www.cleveland.com/rnc-2016/index.ssf/2016/04/gop_votes_against_move_to_chan.html

I did not think that article was so difficult to read.

First, if you read the headline, it clearly says:

“GOP rejects rule changes BEFORE Republican National Convention in Cleveland.”

This in no way prevents changes AT the convention.

Second, all that was decided was not to make any changes to the convention rules, including any conversion to Roberts Rules of Order, at the point in time the article was written. This was an interim decision of an interim subcommittee. All that was decided was to put off any changes until the convention itself. This is again clearly stated in the article:

“It’s also not the last word — a larger, convention-specific committee will gather the week before convention in Cleveland to draw up rules for the event.”

I referenced the link merely to point out that Roberts Rules were not in effect at the convention. I had no conception as to how badly someone might misread the article itself.

What should be clear to any objective observer is that any and all subcommittees are subject to the decisions of the committee of the whole (that is, all the delegates acting together), and that the committee of the whole can make any and all changes it wishes. That has always been the reason why claims that the convention cannot unbind delegates on the first ballot are unfounded.

The convention of 2012 cannot bind the convention of 2016, and the 2016 convention cannot bind the 2020 convention. Rules exist only until they are changed, and any convention can change its own rules. This is not like the Ten Commandments, coming from God and written in stone. Living bodies can alter their own rules. Common sense tells one this.

If one has been watching the public dialogue about the eight state rule, one would know that that rule could be waived by the convention when it meets — to allow more candidates to have their names put in nomination. The same power applies the the rules binding delegates (if there be such) on any given ballot, including the first one.

The convention itself is omnipotent over its own rules.

@Redteam:

Just trying to keep in tune with the atmosphere created by all these new Clinton trolls.

You have no proof that Dr. Bonnette is a Clinton “troll.” As a matter of fact, he has consistently stated he is against her, if you would bother to actually read what he writes. Instead, like the candidate you support, you throw out unsubstantiated insults and ad hominem attacks.

I’m surprised you just threw right in with them, was sure you would recognize them for what they are, but not so far.

What I have recognized is that you, a person with whom I have agreed with many times, seemingly has become so unhinged over defending your chosen candidate that you have reduced your disagreement from logical to nothing more than cheap shots.

Maybe you’ll get them figured out and rejoin the American system of government and stay away from their proposed dictatorship.

I view Donald Trump with the same apprehension as I do Hillary; both are dictators in waiting.

Bon’et has all the earmarks of a Hillary troll. He showed up about 2 days after the big announcement of Soro’s SuperPac hiring hundreds of trolls for Hillary. Bon’et must have been short of funds. Notice he’s stopped renting his PhD label.

Ad when did you show up here? Was your entry into the list of those who post here precipitated by some event? How shallow are you to question Dr. Bonnett’s educational creds? I don’t remember anyone questioning your claim of service in the Navy. Is that the new bench mark for unhinged Trump supporters?

@Ditto: You said it all in your last paragraph—You-Trumpist Repubs are dropping your pants –not many skirts since 70% of the distaff side can’t stomach him— for the SOLE purpose of securing a win—you hope
Your good fortune to have such a weakened Dem probably?? opposing you. Trump would lose to Joe or Bernie

@Ditto:

I never said that the following was in Robert’s Rules:

Ditto: “The Chairman knows full well that giving in to these ethically challenged vipers will utterly destroy any remaining faith the base has in the party. The chairman is not as stupid as you seem to think he is. He and his fellow officers represent all Republicans, not just the delegates.”

Never claimed you did. Try rereading my post #180.

Do you deny that the Chairman and Executive Committee have the responsibility to represent ALL Republicans and not only the delegates? Perhaps you should read this before you answer:

The delegates are a representative body. The Chair is NOT king, nor does he get more than one vote.

“”This is a discussion we need to have again someday,” said GOP Committeewoman Enid Mickelsen, of Utah, who had proposed the change to the party’s primary calendar. “But I would submit… that in the super-charged political environment in which we find ourselves, this is not the time to be debating changes to our rules.”

“We’re basically in the seventh inning of a ball game,” said Georgia Committeeman Randy Evans, “and I don’t think it’s right that we change the rules of the game in the middle of the game.”

The comments of two, out of 100, does not a policy make. Do those two even sit on the temporary Rules Committee? The article doesn’t say. And the meeting discussed was for all National Committee members, all 100, not just a few. Do you even know who your National Committee members are? I doubt you do without having to look them up.

I highly recommend you read Rule 7 (a) and (b) of the RNC rules.

If the temporary Rules Committee makes the recommendation to the elected permanent Rules Committee that another parliamentarian process be adopted, other than RROO, the permanent Rules Committee may adopt, or amend that recommendation. The final draft of the rules is then presented to the body of the whole for adoption or amendments from the floor. Once the rules have been presented to the body of the whole for discussion, and possible amending, they are then voted on by the body of the whole.

BTW, any 501(c)3 that uses the President/Chair/VP/Vice Chair to determine RROO is a foolish group. Your serving in that capacity does not make you a Parliamentarian or even “well versed” in parliamentarian rules unless you are a certified, licensed Parliamentarian, which I doubt you are.

The Trump supporters had better pray that Clinton is not indicted. Richard Wheeler is absolutely correct. If Trump has to face either Bernie or Joe, he is finished before he starts.

In fact, I have been suspecting for some time that Hillary and Trump will be very damaged goods before the July GOP convention — given the amount of lies and truths they will have said about each other. At that point, replacing either of them with a “clean” nominee would put the remaining one at a distinct disadvantage going into the fall election.

We must keep remembering that this has become a contest between two candidates that most of the voters do not like — and for good cause. It takes a high degree of dedicated blindness to say that either Hillary or Donald would be good for the country.

@retire05:

You have no proof that Dr. Bonnette is a Clinton “troll.

Would you expect him to come and post his employment agreement on the site? Would kinda defeat the purpose of being a troll wouldn’t it.

As a matter of fact, he has consistently stated he is against her,

And?

has become so unhinged over defending your chosen candidate that you have reduced your disagreement from logical to nothing more than cheap shots.

Ok, so how do you measure the degree of ‘unhingment’? I don’t take cheap shots, I put a lot of time and effort into most of my shots.

I view Donald Trump with the same apprehension

That and a quarter will get you what? I have never voted for Trump, so why do you associate me with him? Other than my commitment to support the Republican candidate (as long as he’s eligible) how does that make me a ‘supporter’ of Donald Trump? Wouldn’t it make me a Republican supporter?

I view Donald Trump with the same apprehension as I do Hillary; both are dictators in waiting.

Since you like to accuse me of ‘ad hom’ attacks, throw out one of your own. Tell me one thing, a real thing, that Trump has done that you don’t agree with. Make it a real item, not just something the press throws around, almost all of that is lies.

Ad when did you show up here? Was your entry into the list of those who post here precipitated by some event?

Don’t have a clue, but at least 10 years ago, probably longer. My first encounter with you was on Strata-sphere and I haven’t even read that site in the last 7-8 years. But the archives on this site doesn’t make it easy to find early comments here. Old messages on my email puts it as at least 10 years ago. What event was occurring back then? Don’t know, don’t care.

How shallow are you to question Dr. Bonnett’s educational creds?

As you and I both know, Bonnette showed up about 2 days after the big announcement of Soro PAC hiring hundreds of Hillary trolls. Everything he has said and done have all the earmarks. You’ll note that he hasn’t denied it. And when did I question his educational creds? He’s the one that has them one day and doesn’t have them the next. other than him, who else do you know that changes their publishing name daily, except maybe iretire 05.

I don’t remember anyone questioning your claim of service in the Navy. Is that the new bench mark for unhinged Trump supporters?

I didn’t make a ‘claim’ of service in the Navy. I simply stated that I served. You can take that as a claim or not. I take it as a statement. I don’t know anything about unhinged Trump supporters. How are they different than ‘hinged’ ones?
I find it hard to believe that if the Republicans that voted had voted to select Cruz as the party nominee that you would think it would be a great idea to throw out the vote and appoint someone else. That’s not the American system and that’s just what Bon’et is advocating. I’m in favor of sticking with the American system, you can make your own choices.

@retire05:

Never claimed you did. Try rereading my post #180.

I read your post #180 (and it’s ad hominem “Bubba”). Try reading your post #167 where you quoted me and then followed it with the claim. Here it is again:

(Ditto:) The Chairman knows full well that giving in to these ethically challenged vipers will utterly destroy any remaining faith the base has in the party. The chairman is not as stupid as you seem to think he is. He and his fellow officers represent all Republicans, not just the delegates.

(Retire05:) And your premise can be found on what page of RROONR?

Your response was about “my premise” You are the one who made the assumption that what you quoted was in reference to Robert’s Rules (which it wasn’t), Again, it is not my place to prove your incorrect assumptions. The first part of (to use your words “my premise” was regarding the intelligence and likely thoughts of Chairman Reince Priebus in regards to unruly delegates trying to change the rules. Why you think a Chairman’s possible thinking process would have anything to do with Robert’s Rules defies logic.

The delegates are a representative body. The Chair is NOT king, nor does he get more than one vote.

This comment shows that you must not be the expert on parliamentary process that you pretend to be. Or you are trying to evade the truth about the over-riding power of the Chairman and officers. Perhaps it is both. As I have tried to educate you twice on this and you keep ignoring their power, we can only conclude that you don’t want to admit it.

You need to review Robert’s Rules of Order. What I said about “the power of the chairman and officers.” is in there. It is they who set the order of business in all meetings, in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order, not the delegates. It doesn’t matter what a small number of delegates might want to do, they don’t control the meeting or agenda. Nor does the Chair have to recognize them, allow them to speak, or allow them to put forth a motion. Can’t you handle the truth?

If the temporary Rules Committee makes the recommendation to the elected permanent Rules Committee that another parliamentarian process be adopted, other than RROO, the permanent Rules Committee may adopt, or amend that recommendation.

It says MAY It clearly doesn’t say MUST.

BTW, any 501(c)3 that uses the President/Chair/VP/Vice Chair to determine RROO is a foolish group.

Don’t be ridiculous. We use Roberts Rules as written. The Chair doesn’t “determine” what Roberts Rules mean. You are inventing strawman arguments.

Your serving in that capacity does not make you a Parliamentarian or even “well versed” in parliamentarian rules unless you are a certified, licensed Parliamentarian, which I doubt you are.

Using the parliamentary processes as written in Robert’s Rules ensures an organization’s meetings run on a parliamentarian process. You don’t have to be a certified licensed Parliamentarian to use Roberts Rules, but then again, I never clam to be a certified licensed Parliamentarian, did I?

@Ditto:

This comment shows that you must not be the expert on parliamentary process that you pretend to be.

Never said I was an expert although I seem to know more than you do about parliamentarian rule.

Or you are trying to evade the truth about the over-riding power of the Chairman and officers.

And where exactly (page and line) is chair given over-riding power in parliamentarian rule?

Perhaps it is both. As I have tried to educate you twice on this and you keep ignoring their power, we can only conclude that you don’t want to admit it.

I’ll admit when you prove it with legitimate citations.

You need to review Robert’s Rules of Order.

Already have.

What I said about “the power of the chairman and officers.” is in there.

Cite pages and lines.

It is they [the Chair] who set the order of business in all meetings, in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order, not the delegates.

RNC Rule 26.

It doesn’t matter what a small number of delegates might want to do, they don’t control the meeting or agenda.

Never said they did.

Nor does the Chair have to recognize them, allow them to speak, or allow them to put forth a motion. Can’t you handle the truth?

If a motion is made, and the Chair overrules the motion, the ruling of the Chair can be appealed at which time each delegate gets to vote on the appeal.

I can handle the truth, it’s your b/s lack of knowledge about parliamentarian rule I find unpalatable.

@Redteam:

Tell me one thing, a real thing, that Trump has done that you don’t agree with.

He donated $60,000.00 in one day to Mitch McConnell’s campaign coffers to help McConnell (one of those “establishment” Republicans you seem to hold in such disdain) defeat true conservative, Matt Bevin.

@Redteam:

As you and I both know, Bonnette showed up about 2 days after the big announcement of Soro PAC hiring hundreds of Hillary trolls. Everything he has said and done have all the earmarks. You’ll note that he hasn’t denied it. And when did I question his educational creds? He’s the one that has them one day and doesn’t have them the next. other than him, who else do you know that changes their publishing name daily, except maybe iretire 05.

If you don’t care what events proceeded your entry here, why do you apply different standards to someone else?

As to the “iretire” it was made on a new computer with a key board I was not familiar with. It was promptly changed.

Claims that the Chair need not recognize motions from delegates ignore the actual facts on the ground that will prevail at this convention.. As is well known, Cruz delegates and delegates loyal to Cruz dominate the convention, including the Rules and Credentials Committees. For that reason, they could, if they so choose, make any decisions they wish and refer them back to the convention as a whole. The Chair would be placed in an impossible position should he wish to ignore the decisions of these major committees. This is totally unlike ignoring the pleas of a few random delegates.

For those so obsessed with my credentials, just do a Google search under my name. You will find some 114,000 entries, including even my obituary! I would hope you would realize that I have better things to do than be a troll for that evil witch, Hillary Clinton, and that, since I am retired but still active, I don’t need to be in the employ of the diabolical George Soros. 🙂