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 ...
If he is doing all this now, his attempt to destroy conservatism from within the party is going to be even more aggressive when he gets into office. It's insanity to think he or the damage he will do can be stopped once he gets into office.
Yeah, I’d like to see the source for this. I met Ben Ginsburg at a conference that the entire purpose of the meeting was to get the grassroots more established for GW’s second run. Best made plans and all that, but this still doesn’t add up.
And, guarantee ourselves a monster of some kind will be in the White House for eight, long years.
That might be what the country can't withstand.
It seems to me that this guy’s thoughts just might be too caffeinated...............let’s don’t get too excited about it yet.
If we get mad at Romney, then who do we vote for?.....
Totally predictable. Romney chased the few remaining social conservatives out of the Massachusetts GOP. He’ll do the same to the national party. Anyone who votes for him is voting for that.
Why are sane conservatives not going to vote or going to vote to put obama back in the White House. The formation of a conservative third party sounds good AFTER this election in November.
If this is true, it's insane. IT will ultimately destroy the party, as the grassroots delegates are the heart and soul of the party. Drive them away or make them subject to some sort of check by the nominee, and you lose the most committed folks.
Vande Hart is one of the top Iowa sources for all things Republican Politics and the Iowa caucus for years. It is true that Gingsberg did make it more difficult for serious challenges to Romney in 2016 by rule changes (it was reported in other media) But this news stated above is new and if true should be investigated because if it is true then we are in serious trouble
Taserism ... the “cleansing action” of taserists
Mr. RomneyCARE tolerates NO dissent, like his army
of Saboteurs.
NO FAIR PRIMARIES.
NO DISSENT to ROMNEYCARE.
NO DISSENT TO DEATH PANELS.
Why are you surprised? Romney has always been clear about his disdain for conservatives and conservation principles.
Actually why would anyone be surprised?
Funny how so many (so called) conservatives are gun ho for him, even though Romney wants them all to go away.
Okay, that does it!
I’m voting for Barack Obama!
“The formation of a conservative third party sounds good AFTER this election in November.”
It’s always “after the election”, but never occurs. There is no bad time to begin the creation of a new conservative party.
I think in a way the the Tea Party has already started a movement toward a third party and that is a good thing.
Well you see, homosexual pedophile activists (And every single person who ever posts that a vote for a write in or third party over Romney is one - no exceptions) are having problems gaining control of the party.
Yes, but remember one critical thing. The GOP has its hooks hard into the TEA party. Look at the ‘big names’ alteady there. And remember as they expand into it, they are filling it with the same ‘moderate’ workers at the staff level as the GOP itself has.
Are there enough of us to matter? I doubt it.
When actual conservatives were campaigning, the RINO wing of posters did everything to trash them. Here and on other ‘conservative sites. Today they trash anyone not lockstep with Romney.
They can deny it all they like. History does not lie.
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.
You might want to try finding a credible source, rather then a blog.
You are wrong according to this committee member:
The change, pushed by the Romney campaign’s top lawyer Ben Ginsburg originally allowed candidates to select all the delegates bound to them in state contests. Now it allows candidates to refuse the delegate, requiring another in his or her stead to be selected by the state.
“The bottom line is that the change adopted today essentially allows the Presidential campaigns to pick there own delegates, which makes it a complete insider’s ballgame and allows a bunch of Washington D.C. consultants to decide who does and doesn’t get to be a delegate,” said South Carolina delegate Drew McKissick.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/romney-rules-changes-could-spark-gop-convention-fl?s=mobile
It will certantly make it a lot more difficult for a nommity to hold together a Party and prevent fractures.
I find it interesting in a dull way how some politicians once in office try to bring my unity by means of squashing decent.
Mitt has a lot of bad liberals working for him, men who are no doubt undermining his campaign.
It is very likely that if we are going to win this election and get rid of the Abomination we may have to drag Mitt to the Finnish line yourself. The future of theses “united” States is increasingly at stake here.
That may be so Kazan, but we are between a rock and a hard place as far as Washington DC is concerned.
No man we send there will ever seriously give up power, it is not in the nature of politicians to give up the very power they run to possess. It is understandable why even when elected on this printable they have demonstratively dragged their feet to the point of failing or simply accomplishing nothing.
In many ways we are dealing with a machine the only differences is the leftist agenda lends itself well to the self-interest of that machine although not in the way Liberals think it does. The difference there is the reason why liberals never accomplish dream with government.
Still if we are to accomplish our goals we must create and enact a strategy capable of achieving that end rather than simply attempting to uses this machine to do that which it is not designed/inclined to do.
That means of course if we want to reclaim our rights, we will have to do it from outside of Washington with self-interested tools in opposition. Regretfully however that also requires overcoming certant historic barriers erected by the Federal Government to resist the same kind of attack upon its usurped power.
It is worth noting that most all of them are centered around Washington ability to uses force. So if we defang the Federal military, and beef up our states Washington;s many tricks become a lot less threatening, and as a result their power becomes a lot more consensual.
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.