Ed Morrissey @ Hot Air:
Give the followers of Ron Paul credit for this misstep by Team Romney. They apparently spooked the nominee’s campaign enough to provoke a floor fight over delegate control, which blew up in their face rather spectacularly yesterday. By the end of the business day, Team Romney had retreated to a compromise proposal that seems to be gaining a little momentum, but is still far from over. Jazz Shaw had a good analysis of the situation on Sunday, and yesterday the Texas delegation threatened to go into full rebellion:
Texans, who select their delegates through a voting process that often elevates grassroots activists, say the change is an affront to the Lone Star State.
“We believe in Texas as a principle that no presidential candidate nor the RNC should be able to tell Texas who can or cannot be a delegate to the national convention,” said Butch Davis, a Lone Star State representative on the RNC rules committee. “It’s not a plain vanilla political fight. It’s a fundamental principle that we’re arguing for.”
Davis said the battle is over fundamental freedoms and voting rights: “This isn’t Reagan versus Ford, Goldwater versus Rockefeller,” Davis said. “This is George Washington versus King George.”
“We won’t allow this control by Republican candidate to take place,” Davis added.
By yesterday evening, Romney’s team had backpedaled significantly, but perhaps not to the extent sought by the suddenly-angered delegates:
Jim Bopp, a conservative delegate who had led the opposition to Mr. Romney’s proposed rules, issued a statement on Monday, saying he was pleased with the compromise.
“The Romney for President campaign has heard the concerns of the conservative grass-roots voices in our party and has crafted an amendment to the rules adopted on Friday to address these concerns,” Mr. Bopp said.
Under the compromise, delegates would be selected by the state and local level without interference or control by the party’s presidential candidate. That would allow competing voices inside the convention, both sides said.
But in a nod to the concerns of Mr. Romney’s campaign, delegates sent on behalf of a candidate would be required to vote to nominate that candidate on the first ballot. If they tried to vote for someone else, their vote would be recorded for the candidate to whom they were bound.
We’ll come back to the concept of “bound delegates” in a moment. Today, BuzzFeedreports that Team Romney feels more optimistic about this controversy dissipating before a floor demonstration:
“It’s an evolving process and its going well,” Romney aide Ron Kaufman, a longtime RNC insider, told BuzzFeed Tuesday morning. …
“Everyone wants the same thing,” he said.
Romney’s goal, he said, was merely to allow the party more flexibility in changing its rules in responding the changing political circumstances, something Democrats can do now and which, he said, “gives them a political advantage.”
I understand the anger over the initial proposed rules change, but it springs from a ridiculous anachronism in the presidential nomination process in both parties:caucuses. Primaries almost always result in bound delegates, and they also reflect the will of the voters in each state; they also don’t take days to tally from handwritten sheets. Caucuses may allow for grassroots activism, but they also create embarrassments for the parties and the candidates, as we saw this year in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and other states. Delegates selected in primaries represent voters of that state, while delegates selected in caucuses represent themselves. Which is actually more valuable to the process of nominating a candidate?
A few [so-called] conservative talking heads are trying to muddy the waters on this issue by claiming it is only the Paulbots who are up in arms over the rule change (well, golly gee, if it is on the Paulbots raising hell, then what’s the problem, right?). Who knew that Freedom Works and the Eagle Forum were Paulbots (said with tongue in cheek).
The compromise is little (from a 2/3 vote to a 3/4 vote) and will almost end any grass roots representation (there’s that word again, representation) to the GOP conventions.
The Democrats feel the same way about actual federal laws and the Constitution as well. Change the rules whenever it suits them, allowing them to do virtually whatever they want.
There is an inherent peace of mind when it comes to knowing what the rules are, and are going to be, for whatever undertaking you involve yourself in. Whether it’s playing a sports game or starting a business, you know that you are on the same, solid footing as the other players.
Liberal/progressives, on the other hand, take great joy in changing the rules midstream in order to give themselves a leg up on the competition, or, to exert the control they feel they are owed.
As I understand it, both of the proposed rule changes are being objected to, not solely by the Paulbots, but by a multitude of states groups and other “grassroots” groups, much as retire05 mentioned above. And it isn’t just the delegate issue that is being pursued, but also the Rule 12 proposed change, which the quote above is referencing.
Exactly right, JG. Yesterday, when I read about the Romney attorneys attempting to grant this delegate veto/replacement power to the presumptive nominee (as well as the new Rule 12, which says rules can be changed at any time between conventions…), and all I could think was the classic song, “Won’t be Fooled Again” by The Who.
“Meet the new boss… the same as the old boss”
Romney treads on thin ice with me as it is. I don’t trust him and this does nothing to alleviate that distrust. These antics are reminiscent of the guy already occupying the Oval Office, and well versed in power grabs himself. The Texas delegates should be commended for not only standing with the Paul delegates on this embarrassingly desperate attempt, but in convincing other states to take it to Romney as well.
BTW, was that you over at HotAir as JG23?
@MataHarley:
Negative. FA is the only political site that I comment on, Mata.
@MataHarley:
On the other hand, I think that the Paulbots are working a devious scheme to use the rules to elect Ron Paul on a second (“unbound delegate”) vote, at least for a few of the states.
Jus’ was wondering JG.
@Ditto, identifying a problem then proposing a solution to the problem may have been the quest. However the “solution” offered was a long lasting, politically expedient power grab, and indistinguishable from Obama’esque tactics.
As Morrissey noted at his post on HotAir, this stems from a process that includes State caucuses which produce unbound delegates. Ergo the solution should be addressing what created the problem.. not simply seizing the veto/replace power to avert the result of the problem.
We’ve all known this has been the quest of the Ron Paul supporters for some time. However they have played the game within the system that the GOP, themselves, created in 2008.
Additionally, the Party has documented how each State’s delegates are chosen, and now the guy who isn’t even yet the official nominee attempted to toss that in to the garbage by seizing veto/replacement power because they don’t trust the delegates to be in his pocket.
This doesn’t bother many? Sure does me.
Just because the presumptive nominee doesn’t like being legitimately out gamed by the rules set by the Party hierarchy doesn’t justify an oppressive approach to quash opposition by picking and choosing their own delegates last minute.. most especially since it can affect all future grassroots movements and their influence. Since this was an obvious problem from the beginning, the Party should have been dealing with the States who have a caucus, and how those delegates were to be bound long before the day of the Convention. Especially since support for Romney was lukewarm at best and, because of deep coffers, he was the one left standing at the end.
No.. this is a very ugly side to Romney that he has displayed. And if this is indicative of his “solutions”, we are all in trouble. I am disappointed that anyone may complain about similar tactics used by Obama and the Democrats, but turn a blind eye – or worse, employ an means to an end argument – when it’s exercised by the guy the party is about to run as the replacement.
And we owe a debt of thanks to the Texas delegates who stood up for principles, even tho I’m quite sure they are just as leery of the Ron Paul delegates antics as Romney himself. In fact, one can even say the Ron Paul supporters made the flaws in the procedure so obvious that even the establishment Party leaders cannot ignore them next time.
BTW, here’s a round up of each State’s rules for delegates, and when they become unbound in a brokered convention.
Also, stellar take on it (and Palin’s plea to outright reject) was done at Breitbart’s today.
@MataHarley:
Just when you start feeling somewhat ok(not great, mind you) about who the GOP is putting up against the Democrat, they go and pull this kind of crap, raising the fears that if Romney wins, there won’t be much difference in how business is done in DC.
Not a fan of John McCain, I did a lot of research on Mitt Romney, and his time as Governor of Massachussets, in 2008. Nothing I learned about Romney back then made me think that he was anything but an eastern squich who governed to the left. Time after time, Romney was connected with left wingers that he should have distanced himself from. Was he any worse that McCain? No, but you have to be a full blown socialist to be worse than McCain.
Now, here Romney is, garnering the nomination under the assumption that the loser last time gets to be the winner this time (just like McCain). But even McCain didn’t try to change basic delegate rules to favor him.
This mess, according to those on the Texas delegation, was started by Romney’s own legal team. What is the purpose in allowing a candidate, not yet chosen by the national convention, to be able to choose the delegates from EVERY state, under the assumption he WILL be chosen? It is a power play, pure and simple, and gives me an insight into how Romney will govern, if elected The new will be the old, and independent grass roots activists will not be invited to the party.
So here is my take on the whole absurd fight: in 2010, a number of establishment RINOs were dumped for more conservative candidates. This upset the apple cart for the RNC elitist who thought they were going to hold on to their seats simply because they had outlasted the Grim Reaper. They got the shock of their lives as one TEA Party candidate after another won, including Marco Rubia, Tim Scott, Mike Lee, et al.
So if the trend is toward the grass roots candidates, and that will eliminate the Good Old Boys in D.C., there has to be drastic measures to make sure the GOBs remain. Hence, the rule changes.
With a couple of statements Romney made last Sunday, and now this, it almost seems a) Romney is getting bad advise (from those who will hold positions of influence in his administration or b) he is trying to lose.
J.G. Welcome back to earth. Mitt is a Mass. moderate, country club Rino, minus the booze and broads. He’ll distance himself from the Tea Party as soon as politically feasible (RIGHT AFTER THE NOM.?). Sarah is in Alaska. Where is Santorum,Cain,Bachmann? Where’s Newt?
Mata seems only one among you that will hold principles and “JUST SAY NO” to this pragmatist.
Didn’t know Obama you say. Do you really know this guy?
Retire os Just read your comment. Fact is he’ll do whatever is practical to win and hold down grass root activists when feasible.
When Texas voted today they very graciously addressed both their Ron Paul delegates and their Romney ones.
Isn’t this a ”case closed,” now?
Nope, Nan G. As far as I know, Rule 12 still stands and it’s still an erosion of grassroots powers… Paul’s or any other’s. Romney was faced with dissension, so his lawyers crafted an overreaching seizure of power. The delegates “compromised” on just how much power he could seize… still allowing the GOP establishment (thru Romney and attorneys) to accomplish exactly what they wanted to. retire05 is spot on. This is to keep the grassroots movements… all of them… at the back of the bus.
You can read more at Caffeinated Thoughts, who also links to Freedom Works.
I’ve already contacted mine, but I’m quite sure the lily livered two probably got on their knees and threw what principles they believe they have out the nearest arena push door.
Boehner dutifully called a voice vote and declared the “ayes” have it… tho there is disagreement as to whether they were, indeed, more vocal than those dissenting. Supposedly they were short five signatures for a minority report on Rule 12.
The only “case closed” is the reality that power grabs are just as despicable from the Republicans as they are from the Democrats. And once again grassroots movements have been screwed by having a faux conservative foisted upon the voters. For whatever differences many have with the Paul supporters, I’d say we can all agree that the establishment will use and abuse the grassroots base, then spit them out when it’s politically expedient.
So it’s business as usual, and my convictions remain the same. Can’t tell these two apart anymore. They both give campaign lip service to their base that belies their records and actions. I’ll be formally changing my party affiliation to match my political beliefs since there is no longer any necessity for me to have a “say” in the State’s primaries… what a laugh.
@Richard Wheeler:
“He’ll [Mitt] will distance himself from the Tea Party just as soon as politically feasible”
When did Mitt ever embrace the Tea Party? He didn’t. And he ain’t gonna. But now what? The RNC just slapped grass roots activists in the face today, and that ain’t gonna come cheap. You will see more and more independents running, and defeating, both parties. Oh, perhaps not this year, but in 2016. If Romney thinks that he secured a second term, should he accidently win this year, he just bought the farm for 2016.
There is NO holding down the grass roots, Rich. They gained too much momentum in 2010, and they are only getting stronger. Don’t believe me? Ask David Dewhurst. And I promise you, after today’s shenanigans at the RNC convention, a lot of those Texas delegates, who would have worked their tails off for Romney, will come home and just watch The History Channel plotting for 2016. So in reality, maybe what happened today is a good thing since the inside-the-beltway RINOs just signed their own pink slips. Everyday Americans are tired of the yapping about “politics as ususal” and want something done, not just a bunch of secure pols giving lip service to that.
@MataHarley:
And what was the “big” compromise? From a 2/3 vote to a 3/4th vote. BFD.
I can tell you, the Texas Delegation is pissed. Big time. If Romney wins, in 2016 HE will choose who is going to be the delegates from Texas, not Texans. So big money donors, bundlers, et al, will get awarded delegate seats and the grass roots will, once again, will take it in the rear. And between this election and the 2016 convention, 168 people on the RNC committee will make all the decisions and have the right to change the rules (to Romney’s advantage, of course) as they see fit, the hell with delegates.
Like I said before, if this is a peek into the future on how Romney will govern, there isn’t a hair’s difference between him and what we have now.
It was an admitted distraction by the Romney team, retire. The 3/4s compromise is worthless because as soon as the convention is over, they can change the rules again.
As Michael Duncan, Communications Mgr for Freedom Works tweeted:
He refers to this article by Jim Hoft at Freedom Works.
Yes… a trick worthy of the temporary denizen in the Oval Office himself. Never thought there was much more than a hair’s difference between the two… ever. Either outlook is bleak… Obama for another four or Romney for eight … because getting an incumbent off the ballot is nigh on impossible unless he goes willingly. And I don’t see Romney doing that but in the most extreme scenarios.
@MataHarley:
Actually I don’t disagree with you Mata. If they are indeed the represented delegates who’s names were on each state’s primary results, they should be seated. Period. I was simply pointing out that Paul’s delegates were planning some sneakiness also regarding the national convention’s voting. Not that I necessarily blame them given the underhandedness they’ve received in this and former state conventions.
This is why it’s important for Tea Party supporters and conservative Republicans to get seriously involved at the local and state levels, to start booting out Progressive Establishment Republicans who have taken control of the party.
@Ditto:
And liberal/progressives will be screaming about how the party is becoming more and more extreme. Not like they aren’t doing that already, but the magnitude of the screaming will tell us that the party is moving in the right direction.
@MataHarley:
As I indicated Ron Paul delegates did pull some tricks with delegates:
The Ron Paul strategy was to have delegates who had pledged and were bound to vote as pledged, to ignore their pledge and vote however they wanted. The problem with these faithless delegates is that at the caucus level precinct representatives swear to vote as the majority of their precinct voted. At the State Convention delegates are selected and assigned to vote proportionately, representing the percentage of states voters as they are proportionately bound to. Voting contrary to how they were pledged, has the effect of disfranchising those they were representing.
While I agree that Romney and his campaign had no right to change the rules on seating delegates, neither is the Ron Paul Campaign in their plot to try to steal the nomination through getting their supporters in to ignore the results of their states and put forth faithless delegates.
The dirty tricks on all sides sheds a poor light on our elective process, making elections sound as crooked as those in recent middle-east elections. I would like to see the “Winner-take-all” rules discarded as it disenfranchises voters, giving their votes over to the opposition. IMO delegate and elector selection should be reflective proportionately of how each state’s vote actually went.
justme,
where are you? your comment would be necessary on thisPOST,
because you have touch on some of the irregulation the RNC where planning
to replace the two members with someone else, was it last week?
@Ditto:
You don’t seem to understand what the rule changes do.
Let’s say that Mitt Romney manages to win the election. Delegates are chosen at the local [state] level. Not all of them are in agreement who they want the nomination to go to. With the rule change, the “presumptive” nominee will have the right to choose the delegates from every state. So, if a delegate from Missouri is backing Jim DeMint in 2016, Mitt Romney, as POTUS, has the right to reject that delegate and have them replaced with a delegate that supports Romney.
It was a power play on the part of Romney, and yes, the Paulbots were upset, but this time rightfully so. The Texas Delegation, which has just a few Paul supporting delegates, led the revolt against the rule changes. As to the “compromise” of 3/4th from 2/3rd votes required, the RNC committee now has the ability to change that between now and the next convention in 2016, so the compromise is a paper tiger and meaningless.
The rule change was designed to eliminate the grass roots base that most certainly doesn’t march lock step with Republican insiders. When you have organizations like Eagle Forum and FreedomWorks coming out against the rule change, and state delegations, no matter their pledges, coming out against the rule changes, you cannot lay the entire opposition on the Paulbots.
What happened yesterday is in keeping with how the Romney team has started to operate. Yeah, Romney took the majority of votes in the primaries, but by the time Texas got to vote, delayed by law suits from the Democrat Party, it was a done deal. Most of us are already sick of the fact that a candidate is basically chosen by a few states with few electoral votes. But perhaps you didn’t notice that only one of the primary GOP candidates was invited to speak at the RNC convention; Rick Santorum. The RNC snubbed Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Michele Backman and Rick Perry. Why? Did Romney not want to remind delegates that there were others who threw their hats in the ring?
I was not enthusiastic about Romney but now, I don’t think I can campaign for him. I am a solid core conservative, Republican, Tea Party organizer, and I just got punched by someone who is showing he will not be much different when it comes to governing as what we have now. Trading one narcissist for another gains us nothing.
@Ditto, let me try this again….
Yes, I’m aware that the Ron Paul delegates were gaming the system. They were operating, magnificently in fact, under the system that the GOP set up themselves. I hardly call using the system, as it’s set up, a “dirty trick”. It’s a vulnerability that is cleverly exploited, much as is done with fed welfare systems and the IRS.
But it does not warrant a “there oughta be a law” overreaching response by a man they want me to support for the Oval Office. Then again, I’m not convinced that it was aimed at the Ron Paul supporters alone.
The power to decide how unbound caucus delegates vote is a power that lies with the States… not the RNC. If reform is needed, then the RNC should be dealing with the State Party leadership, not seizing oppressive power to override it.
This isn’t just about Ron Paul but about any unwelcome grassroots movement who goes against the “chosen one”. (who would think we can now use that in regards to the GOP nominee, but there ya go).
Romney and lawyers, with the aiding and abetting of the committee, constructed a FULL power grab, knowing very well that delegates would focus and compromise on the “bait”… Rule 15/16. By doing this, the implications of Rule 12 would go over their heads (well, some of them, anyway). That was a deliberate ploy, and was stated overtly so by the Romney Team tweeting the distraction strategy as the quest.
The delegates compromising on the seating and voting of the delegates means nothing. What Romney put into place is the option for the RNC *only* (no “ratification” or State input will be considered) to change the rules at any time in the game between conventions – not just under emergency conditions – in order to quash anyone who doesn’t adore Romney or whatever establishment loser they foist upon the Party members in the future.
Therefore as soon as the convention is over, they will still seize the power, and easily pass Ben Ginsberg’s proposal thru in the dimly lit back rooms of the RNC… when the rest of the fools aren’t looking. aka, it’s the same tactic used to advance an agenda slowly, and by increments. Distract the gullible with a red herring olive branch, and put into place the power to effect the change later when the dunces aren’t looking.
This isn’t about Ron Paul supporters. This is about any organized movement that isn’t sanctioned by the established GOP mouthpieces, and the victorious power grab pulled off by the GOP nominee.
Ain’t a lick of difference between Romney and Obama. Our choice of national death this year is Obama for four, or Romney for eight (the latter likely destroying the “conservative” brand in the process, and eliminating *any* prospect for a genuine conservative on the ballot in ’16). Neither are acceptable to me…. short term or long.
As long as offering up yet another brand of poison as a nominee is sanctioned by the voters and Party members, you’ll never get anything but that in the future. It should be obvious now that they will seize any power they need to keep you in line, and pick whomever they want over the constituents.
My hopes only lie with how the Congressional races turn out, and whether the freshman Congress members will curtail the power that both of these men have demonstrated they will grab at will.
MATA
MAYBE THE ULTIMATE REASON FOR HAVING DONE IT,
IS BECAUSE OF THE OUTMOST NEED TO GET THE EVIL OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE,
SINCE WE KNOW THIS ELECTION IS NOT ABOUT THE CANDIDATE WE KNOW CAN DO THE JOB BETTER, EVEN THAT HE CAN DO BETTER AND PROVIDE THE JOBS SO URGENTLY NEEDED, YES BUT THE PRIORITY OF IT ALL IS TO TAKE THE POWER OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE IMPOSTOR, FIRST AND FORMOST, BECAUSE OF THE SNEAKY WAY THE OBAMA’S HAVE SHOWN TO WANT TO FORCE THE VOTES ON THEM SO TO WINN THEIR REELECTION,
SO PROBABLY THE RCN MADE EXTRAORDINARY MOVE
WITHIN THE SAME GROUP TO INSURE THE VICTORY TOTALY, BY UNDERMINING THE THE RON PAUL FOLLOWERS WHICH ARE MANY, AND ANGRY NOW, IF THEY DON’T THINK ABOUT THAT TOP PRIORITY. MEANING NOT TAKING ANY CHANCE BECAUSE OF THIS EXTRAORDINARY TIME WHICH SHOULD BE TO SAVE AMERICA FIRST FROM THE HATE AND DIVISION ALREADY DEEP ENOUGH TO HURT THE WHOLE COUNTRY
JUST THINKING
BYE
@MataHarley:
You and Retire seem to think that I’m arguing with you or trying to excuse what Romney and the star-chamber establishment Republicans pulled. I’m not. Clearly they knew what Paul was planning (a brokered convention) and they changed the rules to forestall it. The party leadership and Romney had no right to do so and this power grab deeply concerns me also. The establishment Republicans are trying to retain their power over the party against the Tea Party and conservatives, and have shown that they will break the rules and do whatever they can to keep their stranglehold over the party. I’ve said from the start of this election that I didn’t want Romney, I don’t trust him either.
Incidentally here is an analysis of Delegate Binding
@MataHarley:
As I’ve said before, that is the most destructive phrase towards liberty and freedom ever uttered. It is such because it relies on engendering a feeling amongst the constituents that “yes, indeed, there really ought to be a law”. More freedoms are lost, even as the people cheer, whenever law is passed in this way.
I believe it was a preemptive attack on the TEA party and similar groups, and that the RP supporters were a convenient scapegoat of reasoning by those instituting the power grab.
Ryan should be ashamed of being party to such a power grab. I had high hopes for him, but if he continues to “condone” such tactics by silence, or verbal support, then he is lost to me.
Nan G.
I Saw some PAUL DELEGATES called from the states but ignore from the one on stage which repeated the name only of THE ROMNEY ,
NOT ON ALL BUT SOME STATES WHERE PAUL HAD SOME,
AND I THOUGHT THAT WOULD IRRITATE THE RON PAUL
FOLLOWERS ON THE CROWD,
Bees I too was wondering why the Paul votes were not announced. Can’t recall ever seeing that before.
@Ditto, I didn’t think you were “arguing”. But with each comment about the repercussions of the rules either retire or myself made, you just kept coming back to a response that (paraphrased) repeats: “the Ron Paul supporters had to be stopped”.
Thus the confusion as to whether you sanction this power grab, in order to stop the Paul supporters, or not. I see on another thread you’ve made it clear you don’t… but apparently you’re still gonna buy what Romney’s selling this election.
And please.. no need to remind me how dangerous Obama is. Rather pointless if I find the potential of Romney for eight years just as dangerous to the survival of conservatives and our fiscal realities. Given a perfect world, I’d want the GOP to take both chambers by veto-proof supermajority and leave Obama there for four years…. then have a genuine conservative run in 2016. A strong conservative Congress could check Obama, and I wouldn’t have to worry about a Romney incumbency.
Alas.. it’s not a perfect world. What we might end up with is a slim majority GOP Congress (if at all in the Senate). The freshman entries will be cowed by the Boehner’s and McConnell’s power players. We’d have a spineless POTUS who lets the minority Dems rule his governing so he doesn’t have the appearance for four years of gridlock on his legacy. And Ryan can just sit up on the Senate high chair and flex his muscles for looks during SOTU addresses.
The entire prospect is simply nauseating to me.
@ilovebeeswarzone, stop making up excuses. Most of us knew what Romney was about in 2008. This is just something to remind us that he has not changed one iota, and is no better than what’s in the Oval Office now. If he behaves like Obama merely to get him out of the WH, he is no better than Obama. It’s really as simple as that.
@Richard Wheeler, I’m going to assume your “wondering why” was really a facetious remark. You know very well why they ignored stating the RP delegate count. I’m not even a Paul supporter, as you know (no Romney, no Paul, no Huntsman from the beginning). But to display such disrespect for voters who cast their ballots for him from the convention dais is unconscionable.
@johngalt, INRE Ryan… you may (or not) recall that I was really cautious with this Ryan pick after it happened. .. wondering if Ryan knew what he was doing. I also stated that I thought Romney’s pick of Ryan was for ideological eye candy.
There’s two ways to be disgruntled at the Veep/choice.
One: at Romney, for picking a guy who’s name he thought would just make it easier to appease we stupid fiscal conservatives.
Two: at Ryan himself, for potentially throwing away a Congressional career, agreeing to be a Romney political fashion accessory.
I’m hoping that Ryan wasn’t guilty of #2, and genuinely thought a Romney POTUS might actually incorporate his ideas and give him more of a presence than Biden is to Obama (i.e. more like the influential Cheney to Bush). But now he’s locked himself in. He can’t publicly lambaste Romney’s power grab and, by remaining silent, we can’t tell if he’s just another pea in that same pod. And I’m pretty sure he hasn’t the guts to step down and back away rapidly.
Ugly, ugly, ugly. Can’t recall when in my personal history a selection of POTUS between Bozo and Emmett the Clown has been this bad. In the past, it may not have been as apparent since we were blissfully unaware of the fiscal, speeding train headed our way. Now, there is no denying that we are in obvious dire straits.
PS… Ditto, thanks for the link. But I just don’t have the time or patience to wade thru the Libertarian 34 pg prose.
The solution found through the Tennessee delegation is a solid one that protects the states’ rights to set their own rules as to selection of delegates as well as protecting candidates for liars ( like Ron Pual’s supporters passing themselves off as Santorum delegates but intending to vote Ron Paul on the first ballot).
Louisiana was just one state facing that issue.
The Tennessee rules have been the same for 40 years are that, if you want to run for a position as a pledged delegate, you need to present a letter from your candidate’s campaign stating that they would be willing to accept you as a delegate, and if you are elected, you are bound to your pledged candidate for the first two rounds of voting.
Although the Louisiana delegates were pledged to Santorum, they were planing on voting for Dr. Paul anyway, despite their pledge to Santorum under Louisiana GOP rules.
The floor fight was avoided because it was agreed that if a bound delegate does not vote according to the rules of their State party and their agreed-upon commitment they can be removed as a delegate in future conventions.
I think states’ rights were respected.
Mata Agree it was blatant disrespect. It did surprise me. I respect you for sticking with your principles.
As you know I’ve always said Mitt was a Rino but I’m certainly no fan of the Palin/Santorum wing. At this point I don’t really care who wins. I’ll be following Rubio closely.As for the Senate and House I’m still a Dem. I’d give money to see Allen beat again in Va. Think my fellow Marine Jim Webb saw the futility of Congress when he decided to not seek re-election. A good Dem.,an even better man.
I’ve learned alot about true Conservatism from you. THANKS
@MataHarley:
Lol. No, I’m not drinking the Romney Koolaid either.
I accepted that this was a Ron Paul supporter, but you can’t rely simply on political affiliation to dismiss relevant material and it seemed to be a fair analysis.
I read the first few pages and the voluminous table of contents, Ditto. I used to be a Libertarian. I know that what they can say in a single page, they enjoy expanding to 30, and that they can debate endless for hours… morphing from distraction to distraction until you can’t remember the original subject.
It’s not pertinent to me because those in charge of how they want their delegates bound are the States. If you want to address a miscarriage of delegate justice, talk to your State’s Party mouthpieces. So I don’t care what this guy has to say. It’s still a State’s right. Period.
@MataHarley:
And brought to this point by too many people listening to the MSM, and the liberal/progressives, on just who we should run that “could win”.
@Nan G:
While you may think that the “compromise” on the seating of delegates suggested by Tennessee was a good one, it was basically made null and void by Rule 12 which, if you read throughly what Mata said, allows the RNC, 168 members of the RNC committee, to change Rule 12 at any time between now, and the next national convention in 2016.
Mata said “most of us knew what Romney was about in 2008”. I would have to change that to “some of us knew what Romney was about in 2008”, at least those of us, who like Mata, did their homework and their research. We understood that Romney is simply a eastern squish who governed leaning left. I have a whole “favorites” just dedicated to Mitt Romney from 2008. Nothing we core conservatives thought about him four years ago has changed. He was not good for the nation then, and he ain’t good for the nation now. Once again, conservatives will enter the voter booth trying to select the lesser of two evils. I don’t know who Mata supported in the primaries, and it really isn’t important, but at least she knew that Romney is not what we need.
It was not really the Paul delegates that started the food fight over rule changes. It was the Texas delegation. Now let’s take a look at the Texas delegation; approx. 120 delegates with over 20 alternates. Out of the 140 delegates/alternate delegates, about 20 of them are Ron Paul supporters. So Ron Paul certainly did not have enough representation in the Texas delegation to create much of a ruckus, or have much of an influence. So everything that Mata has said is basically what the situation in Tampa was. And I can promise you, there are few Paul supporters in the Eagle Forum or Freedomworks. But it goes even deeper than that, since the Texas GOP, at their convention in June, abolished the “heir apparent” system of delegates to the national convention, and that upset some who are still in the Rove camp.
In 2010, TEA Partiers from all across the nation took to the streets to GOTV for Republicans. Fiscal sanity, smaller government grass roots activists did the dirty work and placed more Republicans in office in a sweep not seen in generations. They placed people like Rand Paul, Tim Scott, Allen West, Marco Rubio, et al and all because they had to pick one side or another and they damn sure were not going to side with Democrats driving the national bus off the cliff. More state offices were won by Republicans than the nation has seen since before FDR. But have you noticed what is missing from the RNC 2012? Rand Paul gave a speech at the convention but not ONE mention of the very people who put him in office, the TEA Partiers and other grass roots conservatives. Not one TEA Party favorite was even invited to speak at RNC 2012; not Sarah Palin, not Rick Perry, not Herman Cain, not Newt Gingrich. The move yesterday on the part of the RNC was to tell every conservative grass roots organization, and its members, to sit down, shut up or go away.
I read an article yesterday that quoted the head of the Ohio delegation. He said that (and I’m quoting from memory) there were approx. 5,000 Ohioans set to GOTV for Romney prior to this move by the RNC. He also said that he thought that number would be greatly reduced because the RNC just told the grass roots movement to get lost. Romney needs Ohio, just as he needs Florida, and when you pull a Florida delegate off the rules committee to replace them with a Romney supporter, that is not going to set well in the Sunshine State.
IMHO, and I hope I am wrong, Romney letting his legal team usurpt the grass roots and throw around his weight this early in the game just may have cost him the election.
JG The GOOD news.Romney can win. As a moderate with a strong business background he can get enough indie votes to beat a vulnerable BHO. The BAD news. Romney can win. He’s a Rino and will purge the Tea Party and Conservs. till he needs them again in 4 years.
Richard Wheeler,
no he can’t, not with PAUL RYAN