They (GOP-e) should know thats the short route to a third party...
Well well, win at all costs? Where have I heard that before? Not surprised, the parties are behind this. Whats that strange smell?
That might be the outcome. In the short term their goal was to silence the Paulistinians who lied and portrayed themselves as supporting Romney (or others). It probably should be headed off. Letting them act like nutjobs might be the best thing to do... your opinion may vary.
Bloodless coup by a bloodless candidate.
What you do when you tighten down from the top is you lose the bottom.
When you give everything over to the bottom the top just goes berserk.
At some point someone will decide there needs to be a parting of the ways. There are options.
BTW, there's something beyond the Republican party ~ there are the State parties ~ all called Republican, but governed under state laws. You can go start your own Republican party, with your own bylaws, and see if you can supplant the current moribund bunch represented by the GOP-e.
This has been done in recent times (As such things go).
The comments following the article add some needed perspective. Here are two...
Gelman commented: "Gateway Pundit is missing the point. The idea is to keep Ron Paul nut-jobs from taking over the convention like they have done at many State level Conventions. They are a loud, tiny minority. What they could not achieve through the ballot box and democracy, namely, to win a single state, they are now trying to disrupt at the convention level with swarms of crazy 'activists'. This should not, and will not be tolerated by the majority."
Granny added: "Yup, my Facebook has been full of posts for weeks from Ron Paul nuts promising to totally destroy the convention rather than see Romney put up as the candidate. Rumour has it RP isnt going to turn over his delegates either. When Ive pointed out that splitting the Republican party with a civil war is handing the election to Obama on a plate they really dont seem to give a darn."
I have a very close friend who is an RNC delegate and a Tea Party activist. This is also his read on the proposed rule change - to keep the Ron Paul zealots from causing chaos on the Convention floor, as some of them are threatening.
July 8, 1964
GOP Warned To Beware Of Extremist May Destroy Republicans: Romney Reject infiltrators and purveyors of hate, said the Michigan governor . . . .
Move the little rectangle slightly up and to the left to see story.
Like father like son.
I think the networks are showing good editorial judgement only showing an hour/night of these bs sessions. Why should they turn over their airwaves to be programmed by the party professionals to run their poll test nonsense.
The GOP elites are supposed to listen to the “little people” and the general lower income “rif-raff?”
How dare anyone make that suggestion!
When I consider confronting anyone over legislation or rules I want to know what the hell I'm talking about!
Since neither I nor anyone on FR can be fully up to date on every likely subject it seems that the requester could provide specifics:
"The party establishment rammed through new party rules designed to lessen the impact of gun owners, conservatives and Tea-Party-types of all kinds."
"The Republican National Convention Rules Committee voted 63-38 to approve a new rule...granting the Republican National Committee sweeping new powers to amend the governing document of the GOP."
"...Romneys top lawyer Ben Ginsberg, (who) stressed that it would grant flexibility to Romney and the committee to adapt to changing political environments (by allowing) the RNC to amend the partys rules without a vote by the full Republican National Convention."
At some point in the deluge a GOP delegate did identify two paragraphs or sections but my first reading didn't make that reference suitable for a debate.
No one wants to call their representative, the GOPe, or any wavering congress critter to demand that they stop "denying my impact", or voting 63 to 38 on "stuff I don't like", claiming that Ben Ginsberg can't be a natural born citizen because his name sounds international, or "don't do whatever someone on the internet says you are doing".
Cite the existing or desired condition, cite the action(s) threatening it, cite the desired changed behavior and let me/us pitch in and help...or decide on our own if help is appropriate.
The most recent other such event is/was a California bill supposedly banning removable magazines from rifles, when read, the proposed bill banned devices to convert fixed magazines to removable magazines; I thought that was already illegal in California.
I'm certainly open to learning where or how the legislation affects my M1, M1A1, Saiga, or SMLE and acting accordingly. But demanding action you don't fully understand is very nearly the same level of debate as the occupy movement displayed.
Compared to this disenfranchising the delegates nonsense Akin and his little faux pas are nothing. The Conservatives of the party (Tea and otherwise) are gonna be/are pissed. Do they really want to bring about a third party right now? Do they really want people to stay home? Because either, or both, of those scenarios would be strong possibilities.
Whatever. We’re going to get control one way or another, reverse any such rules, and kick the scum to the curb.
These actions only reinforce the necessity for legitimate eradication.