Skip to comments.Romney rule change fight on convention floor?
Posted on 08/26/2012 6:40:10 PM PDT by Bigtigermike
Zeke Miller is reporting that a set of changes to the convention rules pushed through by Mitt Romneys team is raising a few hackles among the delegates and could potentially lead to a squabble on the convention floor. The modifications in question deal among other things with the method used to select and approve the individual delegates from each state.
Frustration over changes to the Republican Partys rules pushed through by the Romney Campaign on Friday may lead to a fight on the floor of the Republican National Convention on Monday.
The Convention Committee on Rules took a number of steps on Friday to weaken the power of state conventions and state parties, while consolidating the power of presidential candidates in the nominating process. Some of the changes to require that delegations from statewide caucuses and primaries to the convention adhere to the will of voters weakened the hand of insurgent-type candidates but have been well received by the committee. But a change allowing presidential candidates the right to vet their own delegates to the national convention has many state party officials up in arms and they are planning to bring it to the convention floor.
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 McKensist
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Why would this be a surprise?
Romney messed with the primaries as well, to get “his” win.
... or weed out the Paulbots who dishonestly ran on the Romney slate.
We have a dictatorship now.
Our citizenship doesn’t matter and our votes are canceled out.
A lot of people aren't thrilled with Romney -- but he's going to happen. There's no sense in believing otherwise.
And who are seriously still thinking they can pull off some stunt and get the nomination for Paul.
In Romney’s America, the party picks YOU!
In Soviet Russia, the party— err, wait, huh!?
Actually, I don’t see the problem. Sanctorum won every county in Missouri and 90% of the county in Minnesota, but some how Paul ends up with more delegates at the state convention. Winning in the state primary or caucus should mean the candidate controls the delegates.
If the establishment can throw out any delegate that they choose then they can certainly insert insiders and D.C. types at the convention and shut out all forms of disagreements and dissent in 2016 and beyond and Im not even talking about the antics of the Paulbots here
THere isn’t likely to be a floor fight on Monday, since they cancelled Monday’s convention operations. They are convening, and then suspending until Tuesday.
Of course, I wouldn’t put it past the Ron Paul supporters to stick around after the convention is suspended, and pretend that it is still operating, and pass a bunch of stuff by themselves that the media would report as contentions.
By the time Missouri picked the actual delegates, Santorum had withdrawn and Romney was basking in the glory of winning. That gave the Paulistinians a chance for mischief.
Where Preibus and Romney need to tighten things up is the definition of who meets the brand standards.
It's pretty loose these days. Out of the 16 candidates I examined closely, only 3 had been lifelong conservative Republicans.
All the rest had recent, or questionable ties to the Republican party.
Screwing around with who gets to go to the convention will probably encourage exactly the sort of thing I want to see STARTING IN JANUARY AFTER THE INAUGURATION. So, Mittbots play into my hands!(Bwahahahaha)
I agree that they “establishment” should not be able to throw out delegates, but I do think that the candidate himself should be able to throw out the delegates he won if they do not support him. Binding candidates through the first ballot makes since.
Cheaters for RomneyCARE, TARP, and DeathPanels.
What could possibly go wrong?
These rule changes has nothing to do with this year but in 2016 and beyond! Wake up!!’
we may one day have nothing but insiders and D.C types as delegates and on the committee within 4 years and the grassroots and tea party folks on the outside looking in. If that happens then it’s best to prepare to startup our own “second” party
I am awake. I just disagree.
That voice is one of us. Many delegates go in believing to stand up for their views but if we turn the delegates over to the insider picks, it's over. We will be on the outside looking in. If you don't see/read about any stand offs to get things in the platform; you know Romney's attorney got what the party wanted.
Binding delegates for a candidate has always been a state party issue. That is not what Romney seems to want.
He neither sought nor got Tea Party support. Don’t look for him doing those of us who lean that way any favors.
I am sick of RNC and National GOP antics to protect the entrenched. This will eventually backfire on them.
And none of those three won the nomination?
Exactly. They (Paultards)are nuttier than the Scientologists.
Libtard media FUD and Paul kooks stiring the pot to make the kenyan look better. Maybe even some Goode fringe breaking bad too.
This not about Paulbots! There are a lot of conservatives and Tea Party folks greatly disturbed about this - Romney and the GOPE are trying to have complete control over any dissent in 2016 and beyond
Where Preibus and Romney need to tighten things up is the definition of who meets the brand standards. It's pretty loose these days
Exhibit A: Mitt Romney.
Out of the 16 candidates I examined closely, only 3 had been lifelong conservative Republicans. All the rest had recent, or questionable ties to the Republican party.
Yeah! We need to make sure there are no more so-called 'converts' to the Republican brand! God forbid we nominate a 'convert' to the GOP like Ronald Reagan...
Trying to cut out the Paul-ites — just they have tried to change the rules in State after State to get “their” guy in...
We’ve seen our last honest and open election. Cook County has gone national and Soviet at the same time, America has no clue what time it already is, yet everyone is acting like our votes are going to matter come November.
This is an Insider’s game now. It’s all about the machine and creating illusions to placate the masses.
In state after state (MO, MN, MI, OH) we have found that delegates have been elected to support another candidate while secretly being for Paul. This is dishonest.
I am with you!!! If Romney had any sense he would have courted a lot of those people here call paulbots. Like it or not they are NOT all burnouts or kooks, a lot are just sick and tired of republican spending, and promises never kept. And they could have been won over, but he never tried. Nor has he tried to court Conservative and Tea party voters. He and the RNC have no love for us at all, any of us.
Courting the votes of Conservatives AND Libertarians (not all they believe in but most) would have gotten him a landslide, the the establishment GOP has never wanted either in the party, they think we have no choice to vote for them, and this year they may be right! This latest regarding delegates is just another example, and people who approve need be careful what they wish for.
Obama wins, we lose. Romney wins, we still lose.
People had better wake up as to what's going on!
I attended Ron Paul’s breakout speech during the TX GOP Convention. Only to observe. I could not be part of what he is, but many things he says are spot on. Others are out in far left field.
That said, there is a problem with the GOPe strangling the party.
Just found this a few minutes ago:
Palin Hints at Formation of Third Party
(she is not talking this election cycle, but later. On that I agree it is a risk.)
Zeke Miller and Ben Smith of BuzzFeed are agents for Obama 2012. Don’t let these f**kers divide us!
Team Romney has been the one changing the rules, not Paul's people. And quite frankly, we ought to be commending them for standing up to the corrupt, decrepit GOP-E instead of trashing them.
And before anyone even goes there, I have never supported Paul.
Thanks for this heads-up thread.
Well, it seems to me that they've been incredibly effective...so much so that the GOP-E is having to deal both with them and Ron and Rand Paul.
In case you haven't noticed, the GOP-E has already divided us.
Agreed! In fact, this probably has less to do with the Paulbots than with the Tea Party seriously challenging the Establishment in 2016 and beyond and Mitt and the Good ol Boys trying to circumvent and stop any attempt of them gaining any realfoot hold in the party. People need to pay attention to what’s going on
“... or weed out the Paulbots who dishonestly ran on the Romney slate.”
PaulBots engaged in subterfuge and fraud by refusing to do what they are bound to do as delegates, and now the insiders want to ruin it for everyone because of PaulBot shenanigans.
The only silver lining is Ron Paul wont be running in 2016 ...
Santorum supporters who participated in the caucus process see the problem with this new proposal. Frankly, it is outrageous.
I’ve tangled with people who LAST WEEK insisted that Romney could be dumped in the convention. I dont know what koolaid they are drinking, but its strong brew. They have no clue about how the process works nor any respect for how the Republican party operates nor the actual will of the vast majority of primary voters. And at the end of the day, the more extreme ones will vote 3rd party anyway - so why insist on going to a Republican convention if you aren’t one?!?
If candidates want to weed out such people, I cant blame them.
I don’t see why 2016 is any concern before 2012 has been dealt with. One would think that after this yeas snafu, 2016 would be wide open for debate.
Sigh!!! What’s so hard in figuring it out that this is planned for the future - whether it’s for Mitt or Jeb or whoever in the establishment circle, they are setting it up for down the road
“Now it allows candidates to refuse the delegate, requiring another in his or her stead to be selected by the state.”
This is unacceptable.
I am willing to believe that this change was instituted simply to keep the Paulbots and their ilk from promising to vote one way and really voting another. However, the “unintended” consequence of this rule change is certainly to keep out anyone that the GOP-e does not accept. So this is unacceptable to me, and I hope to my fellow FReepers.
Who do we complain to? How can we make our non-delegate voices heard on this issue? (And we’d better do it now before this new rule gets cemented into place!!) Who is familiar with rules & procedures and can tell us what to do about this? Please comment and let us know!
We have millions of Republican voters who were taught as chillun' that they needed to vote Democrat.
My comment is not directed at those people AND YOU KNOW IT!
We no longer need, nor have much room for RINOs who claim to be Republican but then do the old reacharound with the Democrat professionals, or who were Democrat professionals ~ they simply are not needed.
At some point you go with what you got and quit taking in strays, or feating Quislings.
Our primaries must be closed in both ways. The voters must be Republicans, and the candidates must be Republicans of unimpeachable character, reputation and history.
At a minimum should you be a public office holder who ran as a Republican we ought to expect that you not also be a Democrat party donor ~ for example.
The Tea Party in Texas has been very successful in taking over GOP positions at the precinct, county and higher levels. Believe me, Texas TEA party delegates won’t sit still for being supplanted by GOP-e hacks!!!