Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Romney's "RNC Power Grab": What Really Happened
FreedomWorks ^ | August 29, 2012 | Dean Clancy

Posted on 08/31/2012 9:46:46 AM PDT by Mozilla

Determined to neuter the grassroots and head off future insurgencies like those of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and Ron Paul, Republican party bosses have pulled off an audacious coup, high-handedly turning the GOP into a much more top-down, centralized party.

Boehner with gavel

Yesterday, the Republican National Committee in Tampa adopted some rules changes that shift power from the state parties and the grassroots to the RNC and the GOP presidential nominee. Former Governor John Sununu of New Hampshire touted the new rules as providing “a strong governing framework” for the party over the next four years. But in fact the new rules should be very troubling and disappointing to conservative grassroots activists, because they move the national Republican Party away from being a decentralized, bottom-up party toward becoming a centralized, top-down party.

The Romney rules effectively disenfranchise grassroots delegates, and will thus tend to weaken and splinter the party over time. They specifically represent a blow to the Tea Party and the Ron Paul insurgency -- to "the Republican wing of the Republican party" -- to citizens who are strongly committed to economic freedom, fiscal common sense, and smaller, constitutionally limited government -- and who want to have a voice in the Grand Old Party. The new rules force these grassroots conservatives to reconsider their future within the GOP.

Party sage and long-time RNC member (and conservative activist) Morton Blackwell led a last-minute effort to stop the changes -- an effort FreedomWorks strongly supported, together with Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Phyllis Schlafly and RNC for Life also got involved, while Michelle Malkin, Mark Levin, and Rush Limbaugh helped sound the alarm.

But the Romney camp and RNC insiders won the day, successfully imposing their will with the help of their control of the gavels, superior knowledge of the process, and perhaps some dirty tricks. The conservative “rebels” won the moral victory, however, taking their fight to the Rules Committee and the full Convention floor and arguably winning the voice vote there to stop the rules, only to be gaveled down by Speaker John Boehner [view video from 1:08 minutes].

The noes have it - RNC 2012

Yesterday’s fight offers a sobering glimpse of what life will be like for conservatives in a Romney Administration. It proves once again that sometimes we have to beat the Republicans before we can beat the Democrats.

In Terms of Substance

Last Friday, August 24th, longtime GOP lawyer and Romney advisor Ben Ginsberg surprised Rules Committee members by proposing three basic changes clearly intended to head off a conservative challenge to President Romney and/or tamp down the Tea Party and Ron Paul movements in 2016.

The proposed changes would do two main things:

1. Amend existing Rule 12 to hand members of the Republican National Committee, for the first time, the power to change the party's rules on the fly between national conventions. (National conventions only take place during presidential election years.) Three-fourths of RNC members must approve a proposed change for it to take effect. Note: This new rule is protected; it cannot be amended or repealed by the RNC.

Comment: This is unprecedented. It would enable top GOP officials to circumvent rules adopted by state and grassroots leaders at the National Convention. One can imagine how it might be used to shape and control the delegate-selection process to the advantage of insiders and special interests.

2. Amend existing Rule 15 to allow the presumptive presidential nominee to “disavow” duly elected delegates and force state parties to hold new elections to replace any delegate or alternate deemed unacceptable by the presumptive presidential nominee.

Comment: One can imagine the influence this change would give a presumptive nominee over any delegate that doesn’t toe the line. He could, in effect, choose the people who are to choose him. It’s not hard to imagine the temptation a campaign would feel to use this power to intimidate delegates and to reward friends, supporters, and campaign contributors. The proposal also contained a provision altering the method of allocating delegates, in order to front-load and shorten the primary calendar.

Unfortunately, the proposed change to Rule 12 passed. Thankfully, the proposed changes to Rule 15 were stopped. But a version of the “disavowal” provision did pass, touted by the insiders as a "compromise." But it's not acceptable.

Ben Ginsberg

Under this “compromise,” a new Rule 16 was added to stop an alleged “faithless elector” problem -- delegates who run claiming to support one candidate but then vote for another at the Convention. The new Rule 16 requires that a delegate who attempts to violate his binding pledge to a candidate under state law or state party rules shall be deemed to have resigned and the Secretary of the Convention must record the improper vote as it should have been cast based on state law or party rule. This compromise was supported by conservative stalwart James Bopp, as well as Ron Kaufman and Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi. Blackwell opposed the compromise because it retained the Rule 12 change.

As long as the RNC can change the rules between conventions, the proposed changes to Rule 15 that we managed to stop could easily be revived at any time, without a vote at a National Convention. Since the RNC usually follows the lead of its Chairman, and the Chairman has powerful incentives to go along with an incumbent Republican President, it should be easy for Team Romney to change the party rules pretty much any time at their pleasure. This should trouble every Republican.

At a minimum, the effect of the new rules will be to empower insiders over the broad party electorate and to discourage grassroots activists from taking part in the process. The new rules will thus have a chilling effect on intra-party debate, including debate over the National Platform and, of course, on future rules changes. The “Inner Circle” has scored quite a coup.

In Terms of Process

After Ginsberg’s proposed changes were presented in the RNC Rules Committee, Blackwell circulated a letter denouncing them and vowing to resist them by means of “minority reports,” which can be offered for votes on the Convention floor and, if adopted, would have the effect of defeating the proposed changes.

Morton Blackwell

Over the next four days, we worked feverishly to kill the rule changes, sending out a national call to action and urging our activists to lobby the party chairs and Rules Committee members from their state about the issue. We lit up Facebook and Twitter (using the hashtag #RNCpowergrab) and burned up phone lines with hundreds of calls. We filled up people’s voicemail inboxes. We caused an avalanche of emails. We irritated the heck out of some people. But the pressure had a decisive effect. Negotiations began on the so-called “insiders’ compromise.”

We knew we were fighting an uphill battle. Blackwell laid the groundwork for a floor fight by obtaining more than the requisite number of signers on each of the two minority reports. (Twenty-eight signatures are required.)

As the Rules Committee meeting neared, Team Romney went into high gear, working hard to peel signers off the minority reports.

When the committee finally met, Blackwell was absent, and we have conflicting reports about whether he still had the requisite number of co-signers. One report suggests he did, but that the committee basically disregarded the minority reports because he was not there to defend them.

Why was Blackwell absent? This was out of character for the veteran, battle-scarred activist. Did the insiders pull a Nixonian trick to make sure the leader of the opposition wasn’t present during the crucial meeting? Here’s how CNN explained his absence:

… [S]ome [rules] committee members suggested meddling was at play. A bus full of Virginia delegates arrived at the committee meeting -- after it had adjourned.

“The bus that was supposed to pick up the Virginia delegation arrived an hour later than it was supposed to,” explained Virginia delegate Morton Blackwell, a prime opponent of Rule 16 [a.k.a. the insiders’ compromise on delegate “disavowal”].

Blackwell continued: “And then when we went downtown, we went around the same series of blocks repeatedly – twice. And then the bus took out away from downtown, went about a mile and a half, and then did a u-turn and came back. And did another circuit, of the same place where we had been before.”

And at that point, the Virginia delegates demanded, “‘Stop the bus. And we're going to walk.' And we did.”

Mike Rothfeld, a Virginia delegate also on the bus, went further.

“They pushed us around for 45 minutes and then we missed the meeting,” Rothfeld said. “We were in the security perimeter, they pushed us out of it three separate times. They moved us around until the meeting was adjourned.”

[Colorado delegate Florence] Sebern claimed the snafu was “deliberate.”

Neither she nor the others recalling the story would say who they were directing their anger at. And none could provide proof to back up their claims.

Tampa Bay Times Forum

Other examples of possible dirty tricks:

1. Florida activist Laura Noble informed us that both of Florida's Rules Committee members, Peter Feaman and Kathleen King, were removed from the Rules Committee and replaced with Romney-appointed delegates.

2. Some Rules Committee members were physically barred from entering the room, despite having proper credentials.

3. Some delegates were told that Blackwell was trying to use the situation as an excuse to reopen a settled debate that he had lost four years ago regarding Rule 12. Not true.

4. Some delegates were told Romney personally knew nothing of the matter and it was just his overly aggressive lawyers acting beyond their authority and there was nothing to worry about, he would put a stop to it once he found out what was happening.

5. Some delegates seem to have believed that the rules fight was really just a proxy fight in the larger battle being waged between the Romney and Ron Paul camps over who would represent certain states on the convention floor. This assumption may have discouraged some Rules Committee members from supporting the minority reports.

Governor Sununu chaired the meeting. Governor Barbour strongly urged “unity” and the need for everyone to set aside “differences” to “defeat Barack Obama.”

The rules package, containing the insider’s compromise, passed by a decisive vote of 78 to 14. Unfortunately, the Rule 12 change (permitting the RNC to change the rules between conventions) remained in the package, unaltered. Which, of course, means that the Rule 15 change (giving the presumptive nominee the ability to hire and fire delegates based on their perceived loyalty) can be imposed later, without a vote.

Sununu Boehner RNC 2012

The package then went immediately to the full Convention for approval. On the convention floor, Governor Sununu offered it as a “strong governing framework” for the party over the next four years, and with no debate or even mention of the controversy over Rule 12, Speaker Boehner then called for the ayes and noes. The crowd roared loudly, on both sides of the question. Despite the “noes” being (in this hearer’s estimate) louder than the “ayes,” Boehner hastily gaveled the matter closed, declaring: "In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it, and the resolution is adopted."

Apparently, someone at RNC was able to predict the future, because this sentence had been helpfully written out for him in advance, and included in his teleprompter script:

Scripted Victory

Boehner's scripted announcement provoked cries from the crowd of "No!", "Boo!", "Roll call!" and "Division of the house!" [view video starting at 1:08 minutes]. But the microphones had been turned off. Boehner pretended not to hear.

The Fix Was In

The will of the delegates did not matter. The "Inner Circle" had decided.

Had we been able to force a roll-call vote, it would have delayed the day’s proceedings by several hours, which would have created an embarrassing logistical foul-up for Team Romney on the Convention’s first night. With the prime-time coverage and big evening speeches scheduled to begin fairly soon, our leverage would have been significant. Team Romney would have been forced to commence immediate negotiations right there on the convention floor, desperate to get their show back on track. But having foreseen the possibility of dissent, they planned to be, at the critical moment, conveniently deaf.

Soon after the disappointing outcome, FreedomWorks released the following statement from Matt Kibbe:

I believe that the Republican party has made a huge mistake by effectively disenfranchising grassroots activists who want to be a part of the party process. If the party sincerely wants the support of citizens, shutting them out of the process is not the way to do it. Sooner rather than later the Republican establishment needs to come to terms with the decentralized nature of grassroots organization circa 2012. The terms of engagement can no longer be dictated from the top-down.

The new rules strongly suggest the insiders don’t think they need the grassroots to win in 2012 -- an astounding assumption, given the critical role grassroots voters played in the historic 2010 wave election.

Despite this setback, we’re proud to have come so close to victory on such short notice and while operating under such severe disadvantages, relative to the insiders. This episode confirms just how powerful grassroots action can be in today’s world -- and we hope the party insiders are taking note of this fact.

We expect Democrats to be top-down and high-handed -- centralization of power is their governing principle, after all. But coming from Republicans, high-handedness is deeply disappointing. Republican rhetoric has always emphasized decentralization and local control -- making policy from the bottom up. And until yesterday, the GOP was in fact a mostly bottom-up party. No longer.

This isn't merely "inside baseball." If the new RNC rules had been in place forty years ago, the establishment might have been able to shut down the Reagan insurgency in 1976. Reagan might not have been able to secure the nomination in 1980.

Perhaps we should not be surprised by this turn of events? Perhaps the centralization of power in the political parties is simply a logical development in the present era -- a “progressive” era, when all institutions, under the pressure of an unlimited, centralized government, tend over time to reflect and become servants of that government?

Perhaps. But whenever an "Inner Circle" exploits its constituents' trust to entrench itself in power, we believe the appropriate recourse is always the same: expose the treachery and keep fighting. Find ways to break down the castle walls. Drive the despots out.

This develoment confirms our thesis that the reclaiming of Washington, D.C., by the American people requires siege warfare -- or, in the corporate parlance of our time, a “hostile takeover." The failed, entrenched "managers" of our nation -- including the powerful insiders who run the political parties -- will not let themselves be replaced without a fight.

So be it. This aggression will not stand.

The Upshot

What does Romney's RNC power grab mean for the future? At least three things:

1) Beginning today, the GOP will be much less representative of state parties and voters -- and much more representative of whichever interests are smart and powerful enough to dominate the RNC.

2) The conservative grassroots will now have to add “Monitoring the RNC” to their “eternal vigilance” list.

What should our next steps be?

1) We should work to make sure the RNC doesn't actually change the rules on the fly. One

2) begin working from the bottom up to take the Republican party back from the centralizers.

Of course, between now and November 6th, we must focus on the elections. We must fire Barack Obama and elect a new wave of true fiscal and constitutional conservatives to the U.S. Senate to reinforce allies like Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee.

But let's face it. The conservative grassroots must also decide whether and to what extent they want to remain engaged in a Republican Party whose establishment clearly does not want their input.

The RNC power grab has succeeded. For now. We’ll be back.

Welcome to the “Hostile Takeover.”

Dean Clancy is FreedomWorks' Legislative Counsel and Vice President, Health Care Policy


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 0bot; 0campaigner; 2012; acornpaidforpost; assclownpost; clownforobama; convention; distraction; diversion; dncstoodge; gopepowergrab; goprulechanges; idiotpost; inflitraitor; keywordspam; moronfor0; obamacampaignad; powergrab; retardfor0; romney; rulechanges; stupidposter; wasteofbandwith; zotthismoron
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-82 next last

1 posted on 08/31/2012 9:46:50 AM PDT by Mozilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

Still here propagandizing for the Democrats huh bot boy?


2 posted on 08/31/2012 9:48:22 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla
Definitely not good.

A little historical perspective, though: every time a party attempts to put in rules that will achieve purpose x, they usually have the exact opposite unintended effect. Recall the post-McGovern frenzy by the Dems to require certain % of women, minorities, etc in every delegation. All that did was make them unelectable (Mondale). It took Clinton to do an end run around the whole process through the DLC and his alliances with governors to overcome the new rules. But he did.

3 posted on 08/31/2012 9:51:18 AM PDT by LS ("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy

Self-ping


4 posted on 08/31/2012 9:53:21 AM PDT by Yashcheritsiy (Science puts you on the moon, atheism puts you in the gulag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Still here propagandizing for the Democrats huh bot boy?

If it's "propaganda" I'd really like to know why? Can you point it out?

5 posted on 08/31/2012 9:53:37 AM PDT by tsowellfan (Voting for Obama/Biden is like purposely swallowing two tapeworms)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

Thanks for the concise update.


6 posted on 08/31/2012 9:54:29 AM PDT by JohnG45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

It’s incredible that Obama is our President and only such a distasteful incumbent could force us to accept one such as Romney. But he was picked early on just like W was. The RNC gave him the big bucks and the rest is history. Hopefully things will get better without a Leninist in the White House, but not much in my estimation.


7 posted on 08/31/2012 9:54:46 AM PDT by RichardMoore (There is only one issue- Life: dump TV and follow a plant based diet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla
If this is the case then the Republican Party has become as Fascist as the Democrats. The Democrats forever changed the course of their party in 1972 by adopting rules changes that put the party squarely to the extreme left and cut out most centrists and conservatives. You see the end result.
The Republicans have decided,in a way, to do the same thing and cut out all grass roots and conservatives also.
The party now will be controlled centrally from D.C. and RNC headquarters.
These rule changes should give pause to all Conservatives on continuing to support this party.
Let me Phrase It Thus: CONSERVATIVES NOT WANTED!!!!!!!!!
8 posted on 08/31/2012 9:56:42 AM PDT by Captain Peter Blood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

You need to put down the Kool Aid.


9 posted on 08/31/2012 9:57:36 AM PDT by bmwcyle (Corollary - Electing the same person over and over and expecting a different outcome is insanity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

The rule change had nothing to do with Ron Paul.
His convention trolls and odious activities at the primaries merely gave them an excuse to pull this stunt.
This was aimed at the Tea Party grassroots and Conservatives.
The nominee was already chosen for us long before any primaries were held.
Look at how Florida was sddenly ‘all awarded to Romney’ despite the RNC rules sayng that it wasn’t to be so before ‘a certain date’.


10 posted on 08/31/2012 9:59:39 AM PDT by Darksheare (Try my coffee, first one's free.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie; tsowellfan

Even IF is was for a good intention, it will lead to MORE control taken away from the people... how often has a rule/regulation/law been made for a good intention that ended up making things worse... yet it was never recalled or amended?

How many of those HAVE been fixed (as far as I know.. none).

There are many saying this was to prevent Paultards from screwing things up... it may be so, but they were also pushing Conservatives out to the curb... (I DO know that the Paultards had to go.. he is NOT a Conservative, no matter what they say)... but I am sure there were other ways of getting the Libertarians out without alienating the Conservatives..


11 posted on 08/31/2012 10:00:15 AM PDT by Bikkuri (Choose, a communist, socialist, or Patriot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla
But the Romney camp and RNC insiders won the day, successfully imposing their will with the help of their control of the gavels, superior knowledge of the process, and perhaps some dirty tricks.

This is why I always tell these people who think that "all we need to do is take the GOP over at the county level and work our way up" that they are delusional.

When the GOP-E controls the gavel, chooses who gets called on, decides what proposals get considered and which do not, decides what rules get made, etc., then it doesn't matter how many average Joes you turn out to the conventions - the GOP-E will still win at the end of the day. It's like playing a baseball game where the home team gets to move the home run wall closer or farther away from home plate, depending on who's up to bat.

12 posted on 08/31/2012 10:01:10 AM PDT by Yashcheritsiy (Science puts you on the moon, atheism puts you in the gulag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie; tsowellfan

Oops.. meant the people as the STATES...


13 posted on 08/31/2012 10:01:18 AM PDT by Bikkuri (Choose, a communist, socialist, or Patriot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

When conservatives are a majority of the Republican party they can change the rules to suit themselves.

When conservatives are a majority (or even close) of the party, I’ll rejoin it.


14 posted on 08/31/2012 10:01:48 AM PDT by SaxxonWoods (....The days are long, but the years are short.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Peter Blood
If this is the case then the Republican Party has become as Fascist as the Democrats.


Not quite.. but getting there quickly :(

This is the most OBVIOUS it's been yet.. and WE must let them know that WE won't allow it...
15 posted on 08/31/2012 10:04:26 AM PDT by Bikkuri (Choose, a communist, socialist, or Patriot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

“Grassroots” , aka, - Paulers.

This is getting tiresome.


16 posted on 08/31/2012 10:05:30 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

I agree mostly with what you said... Paul gave them a reason to pull this off, and the timing was perfect.... BUT, not all of us are that stupid or blind.

I just pray that we can fix this really soon before there really IS a CWII.


17 posted on 08/31/2012 10:06:08 AM PDT by Bikkuri (Choose, a communist, socialist, or Patriot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

Why was this move made? Probably because of the Paulistinians who, even though Paul did not win a single contest, still were able to maneuver to get the delegate slots. The Paul supporters were moving to nominate Paul, despite the fact that everyone’s favorite crazy uncle did not win, or even come close. They adopted the rules to avoid the embarrasment that the media would heap upon them for the Pual delegate actions.

Code Pink was able to infiltrate and disrupt Ryan’s speech and Romney’s speech. How and why? Paul supporters, of course; they gave them their credentials. What if they had given the credentials not to a whacked out chick screaming about her “lady parts” but rather to some whacked out, violent terrorist who would kill delegates, or the candidates? The Paulistinians showed their true colors this week. They were not above sabatoging the convention and the candidates in their little immature hissy fit.


18 posted on 08/31/2012 10:06:37 AM PDT by RayBob (If guns kill people, can I blame misspelled words on my keyboard?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

Why was this move made? Probably because of the Paulistinians who, even though Paul did not win a single contest, still were able to maneuver to get the delegate slots. The Paul supporters were moving to nominate Paul, despite the fact that everyone’s favorite crazy uncle did not win, or even come close. They adopted the rules to avoid the embarrasment that the media would heap upon them for the Pual delegate actions.

Code Pink was able to infiltrate and disrupt Ryan’s speech and Romney’s speech. How and why? Paul supporters, of course; they gave them their credentials. What if they had given the credentials not to a whacked out chick screaming about her “lady parts” but rather to some whacked out, violent terrorist who would kill delegates, or the candidates? The Paulistinians showed their true colors this week. They were not above sabatoging the convention and the candidates in their little immature hissy fit.


19 posted on 08/31/2012 10:06:51 AM PDT by RayBob (If guns kill people, can I blame misspelled words on my keyboard?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnG45

“Thanks for the concise update.”

Sure. No problem. I am glad I found a well written article that summarizes what went down. Terrible situation is Romney wins and gets a challenger in 2016.


20 posted on 08/31/2012 10:06:51 AM PDT by Mozilla (Constitution Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
The RNC and the Republican Party do not like or want Conservatives.
The high point of Conservatism within the Republican Party was Reagan.
All you have to do is look at the sorry candidates and empty promises since then.
This party will not and does not want to change, it's for Big Government just like the Democrats.
I have heard this mantra that Conservatives can change and take over , etc., etc., Ad Nauseam and it never happens.
We got fooled by Bush and he had a so called Republican Congress and what did it do, Spend! Spend! Spend!!!
Conservatives are deluding themselves if they are thinking Romney is really going to change things. I do not see it.
Guess we will now see what will happen.
Romney can probably win if he keeps the focus on the economy and nothing else.
21 posted on 08/31/2012 10:07:12 AM PDT by Captain Peter Blood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla
We expect Democrats to be top-down and high-handed -- centralization of power is their governing principle, after all. But coming from Republicans, high-handedness is deeply disappointing. Republican rhetoric has always emphasized decentralization and local control -- making policy from the bottom up. And until yesterday, the GOP was in fact a mostly bottom-up party. No longer.

This is 100% spot-on...and, as a result, very sad. I had long thought that the Republicans were different, but it is clear that the Party's leaders are no different in their purpose than those of the Dems - to ensure the continuity of their own power. None of this letting the peasants revolt stuff anymore.

Note that I am a solid Reagan conservative, not some Paulista. To me, conservative principles are correct, and we should proudly shout them from the rooftops. However, the Republican elites obviously not only don't share my views, they have disdain for them. I'd be very much for a big exodus of conservatives to a well-organized Conservative Party, but I know that such would only lead to a guaranteed Dem win. Maybe if we can convince reasonable Dems to also leave their party at the same time...so we'll have 4 parties.

22 posted on 08/31/2012 10:08:42 AM PDT by Ancesthntr (Bibi to Odumbo: Its not going to happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

If this is true then the Republican party will definitely go the way of the Whig party. Good luck GOP celebrating your own funeral.


23 posted on 08/31/2012 10:09:14 AM PDT by Jean2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eva
“Grassroots” , aka, - Paulers.

This is getting tiresome.

Frankly, the only thing tiresome here are idiots who try to defend these rules changes by appealing to the "Paulbots" bugaboo.

Anyone who actually reads the article, instead of just assuming they know that it's really about "Paulbots," ought to be mightily disturbed by the shenanigans that took place. And the author is right - these rules changes could be used at will to pretty much block out any Tea Party influence on the actual workings of the GOP. Paulbots or not, these rules changes are not about rectifying problems long overlooked - they are about shutting out anyone who doesn't walk the Romney/Rove/Barbour walk.

24 posted on 08/31/2012 10:10:27 AM PDT by Yashcheritsiy (Science puts you on the moon, atheism puts you in the gulag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla
A lengthy post, but well worth reading.

"The new rules strongly suggest the insiders don’t think they need the grassroots to win in 2012 -- an astounding assumption, given the critical role grassroots voters played in the historic 2010 wave election."

Judging by the reaction of a lot of posters on this very website, they might be right. Conservatism in the Republican Party has entered the wilderness.

25 posted on 08/31/2012 10:10:36 AM PDT by Colonel_Flagg (Conservatism is not a matter of convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

This is not propagandizing for the democrats, this is an accurate account of how the RNC is disenfranchising me and many other Conservatives who knock on doors, make phone calls, put up signs, give money, attend local party meetings, county and state conventions. A take over of the state party which will have effects on the direction of the Republican party and the ability of the Tea Party or Conservatives being able to be able to assert themselves in the Republican party.


26 posted on 08/31/2012 10:12:02 AM PDT by duffee (Romney 2012, NEWT 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bikkuri

We Conservatives need to stop blaming others when we are defeated. We’re sounding like Obamanites.

If we cannot acknowledge our errors we’re doomed to repeat them.

In the end, there’s always the third party option next election.

I always put Conservatism first. Conservatism above Party. Battles we lose are our own fault. We must learn from those faults so we do not repeat them.

Lesson #1) NEVER run multiple conservatives against ONE Republican Establishment candidate and expect to have enough votes among the split votes to overcome and ultimately defeat the RINO.

Romney may have been “forced” to join the primary by the GOPe (my opinion is that it was Romney who desired the position)but we had a fair chance to beat him and we lost.


27 posted on 08/31/2012 10:12:13 AM PDT by tsowellfan (Voting for Obama/Biden is like purposely swallowing two tapeworms)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

Yeah. Romney was going to win the 2012 nomination since he came second in the 2008 primary because the Republican Party was going to get him over the finish line of the primary no matter what. They pulled out all the stop to get Romney the nomination. First off they miscalculated the winner in Iowa which was Rick Santorum. They forced candidates off the ballot in Virginia. They attacked all conservatives who ran against Romney. And then came Florida. And now this charade at the convention. They want all conservatives out of the party by the looks of it. You do know that after the Paulbots were kicked out all that was left at the convention floor was 100% MittBots. Other than the speakers and invited guests.


28 posted on 08/31/2012 10:14:17 AM PDT by Mozilla (Constitution Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: duffee
Who did we have representing us there? Do they hold any responsibility for this?
29 posted on 08/31/2012 10:14:42 AM PDT by tsowellfan (Voting for Obama/Biden is like purposely swallowing two tapeworms)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy

I am not defending the rule changes, I am just saying that the fight is over for now. Time to move on. We have a job to do, defeat Obama.


30 posted on 08/31/2012 10:14:50 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RichardMoore

“The RNC gave him the big bucks and the rest is history.”

No. Better candidates didn’t come forth; and primary and caucus voters selected him over the other candidates.

Basic stuff here. No conspiracies or other underhanded things.
Why not focus instead on this question. “Why did better candidates not come forth to run this cycle?”


31 posted on 08/31/2012 10:15:10 AM PDT by HereInTheHeartland (Encourage all of your Democrat friends to get out and vote on November 7th, the stakes are high.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bikkuri

“BUT, not all of us are that stupid or blind.”

But there are enough people that are, and that’s the problem.


32 posted on 08/31/2012 10:16:17 AM PDT by Darksheare (Try my coffee, first one's free.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

This video will blow your mind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKaXqoC4DjE

The republicans are not the good guys.


33 posted on 08/31/2012 10:17:03 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

For later consumption.


34 posted on 08/31/2012 10:17:39 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

I know.

And the Mittbots keep insisting that if I don’t vote for their pre-chosen candidate, my lack of support for him is somehow a miraculous vote for someone else.

The Paulbots pulling crap at every primary didn’t help either, like we needed street theater and OWS supporters stinking up the already frustrating situation.


35 posted on 08/31/2012 10:21:48 AM PDT by Darksheare (Try my coffee, first one's free.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

I’m sorry my mind went this way but as I read this I found myself more and more reminded of Hitler’s rise to power in the party and finally the country.

Especially after seeing what happened in the video.


36 posted on 08/31/2012 10:21:52 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy

Yeah, they could be used to block any group that seeks to disrupt conventions.

The fight is over for now, the Paulers lost. I blame the Paulers for triggering this rule change because the Paulers hate the social conservtives as much as the hate the inside the beltway Republicans. If the Paulers succeed in taking over the GOP, the first people that they would kick out are the social conservatives.

Ron Paul gave it away with his hate-filled looks at Rick Santorum during the debates.


37 posted on 08/31/2012 10:25:13 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

So, which fringe candidate did Dean Clancy like? He sounds like a Paulistinian. Maybe he was a Huntsman man?


38 posted on 08/31/2012 10:28:39 AM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eva

I agree this is a done deal but I think it is always important to have the history. It needs to be known who did what dirty tricks to hold out proper delegates and who the players were so that proper “rewards” can be distributed.


39 posted on 08/31/2012 10:28:58 AM PDT by KC Burke (Plain Conservative opinions and common sense correction for thirteen years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla
They also wouldn't allow any other candidate to be nominated. For example, Paul never would have won, but he was nominated which would have put his name on the board and allowed him 15 minutes to speak. From NY Times:

Delegates from Nevada tried to nominate Mr. Paul from the floor, submitting petitions from their own state as well as Minnesota, Maine, Iowa, Oregon, Alaska and the Virgin Islands. That should have done the trick: Rules require signatures from just five states. But the party changed the rules on the spot. Henceforth, delegates must gather petitions from eight states.

If it could happen to Paul, it could also happen to Palin or any other conservative the GOPe doesn't want. We can never nominate a conservative candidate. It will always be who the GOPe selects.
40 posted on 08/31/2012 10:29:40 AM PDT by bravedog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tsowellfan

Part of the problem is that the party works top down in most states anyway, it certainly does in Mississippi, the stae convention was scripted and committes such as nominating and rules were set and it was practically impossible to get anything they didn’t want in. The same applied to the nominating committee and the slates for convention delegates and executive committe members were closed. Our hope is to start at the county level where we have made some progress. These rule changes will now take power from the state GOP and give it to the RNC and to the presidential candidates, the problem with this is that they can now load the primaries with winner take all and non Conservative states guranteeing a big earl lead in the nomination process for the RINO candidates that will cause money and enthusiasm to dry up for Conservative candidates.
This will also make it more difficult to work our way from the county to the state level because the state party will be even more controlled by the RNC. I contacted our two rules committe delegates and one responded he cwould do what he thought was the right thing to do. I believe he did not support the minority position, I know he supported the “compromise”.


41 posted on 08/31/2012 10:38:01 AM PDT by duffee (Romney 2012, NEWT 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

Thanks for the well done summary of what happened.

Personally, I think it was partly aimed at Ron Paul, but mostly at the Tea Party. The GOPe is not afraid of Ron Paul, but they are terrified of the Tea Party.

However, now is not the time for a Republican civil war. I’m not sure we could survive four more years of Obama.

Once this election is over it will be time to reassess the situation. Until then, my money is going partly to the NRA, partly to local Tea Party type candidates, and mostly to SarahPAC.


42 posted on 08/31/2012 10:40:55 AM PDT by EternalHope (Politicians will always let you down. -- Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RayBob

I am not for Ron Paul, but equally not a fan of the GOPe. I guess you have to pick you battles these days. I am 100% against the left and Obama. But I am no fan of the Rinos. It’s become a minefield.

I just know that what the GOPe did also hurt conservatives and that is what they wanted.
If it had been a true conservative candidate and they had delegates at the convention and were challenging Romney or whoever they wanted then the same thing would have been done.

You do get Santorum won plenty of Republican and Conservative leaning states and it did not do a thing to help him win the nomination. But Romney won all the Progressive Liberal states and he won the nomination. Ohio, Florida and Wisconsin are purple states which Romney won despite recent gains by Republicans. And Arizona is becoming more and more rino despite recent conservative gains and the immigration stances of Governor Jan Brewer. So that state is not really conservative. And Utah and Nevada is Mormon country. So they don’t count wither. And after the Wisconsin and Pennsylvania primaries the rest of the primaries that were falsely had just to get Romney to the magic number; don’t count. Romney was way ahead and the other candidates ended up dropping out.


43 posted on 08/31/2012 10:43:04 AM PDT by Mozilla (Constitution Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

That’s it for me. I’m writing in Palin and I’m leaving the republican party. Make of it what you will.


44 posted on 08/31/2012 10:43:39 AM PDT by subterfuge (BUILD MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS NOW!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

Great post.


45 posted on 08/31/2012 10:53:12 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of America starts the day Christians stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

Beginning immediately following this election, assuming a Romney win, if the Republic is to be maintained, a new conservative party MUST form in time for the next election, hoping that parties are still relevant then. Without a new party the best we can hope for is a protracted continuation of the Depression and more creeping socialism. Should the kenyan win, of course, it is all gone and European style socialism will prove a fleeting stage on the way to full blown Utopian Socialism and all the ramifications that history shows ineluctably ensue..


46 posted on 08/31/2012 10:58:40 AM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: subterfuge

I’ll be on the ballot in Florida, and I would appreciate your vote.

http://www.tomhoefling.com/

Votes for Palin will not be counted unless she files.


47 posted on 08/31/2012 11:01:15 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of America starts the day Christians stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

We’re five years into that task. We started with the nomination of John Judas McCain. I hope you’ll check us out.

http://www.selfgovernment.us/about.html


48 posted on 08/31/2012 11:03:02 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of America starts the day Christians stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
You agree with this running roughshod over, silencing, and locking out of the discussion those (we!) grassroots conservatives who deserve a voice in our GOP governmental actions, policies and decisions?

And you pretend it's Mozilla who's shilling for the "Democrats?"

Pretty badly bent, there, crease-wad.

;-\

49 posted on 08/31/2012 11:08:33 AM PDT by Gargantua ("Barrio Bummer ~ America's First Gay President")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke

It’s a question of “proper delegates” . The Paulers were very open about their plans to disrupt the convention. There were posts all over the internet and even a couple of law suits over the delegates and their plans. (some states had already changed some their rules because of the Paulers, the problem isn’t new)

The talk on the internet was about finding enough delegates from a single state to cause a problem. They tried Colorado first, then WA state and Wisconsin, but finally had to settle for Maine, where the most wishy washy Republicans in the country reside (just look at Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins).

The plan was not to win anything, but to just cause trouble and hurt Mitt Romney. The rule change may have been draconian, but it is the fault of the Paulers. The behavior of the Paulers on the floor of the convention the first night was despicable, also. I saw one young girl, sitting conspicuously on the end of an aisle, trying to look bored, but almost breaking into a smile when the camera picked her up. They were walking around, getting up, going out in the aisles and back again during the speeches, trying to be a distracting as possible. I think that security should have told them to leave the floor if they got up out of their seats, until the speech was over, and not let anyone back on the floor while there was someone speaking.


50 posted on 08/31/2012 11:10:24 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-82 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson