RNC Removing Rules

[JohnC]

Folks, if you want to oppose the "compromise" on Rule 15, oppose the changes to Rule 12, and support the full Minority Reports on the Rules, you must call before 2pm EST today!

http://www.freedomwo...mmittee-members

As you may be aware, the RNC and the Romney campaign are pushing a massive change to Republican Party rules which will, in part, allow the Presidential nominee to choose delegates and allow the RNC to change rules relating to the party platform and delegate selection whenever they like.

Please call your state's Rules Committee delegates here and ask that they oppose the "compromise" on Rule 15, oppose Rule 12, and support the full Minority Reports on the Rules.

Call the Rules Committee delegates now.

Rule 12 is a threat to all grassroots activists. If this rule goes through, all the hard work you’ve done at the county level, congressional district level, and state level will be nullified by a few Party Elites at their discretion alone. No longer will the grassroots choose who represents them.

Morton Blackwell and his Virginia delegation are leading the charge to fight this power grab.

We need you, especially if you are a delegate in Tampa, to call the Rules Committee to stop this takeover of the party.

The top men at the RNC and Team Romney are not going to give up their effort to centralize the delegate process and turn our bottom-up efforts upside down. It is up to you, the grassroots, to stop them.

Do not let all the hard work we’ve done since 2009 go to waste. Stand up for our democracy right now.

In Liberty,

Edited August 28, 2012 by JohnC

[Guest HvyMtl]

Not surprised. Doing this to his own party, makes one wonder what he will do if he gets into Office.

[RobertNashville]

It's the Republican party and the party's rules...they can change them when the see fit to change them.

Perhaps I misunderstand but doesn't this all stem back to states where the electorate voted for Romney but certain delegates (i.e. Paulbots) don't want to nominate Romney and, therefore, are willing to, or at least say they are wiling to ignore how the electorate voted?

[JohnC]

It's the Republican party and the party's rules...they can change them when the see fit to change them.

Perhaps I misunderstand but doesn't this all stem back to states where the electorate voted for Romney but certain delegates (i.e. Paulbots) don't want to nominate Romney and, therefore, are willing to, or at least say they are wiling to ignore how the electorate voted?

Rule 12 is a threat to all grassroots activists. If this rule goes through, all the hard work you’ve done at the county level, congressional district level, and state level will be nullified by a few Party Elites at their discretion alone. No longer will the grassroots choose who represents them.

This is more about our choices, not RP.

[RobertNashville]

It would seem to me that the best way for grassroots organizations to make a difference is to run and support great candidates???

I don't know that the rules, as they currently exist have done anything for the grassroots organizations like the Tea Party have they? The party elite will always do whatever they have to do to retain control - the only way I see to end that control is for the voters to elect the candidates they want in office regardless of what the party elite want.

I still think, based on what I know of this, that the motivation to change the rules is in response to the shenanigans some of the Paulbots were trying to pull.

Edited August 28, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Guest Lester Weevils]

A lot more than paulbots are mad about this. Limbaugh ain't a paulbot and he's hot about it, The theological conservatives are also hot about it. They think it is RINOs locking out conservatives from platform decisions and other party biz. Non-RINOs are expected to vote and contribute money but only RINOs and Neocons should be seen in public or make decisions. Wonder why the RNC even needs primaries? That only opens opportunities for things to go wrong when the ignorant un-washed might vote the "wrong" candidate. Better for an elite committee of wise RINOs and Neocons to select the "right" candidate. They always know best.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[JohnC]

A lot more than paulbots are mad about this. Limbaugh ain't a paulbot and he's hot about it, The theological conservatives are also hot about it. They think it is RINOs locking out conservatives from platform decisions and other party biz. Non-RINOs are expected to vote and contribute money but only RINOs and Neocons should be seen in public or make decisions. Wonder why the RNC even needs primaries? That only opens opportunities for things to go wrong when the ignorant un-washed might vote the "wrong" candidate. Better for an elite committee of wise RINOs and Neocons to select the "right" candidate. They always know best.

What he said^

[RobertNashville]

A lot more than paulbots are mad about this. Limbaugh ain't a paulbot and he's hot about it, The theological conservatives are also hot about it. They think it is RINOs locking out conservatives from platform decisions and other party biz. Non-RINOs are expected to vote and keep sendig money, but only RINOs and Neocons can be seen in public or make decisions. Wonder why the RNC even needs primaries? That only opens opportunities for things to go wrong when the ignorant un-washed might vote the "wrong" candidate. Better for an elite committee of wise RINOs and Neocons to select the "right" candidate. They always know best.

Maybe my memory is shot but to the best of my knowledge, if a majority of voters in a presidential primary pick a candidate, there aren't any rules that is going to keep that candidate from getting the nomination; which is as it should be.

The answer to the "elite" is to run and vote in good candidates; short of doing that, there are no rule changes that are going to matter.

[JohnC]

Looks like the RNC Elites followed Pelosi's advice! Congrats to all the Progressive Republicans!

http://www.freedomworks.org/press-releases/freedomworks-statement-on-changes-to-rules-12-and

"Republicans, take back your party so the elections don't matter so much." - Nancy Pelosi

Edited August 28, 2012 by JohnC

[RobertNashville]

I'm not interested in propaganda - I've looked at the rule change and I see nothing wrong with what they seek to do. This is not about making elections not matter, in fact it's the exact opposite.

Delegates should be absolutely required to vote the way the primary goes but some, mostly Paulbots, think they should keep promoting their "man" and ignore the electorate of their state.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I'm not interested in propaganda - I've looked at the rule change and I see nothing wrong with what they seek to do. This is not about making elections not matter, in fact it's the exact opposite.

Delegates should be absolutely required to vote the way the primary goes but some, mostly Paulbots, think they should keep promoting their "man" and ignore the electorate of their state.

So for instance if Maine election law says different, it should be up to the RNC wise RINO's rather than the voters in Maine, to decide who gets sent to the conventions?

Edited August 28, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[RobertNashville]

So for instance if Maine election law says different, it should be up to the RNC wise RINO's rather than the voters in Maine, to decide who gets sent to the conventions?

Labels like RINO's aside, it should be up to the party to decide how that party runs its nomination process and convention.

[JohnC]

I'm not interested in propaganda - I've looked at the rule change and I see nothing wrong with what they seek to do. This is not about making elections not matter, in fact it's the exact opposite.

Delegates should be absolutely required to vote the way the primary goes but some, mostly Paulbots, think they should keep promoting their "man" and ignore the electorate of their state.

You obviously refuse to acknowledge all the ramifications of this decision by the Elitists at the RNC.

The rule allows the RNC to amend the party's rules without a vote by the full Republican National Convention. And it offers the Republican Establishment a new tool to keep at b[a]y Tea Party initiatives that threaten to embarrass or contradict party leadership and stray from a planned message.

The ramifications for grassroots activist and state GOP’s are vast. This rule change would allow a candidate to select his or her own delegates, essentially the nominee would get to choose those who nominate him instead of the states. This proposed rule change is starting to sound more like an Obama executive order.

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jimhoft/urgent-action-needed-rnc-is-pushing-to-eliminate-g

Please turn off your Paul-Bot bias filter and look at this as a grassroots freedom of choice issue.

Otherwise, carry on in your own ignorance.

No disrespect meant, honestly.

[JohnC]

So for instance if Maine election law says different, it should be up to the RNC wise RINO's rather than the voters in Maine, to decide who gets sent to the conventions?

He doesn't get it. All he can see are Paul-Bots and the awesome RNC.

Edited August 29, 2012 by JohnC

[RobertNashville]

You obviously refuse to acknowledge all the ramifications of this decision by the Elitists at the RNC.

Please turn off your Paul-Bot bias filter and look at this as a grassroots freedom of choice issue.

Otherwise, carry on in your own ignorance.

No disrespect meant, honestly.

So, I'm operating in "my own ignorance" but you mean no disrespect? I can't help but wonder what you would have said if you did mean to be disrespectful.

I've read the rule changes; I don't see this as some horrible impediment to grassroots movements - I understand just fine, I simply don't agree with you.

Edited August 28, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Labels like RINO's aside, it should be up to the party to decide how that party runs its nomination process and convention.

Soooo, when a candidate gets half + 1 of delegates, including the states that won't ever vote republican in the main event-- Maybe that candidate wants a party platform item of "nuke iran" however half or more of the duely elected delegates are opposed to a "nuke iran" platform item. Because the winning candidate gets to pick the delegates, he gets 100 percent support for a "nuke iran" platform item though it would likely have failed had the actual elected delegates been allowed to attend?

OK, lets consider another thing that happens once in awhile-- Say there are 6 candidates and the 'winning' candidate only got 30 percent of delegates. Does this 30 percenter get to pick a unanimous rubber stamp for his platform? In cases like this, often in convention the 30 percenter might get overturned and replaced by alliances of other delegates, giving a final alliance higher than the 30 percenter. If the "winner" gets to pick delegates, then the will of the people would be short-circuited.

[RobertNashville]

Soooo, when a candidate gets half + 1 of delegates, including the states that won't ever vote republican in the main event-- Maybe that candidate wants a party platform item of "nuke iran" however half or more of the duely elected delegates are opposed to a "nuke iran" platform item. Because the winning candidate gets to pick the delegates, he gets 100 percent support for a "nuke iran" platform item though it would likely have failed had the actual elected delegates been allowed to attend?

OK, lets consider another thing that happens once in awhile-- Say there are 6 candidates and the 'winning' candidate only got 30 percent of delegates. Does this 30 percenter get to pick a unanimous rubber stamp for his platform? In cases like this, often in convention the 30 percenter might get overturned and replaced by alliances of other delegates, giving a final alliance higher than the 30 percenter. If the "winner" gets to pick delegates, then the will of the people would be short-circuited.

How about we dispense with the hypotheticals and just consider that a political party should be able to control its own operation as it sees fit???

[Sam1]

+1, this thing about risking the country's wellbeing because of a principle of a few people is retarded.

Basically what is happening is a group of few is convinced their ideals are the only thing that is correct and proper in this world, and while they say that it is all about freedom of choice and belief, if you do not align with their ideas, then you are wrong and you should be ashamed of having an opinion.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Maybe, Like Sarah Palin hinted to, the other day, it's coming closer to the time when the Conservatives left the Republican Party

and started their own. It's not without precedence. Yeh, Lester, I heard Rush get mad about it today, too. If the GOP wishes to

rid itself of the main ingredient of what gave them a majority in 2010, that time is near. It's a progressive powere grab.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

How about we dispense with the hypotheticals and just consider that a political party should be able to control its own operation as it sees fit???

Robert, the GOP doesn't want much of anything to do with sharing power with Tea Party activism. That's all this is about. It may well be the end of

the GOP. I don't have a problem with that. But you are right to say they can do what they want, as we are right to walk away from this power crap.

When a political party of whatever flavor chooses power over ideology, they become dangerous, regardless of which side they are on.

[kieefer]

Disappointing no doubt. Mark Levin explained it and was also pissed.

As always it's going to take time to change the way things are.

[Oh Shoot]

Robert, the GOP doesn't want much of anything to do with sharing power with Tea Party activism. That's all this is about. It may well be the end of

the GOP. I don't have a problem with that. But you are right to say they can do what they want, as we are right to walk away from this power crap....

I've said over and over that the Tea Party would just be diluted and ultimately impotent within the GOP, would have to become a real third party to have any chance of changing anything.

- OS

[plank white]

[kieefer]

Yeah Plank, when GJ or RP gets 50% of the majority vote, we will be getting somewhere.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I've said over and over that the Tea Party would just be diluted and ultimately impotent within the GOP, would have to become a real third party to have any chance of changing anything.

- OS

Yes, you did, and it is drawing closer to that time, methinks. when people like Palin, Limbaugh, Levin and others get a tad irate at the process,

things are about to happen. The progressives may be drawing to an end. Sad that one may have to be elected to accomplish that.