Romney rule change fight on convention floor?

posted at 5:01 pm on August 26, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

Zeke Miller is reporting that a set of changes to the convention rules pushed through by Mitt Romney’s 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 Party’s 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.

It’s tempting, and probably valid, to not read too terribly much into this. The main reason is that they can, and do, change the rules every four years, so nothing is ever really written in stone. It’s also somewhat understandable that the candidate – any candidate – would want to control events as much as possible and keep things flowing smoothly. By the time we get to this stage of the proceedings in an election cycle in the modern era, the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Who wants a bunch of infighting at this late date? Some of the changes could also be seen as a way to tamp down any last minute theatrics from sour grapes primary contenders.

But the idea of allowing the nominee to “vet” the delegates from each state party and essentially hand pick the most compliant is certainly disturbing. In the end, the convention is not the show for the candidate to run, but rather the time for the individual state parties to officially anoint the winner. And if they have comments to include or issues to debate, that’s their right.

We do want the process to be a time of celebration and a chance for the candidate to launch a broad introduction of themselves to the voting public. With that in mind, it’s a net positive to avoid turning it into a circular firing squad. But the process shouldn’t be so burdensome and heavy handed that it turns the entire proceeding into a complete beauty pageant. Or at least that’s how I see it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

If one threatens to go form a third party, they’ve in essence already done so.

unclesmrgol on August 26, 2012 at 6:10 PM

see: huck, paul eleventy!!!

The importance of this election is the only reason we are humoring the lunatic fringes of the party….

win or lose we need to hammer some things out.

harlekwin15 on August 26, 2012 at 6:12 PM

TrueCons don’t care about any of that. They just want to whine and moan.

wargamer6 on August 26, 2012 at 5:14 PM

You do realize that, per Gallup, that Social Conservatives still outnumber “Fiscal Conservatives”, right?

kingsjester on August 26, 2012 at 6:15 PM

No we also have our respective Senate and HoR races that are equally important for being able to hold Mitt’s feet to the fire.

Rio Linda Refugee on August 26, 2012 at 6:11 PM

You’re right, that’s where my time and money will be going.

idesign on August 26, 2012 at 6:17 PM

hoosierma on August 26, 2012 at 6:06 PM

…oh lordy…please comment more often… I recognize your name…you’re one of the sharper knives in this drawer!…don’t languish and lurk…I’m not the sharpest knife in this drawer but damn if I won’t comment!…I just get tired of the professor derailing the threads all the time and mentioned it is all.

KOOLAID2 on August 26, 2012 at 6:17 PM

You do realize that, per Gallup, that Social Conservatives still outnumber “Fiscal Conservatives”, right?

kingsjester on August 26, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Yup, and I support engaging their desires as fast as is possible on the national stage.

TRUCON forgets that the best we can hope for is to return the matter to the states…

that is why I am a FEDERALIST!

Akin telling the folks of Misery, “Hi it’s your buddy Tard and I am here to tell you vajayjays have magic shields” would be a local matter if TRUCON put his money where his mouth was.

Instead they view politics as a magic light switch to get their way using Federal power rather than devolving matters back to the state level.

The bite the apple approach has MATH! to show it builds a wider coalition.

harlekwin15 on August 26, 2012 at 6:18 PM

You do realize that, per Gallup, that Social Conservatives still outnumber “Fiscal Conservatives”, right?

kingsjester on August 26, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Where does it say that?

wargamer6 on August 26, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Camden NJ is gonna fire half its police force and sen the rest to the Sheriff’s office…..

panic sets in…..

your blue state/peu alliance at work,,,,

harlekwin15 on August 26, 2012 at 6:20 PM

KOOLAID2 on August 26, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Between the perfessor, the Dr., and the moron, nathor, all of last night wasderailed.

kingsjester on August 26, 2012 at 6:20 PM

sorry mt

harlekwin15 on August 26, 2012 at 6:20 PM

OT
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-calls-money-shortage-critical_650857.html
Barry reminds people he is running his campaign like he is running the country.

bayview on August 26, 2012 at 6:21 PM

MJBrutus on August 26, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Dear me. Sounds like someone has a Palin fixation. Such hyperbole! Where again is the real “riot”?

Suit yourself. Remove Palin. I chose her as the most prominent and appealing grassroots figure. This is disputable? But maybe somebody else will emerge by 2015. So substitute any insurgent candidate you want. The point (evidently lost on you) is that Romney clearly fears a challenge; why else would he be trying to re-write the rules and throttle the ability of states and the grassroots to mount one?

rrpjr on August 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Akin telling the folks of Misery, “Hi it’s your buddy Tard and I am here to tell you vajayjays have magic shields” would be a local matter if TRUCON put his money where his mouth was.

harlekwin15 on August 26, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Are magic shields like m@gic underwear?

idesign on August 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM

brainless Obamabot

wargamer6 on August 26, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Redundant.

tdpwells on August 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM

wargamer6 on August 26, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Americans are more than twice as likely to identify themselves as conservative rather than liberal on economic issues, 46% to 20%. The gap is narrower on social issues, but conservatives still outnumber liberals, 38% to 28%.

For the most part, Americans fall on the same ideological side on economic and social issues. Sixty-one percent are conservative, moderate, or liberal on both dimensions, with the largest percentage, 31%, conservative on both. Fifteen percent are liberal on both social and economic issues, and 15% are moderate on both.

kingsjester on August 26, 2012 at 6:24 PM

KOOLAID2 on August 26, 2012 at 6:17 PM

.
Between the perfessor, the Dr., and the moron, nathor, all of last night wasderailed.

kingsjester on August 26, 2012 at 6:20 PM

.
But it increased the comment count. : )

listens2glenn on August 26, 2012 at 6:24 PM

These rule changes are not so much about what happens next week or even this fall as they are about control of the party over the next four years, because:

As I understand it, if these rule changes are approved, then if the Republican National Committee doesn’t like any of the other rules passed in Tampa, it doesn’t have to wait four years, because with a 3/4 vote they can change things whenever they want to do so.

As I understand it, this could affect the 2016 primaries because the Committee could do as they desire.

Now if my understanding on any point is incorrect, could someone please give me the correct information?

As to the other rule change of vetting the delegates, I’m not so much concerned over some insurgent candidate as I am about the effect of this on the party platform.

IOW, these rules are about control by the GOP powers, and keeping the grass roots in line and preventing them from doing anything the establishment considers “untoward.”

INC on August 26, 2012 at 6:25 PM

michaelo on August 26, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Hear Hear !

sonnyspats1 on August 26, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Blame It On Bush

davidk on August 26, 2012 at 6:26 PM

So these are proposed changes. Phuch them Phuck that! right FIGHT ON THE FLOOR!!!!!

sonnyspats1 on August 26, 2012 at 6:26 PM

It’s easy to applaud this kind of nonsense when your guy is doing it. But let’s be honest: if a Huckabee, Murkowski, or Ron Paul type were the nominee – and one may be in the future – you’d all want this power to stay decentralized and would want to use it against what you consider a lethally flawed candidate.

abobo on August 26, 2012 at 6:27 PM

The point (evidently lost on you) is that Romney clearly fears a challenge; why else would he be trying to re-write the rules and throttle the ability of states and the grassroots to mount one?

rrpjr on August 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM

I made myself clear earlier. Romney intends to win this election. To that end, he wants to (and is succeeding quite well as your example shows) in shutting down the kooks and rogues who will tarnish the image of the party and him by association. Todd Akin is another example. We had a full primary season for all of the would-be’s to flame out. Mitt won the primaries easily and his job is now to win the general election. For those who like to shriek, “RINO,” the REPUBLICAN party voted and made Mitt their nominee and their leader. It is those who are not behind him that are out of step and thus are the real RINO’s.

MJBrutus on August 26, 2012 at 6:28 PM

kingsjester on August 26, 2012 at 6:24 PM

The problem with those numbers is that alot of moderate to liberal folks only think they’re conservative because they live in batshit off the chart far left blue states. Hell, I bet even Scott Brown fancies himself a conservative. He’d be wrong on that, not I wouldn’t support him againt fauxcahontas, but he’d still be wrong nonetheless.

abobo on August 26, 2012 at 6:30 PM

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-calls-money-shortage-critical_650857.html
Barry reminds people he is running his campaign like he is running the country.

bayview on August 26, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Don’t believe it. It’s just fundraising bullcrap to juice the numbers.

lorien1973 on August 26, 2012 at 6:31 PM

You do realize that, per Gallup, that Social Conservatives still outnumber “Fiscal Conservatives”, right?

kingsjester on August 26, 2012 at 6:15 PM

You are wrong with your claim? And was that deliberate? Read the poll.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154889/nearly-half-identify-economically-conservative.aspx

Americans are more than twice as likely to identify themselves as conservative rather than liberal on economic issues, 46% to 20%. The gap is narrower on social issues, but conservatives still outnumber liberals, 38% to 28%.

Thus, compared with the standard measure of ideology, slightly more Americans say they are economically conservative and slightly fewer say they are socially conservative. Also, significantly more Americans say they are socially liberal than identify their basic ideology as liberal.

Over the last four years, an average of 48% of Americans have said they are conservative on economic issues, including a high of 51% in May 2010. From 2001-2008, an average of 42% said they were economically conservative.

bayview on August 26, 2012 at 6:31 PM

It is those who are not behind him that are out of step and thus are the real RINO’s.

MJBrutus on August 26, 2012 at 6:28 PM

True, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have legitimate grievances.

abobo on August 26, 2012 at 6:31 PM

I think

libfreeordie on August 26, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Farenheit 9/11

libfreeordie on August 26, 2012 at 5:18 PM

No you don’t. In fact, you just misspelled “Fahrenheit”, Professor! F-

And no doubt this film will be debunked, it tends to be easy with propaganda films. Those who were inclined to believe it will say the deunking is itself bunk. People like me will probably buy into the debunking, the cycle will continue.

libfreeordie on August 26, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Just curious. Did you believe F-911 was Fact, and that the debunkings of it based on the truth (in one case, 59 different fact-based debunkings by 1 guy!) were bunk themselves? Or did you believe that Moore’s “film” was a dishonest piece of trash?

As for “2016″, I’m pretty sure it was Fact-Checked before it came out. Which explains why I could not find a single article “debunking” it doing a Google search. I found one O’bama Fluffer blogger who claimed to “debunk” the film, but when I went to his “blog” it turned out he based his “debunking” not on actually seeing the film itself, but by…watching the 3 film trailers on youtube.

F911-

Del Dolemonte on August 26, 2012 at 6:32 PM

MJBrutus on August 26, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Would you consider the Republican party platform to be the standard by which someone could be judged to be a Republican or RINO?

2012 hasn’t been officially approved, but if it is similar to the Republican platform of 2008, then it will be quite conservative.

I’ve only found one plank of the 2012 platform online. When the entire platform comes out, then we’ll see who are the Republicans and who are the RINOs.

INC on August 26, 2012 at 6:33 PM

The band was just practicing inside the convention hall, maybe they can provide some music for the delegate floor fight.

stukinIL4now on August 26, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Mitt Romney’s legal advisor, Ben Ginsburg, is behind this. It is a bad, bad thing. Shane Hart tells why:

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.

INC on August 26, 2012 at 5:11 PM

And the band played on while the Titanic hit the iceberg.

athenadelphi on August 26, 2012 at 6:34 PM

That’s why I’m squawking about the candidate vetting the delegates. He shouldn’t have that much power. There would not be a big tent, but a very narrow one.

INC on August 26, 2012 at 6:35 PM

bayview on August 26, 2012 at 6:31 PM

Thanks, Bayview.

thatsafactjack on August 26, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Between the perfessor, the Dr., and the moron, nathor, all of last night wasderailed.

kingsjester on August 26, 2012 at 6:20 PM

…as we get closer to the election…more names I’ve never seen before are popping up…and you can see whats going to happen for the next 70 days or so…and some of the veterans are the ones engaging them…when- they used to ignore them until they pulled up their zippers and went away.
The comment counts will go up quick enough when the folks here start debating…instead of the hap hazard discussions going on around the derailments! Some of the vets just leave and lurk in disgust…and the mobies and trolls win. We’re getting dumb! Save this site!

KOOLAID2 on August 26, 2012 at 6:37 PM

True, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have legitimate grievances.

abobo on August 26, 2012 at 6:31 PM

Fair enough. However, now is not the time to air them. We had our primary season and we saw all the dirty laundry. That is over and what is left is removing the occupant of the WH with whom we all have much weightier grievances. Bring up those issues again in 2013 if you still are dissatisfied.

MJBrutus on August 26, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Would you consider the Republican party platform to be the standard by which someone could be judged to be a Republican or RINO?

INC on August 26, 2012 at 6:33 PM

No, I rarely pay the least attention to party platforms and consider them to be worthless.

MJBrutus on August 26, 2012 at 6:39 PM

bayview on August 26, 2012 at 6:31 PM

The Conservative who have been labelled erroneously, Social Conservatives, are Reagan Conservatives, like myself, and MM. To simply say I’m economically Conservative, and Liberal in everything else, is to be sitting on a one-legged stool, as Ronaldus Magnus, himself, said.

The article does show that more Conservatives identify themselves as Conservative on “Social issues”, than, do not.

And, yes, the actions that they are taking at the Convention is a ploy to block “Movement Conservatism”.

kingsjester on August 26, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Keep in mind, while fringe and nuts there are Lunatics that are anything but Conservative or Republican within the GOP trying to lie and hijack Conservativism rhetoric to promote Anarchism

Posted just the other day at Anarcho-Capitalist headquarters by Ron Paul’s best friend and closest ally Lew Rockwell:

“…Ron will never endorse a fascist warmonger for prez, nor has he ever called the Republican party “our family.” Ron, who also has brilliant political skills, was able to use the (Manson) family GOP as a platform for his radical and magnificent views. I can’t imagine any other libertarian being able to get away with that, if one were even to try.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/118691.html

jp on August 26, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Some of the vets just leave and lurk in disgust…and the mobies and trolls win. We’re getting dumb! Save this site!

KOOLAID2 on August 26, 2012 at 6:37 PM

We can. However, some of the posters you and Bmore came in with, during the last Open Registration, seem to be of like mind with the Trolls, in that they wish to “modify” this Conservative website, as well.

kingsjester on August 26, 2012 at 6:42 PM

No, I rarely pay the least attention to party platforms and consider them to be worthless.

MJBrutus on August 26, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Then while we discuss the issue why don’t you go comment on another thread..:)

idesign on August 26, 2012 at 6:42 PM

That is over and what is left is removing the occupant of the WH with whom we all have much weightier grievances. Bring up those issues again in 2013 if you still are dissatisfied.

MJBrutus on August 26, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Agreed, and you better believe that I and/or we will.

abobo on August 26, 2012 at 6:43 PM

KOOLAID2 on August 26, 2012 at 6:37 PM

…right after I said it…

True, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have legitimate grievances.

abobo on August 26, 2012 at 6:31 PM

Fair enough. However, now is not the time to air them. We had our primary season and we saw all the dirty laundry. That is over and what is left is removing the occupant of the WH with whom we all have much weightier grievances. Bring up those issues again in 2013 if you still are dissatisfied.

MJBrutus on August 26, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Would you consider the Republican party platform to be the standard by which someone could be judged to be a Republican or RINO?

INC on August 26, 2012 at 6:33 PM

No, I rarely pay the least attention to party platforms and consider them to be worthless.

MJBrutus on August 26, 2012 at 6:39 PM

bayview on August 26, 2012 at 6:31 PM

The Conservative who have been labelled erroneously, Social Conservatives, are Reagan Conservatives, like myself, and MM. To simply say I’m economically Conservative, and Liberal in everything else, is to be sitting on a one-legged stool, as Ronaldus Magnus, himself, said.

The article does show that more Conservatives identify themselves as Conservative on “Social issues”, than, do not.

And, yes, the actions that they are taking at the Convention is a ploy to block “Movement Conservatism”.

kingsjester on August 26, 2012 at 6:39 PM

…here! Debating…not derailing!

KOOLAID2 on August 26, 2012 at 6:44 PM

No, I rarely pay the least attention to party platforms and consider them to be worthless.

MJBrutus on August 26, 2012 at 6:39 PM

I realize many politicians do, and I realize some of the legislative goals are highly improbable, but I consider it to be a standard and statement of defining principles and as such it serves a purpose.

INC on August 26, 2012 at 6:45 PM

To that end, he wants to (and is succeeding quite well as your example shows) in shutting down the kooks and rogues who will tarnish the image of the party and him by association. Todd Akin is another example. We had a full primary season for all of the would-be’s to flame out. Mitt won the primaries easily and his job is now to win the general election. For those who like to shriek, “RINO,” the REPUBLICAN party voted and made Mitt their nominee and their leader. It is those who are not behind him that are out of step and thus are the real RINO’s.

MJBrutus on August 26, 2012 at 6:28 PM

That’s actually a rather frightening and transparent temporization on behalf of party-boss tyranny, or tyranny in general. The “kooks and the rogues”? And who defines such people? What is the criteria? Let me help you. Who has ALWAYS defined such people and what has ALWAYS been the criteria? Ah, yes — those threatened, aka, the establishment. Isn’t this how the colonialists were described by the royalists and tories? And what was wrong with the rules that Romney himself used to acquire the nomination, “fair and square” as I’m sure you’d concede? The party leader now has the freedom to impose new rules which circumscribe the freedom of local Republican bodies? And this is in keeping with classic Republican principles how? You can’t be this naive.

And the clumsy interjection of Todd Akin is a complete straw man; he has nothing to do with this power grab.

The more I consider this, the angrier I get. Romney people have been telling the grassroots to shut up and get in line for a long time — without the slightest interruption of grace or solicitation. I’m not “behind” Romney, so stuff it with your marching orders to get in line, and your shabby (not to mention incoherent) projection about who’s the real RINO. I’ll vote for him in the greater interest of evicting Obama (a long struggle of conscience which he and his people have entirely taken for granted). But I’m not getting in line. I hope the grassroots kicks him and his Ivy league lawyers in the teeth for this power grab.

rrpjr on August 26, 2012 at 6:47 PM

jp on August 26, 2012 at 6:40 PM

What’s wrong with anarcho-capitalism?

abobo on August 26, 2012 at 6:47 PM

rrpjr on August 26, 2012 at 6:47 PM

Nicely written.

+1

kingsjester on August 26, 2012 at 6:48 PM

We can. However, some of the posters you and Bmore came in with, during the last Open Registration, seem to be of like mind with the Trolls, in that they wish to “modify” this Conservative website, as well.

kingsjester on August 26, 2012 at 6:42 PM

…ok!…well!…then we have to pull down our pants…aim it at them!…and “modify” it right back!

KOOLAID2 on August 26, 2012 at 6:48 PM

KOOLAID2 on August 26, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Point well taken.

kingsjester on August 26, 2012 at 6:50 PM

What’s wrong with anarcho-capitalism?

abobo on August 26, 2012 at 6:47 PM

its rooted in Athiesm and is Meta-Physically insane and anti-Ethical to Conservatism and Liberty

jp on August 26, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Wow, Progressive does as progressive is. Romney using the strong arm tactics of the dictators of many a country around the world. Color me surprised. Fidel Castro has 99.9% popular support! So too will Romney.

astonerii on August 26, 2012 at 6:50 PM

kingsjester on August 26, 2012 at 6:39 PM

First off, who appointed you to define what conservatism is?

And your claim of what you gathered from that poll is wrong, you should go back to the poll and read it. Any one can click on the Gallup link to find out you are throwing out fallacious claim.

From the last section of that poll:

Implications

More Americans identify as economic conservatives than as social conservatives or conservatives in general. And that tendency has increased in the last four years, perhaps due to President Obama’s economic agenda.

bayview on August 26, 2012 at 6:50 PM

And who defines such people?

rrpjr on August 26, 2012 at 6:47 PM

Yes, I know very scary. We are talking about the rules of a convention, the only purpose of which is to enhance the goal of putting our nominee in the WH. Therefore, I find it perfectly appropriate to give that nominee a free hand to orchestrate the event to suit his campaign.

MJBrutus on August 26, 2012 at 6:51 PM

rrpjr on August 26, 2012 at 6:47 PM

…there you go!

KOOLAID2 on August 26, 2012 at 6:52 PM

rrpjr on August 26, 2012 at 6:47 PM

Dude, I hate Romney’s brand of “severe conservatism” as much as any one else and don’t think people should just shut up and vote for him. But seriously dude, right now the choices are whether we will decline slowly (under Romney) or rapidly in zimbabwe fashion (under Obama). I won’t begrudge you if you make the wrong choice (staying home or going 3rd party). That’s because part of conservatism is personal responsibility and it’s Romney’s job as the candidate to win over the voters, Romney isn’t entitled to anyone’s ballot and it will his fault and his alone if fails to do so. But please do consider the consequences of your (in)action.

abobo on August 26, 2012 at 6:52 PM

First off, who appointed you to define what conservatism is?

I didn’t.

Ronald Reagan often spoke of a “three-legged stool” that undergirds true conservatism. The legs are represented by a strong defense, strong free-market economic policies and strong social values. For the stool to remain upright, it must be supported by all three legs. If you snap off even one leg, the stool collapses under its own weight.

A Republican, for instance, who is conservative on social and national defense issues but liberal on fiscal issues is not a Reagan conservative. He is a quasi-conservative socialist.

A Republican who is conservative on fiscal and social issues but liberal on national defense issues is not a Reagan conservative. He is a quasi-conservative dove.

By the same token, a Republican who is conservative on fiscal and national defense issues but liberal on social issues – such as abortion, so-called gay rights or the Second Amendment – is not a Reagan conservative. He is a socio-liberal libertarian.

Put another way: A Republican who is one part William F. Buckley Jr., one part Oliver North and one part Rachel Maddow is no true conservative. He is – well, I’m not exactly sure what he is, but it ain’t pretty.

kingsjester on August 26, 2012 at 6:53 PM

INC on August 26, 2012 at 6:25 PM

I just realized no one has yet said if my above understanding is incorrect on the proposed rule changes.

rrpjr on August 26, 2012 at 6:47 PM

Nicely written.

+1

kingsjester on August 26, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Let me add my cheers.

INC on August 26, 2012 at 6:54 PM

its rooted in Athiesm and is Meta-Physically insane and anti-Ethical to Conservatism and Liberty

jp on August 26, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Thomas Jefferson, the architect of our liberty, was rooted in atheism as well. As for metaphysical insanity – what does that even mean? Also, you seem to have blurred the line between amoral and immoral.

abobo on August 26, 2012 at 6:56 PM

kingsjester on August 26, 2012 at 6:53 PM

No one is disputing conservative social values are important. But not everyone who holds conservative social views agrees with all your social views, and that does not make he/she less of a conservative, social or otherwise, than you are. Who give you the authority to claim the whole arena of social conservatism to yourself based on your own narrow menu?

bayview on August 26, 2012 at 7:00 PM

As for metaphysical insanity – what does that even mean?

abobo on August 26, 2012 at 6:56 PM

IDK, but the phrase does seem to imply that there is some other kind of metaphysics :-)

MJBrutus on August 26, 2012 at 7:01 PM

abobo on August 26, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Jefferson was not the architect of our liberty. He was only one of some 150 to 200 principal Founders of the Republic.

INC on August 26, 2012 at 7:01 PM

INC on August 26, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Surely you would agree that some of those figures were more influential than others.

MJBrutus on August 26, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Surely you would agree that some of those figures were more influential than others.

MJBrutus on August 26, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Of course, but even of the most influential Jefferson was only one of many.

INC on August 26, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Thomas Jefferson, the architect of our liberty, was rooted in atheism as well.

Jefferson was not an Athiest, was most Definitely NOT an Anarchist or “Anarcho-Capitalist” and was not insane.

Rockwell, Paul and Lew Rockwell have not a thing in common with Thomas Jefferson.

jp on August 26, 2012 at 7:06 PM

bayview on August 26, 2012 at 7:00 PM

I haven’t. I’m just pointing out statistics. Gallup has shown that 92% believe in God, 78% proclaim Christianity.

In fact, this website was created by a Reagan Conservative, who just happens to be a Christian.

If one took a snapshot of HA on some days, as KOOLAID alluded to earlier, one might think that “Fiscal Conservatives” ruled this nation.

However, that seems to be a mostly Northeastern Corridor phenomenon.

Movement or Reagan Conservatism, is still alive and well in all of America, including the Heartland.

And, this little ploy at the Convention, will not stop it.

kingsjester on August 26, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Surely you would agree that some of those figures were more influential than others.

MJBrutus on August 26, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Regardless, even if he secretly was atheist, like so many others, it was the society that kept them well within good moral grounds. Jefferson can claim all day long that people can automatically be good without religion all he wants. Feel free to find the society that has ever done so and demonstrate that it as so. So, even as an athiest, Jefferson was still 100% in line morally with those of his Christian countrymen. Bound by and believed in the very same cultural mores as everyone else. Had he not, instead of a founder, he would have been a nobody that no one today would have ever heard of.

astonerii on August 26, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Of course, but even of the most influential Jefferson was only one of many.

INC on August 26, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Should the other be given posthumous participation ribbons? Look, we needn’t deify the founders – AND ESPECIALLY NEVER THAT RATBASTARD ALEXANDER HAMILTON!!!! Seriously am I the only man in America still gratefully to Aaron Burr for flipping his off-switch?

abobo on August 26, 2012 at 7:07 PM

I think between now and November federalist conservatives are going to have one heartbreak after another. *Pops popcorn*

libfreeordie on August 26, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Aren’t you just the cutest little thing! You say that as though you actually believe that any sentient being cares a whit about anything a mindless obot lickspittle thinks.

Well, bless your heart.

Solaratov on August 26, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Thomas Jefferson plotting with Madison on how to overtake Cuba and expand an “Empire for Liberty”

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/149.html

I would immediately erect a column on the Southernmost limit of Cuba & inscribe on it a Ne plus ultra as to us in that direction. we should then have only to include the North in our confederacy, which would be of course in the first war, and we should have such an empire for liberty as she has never surveyed since the creation: & I am persuaded no constitution was ever before so well calculated as ours for extensive empire & self government. . . .

jp on August 26, 2012 at 7:09 PM

astonerii on August 26, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Funny thing, but I didn’t claim that he was an atheist. In fact, as I understand it he believed in a form of Christianity. One that is rather different than most practiced then and today, however.

MJBrutus on August 26, 2012 at 7:09 PM

the Paul cult, lead by Lew Rockwell with Paul being the political face at best are hijacking rhetoric with the goal of replacing the Constitution and the Republic…with at Most Charitable, a return to the Articles of Confderation. Although their philosophy as Utopian and insane as it is, really wants to go alot further than that.

jp on August 26, 2012 at 7:10 PM

abobo on August 26, 2012 at 7:07 PM

My only point was that Jefferson was not the architect of our liberty.

I made no reference to anything else you mentioned.

INC on August 26, 2012 at 7:11 PM

jp on August 26, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Quoting scripture does not make one a man of faith.
ex1A: Lincoln, Abraham.
ex1B: Clinton, Bill.

astonerii on August 26, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Actually, ethnic homogeneity is FAR MORE conducive to general morality, altruism, and voluntary contribution to the public good than religion. Want proof? Just compare what the Christians in NO and south FL did after their historic hurricanes with what the largely atheist and Buddhist Japanese did after fukushima.

abobo on August 26, 2012 at 7:12 PM

King Romney… The end of the Republican party. Been fun.

astonerii on August 26, 2012 at 7:13 PM

astonerii on August 26, 2012 at 7:13 PM

You funny. Hail to Commander in Chief Romney!

MJBrutus on August 26, 2012 at 7:15 PM

As for “2016″, I’m pretty sure it was Fact-Checked before it came out. Which explains why I could not find a single article “debunking” it doing a Google search. I found one O’bama Fluffer blogger who claimed to “debunk” the film, but when I went to his “blog” it turned out he based his “debunking” not on actually seeing the film itself, but by…watching the 3 film trailers on youtube.

F911-

Del Dolemonte on August 26, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Since the movie is based on his book, The Roots of Obama’s Rage, I would think if it were going to be debunked, it would have been before the film came out.

kakypat on August 26, 2012 at 7:16 PM

Ronald Reagan often spoke of a “three-legged stool” that undergirds true conservatism. The legs are represented by a strong defense, strong free-market economic policies and strong social values. For the stool to remain upright, it must be supported by all three legs. If you snap off even one leg, the stool collapses under its own weight.

kingsjester on August 26, 2012 at 6:53 PM

RR had it exactly right!

Thank you!

kakypat on August 26, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Actually, ethnic homogeneity is FAR MORE conducive to general morality, altruism, and voluntary contribution to the public good than religion. Want proof? Just compare what the Christians in NO and south FL did after their historic hurricanes with what the largely atheist and Buddhist Japanese did after fukushima.

abobo on August 26, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Yeah, about that… The Japanese are extremely ritualistic people. Solidly confined by social mores. Remember the Japanese who suicide rather than be captured, or be seen shamed? Yeah, that does not require any faith at all. Totally an atheist thing to be doing. The work ethic… oh, there is that word, in Japan where men work so hard they fail to make families now days. They have not fully slid into the atheist mode, they know something more powerful is out there. Their religion of old may have been destroyed, but most of its teachings, from centuries long gone are still in effect. The higher powers are what make the homogeneity, not the bloodlines.

I personally no longer find this country is a moral one. Anyone who thinks that it is OK to enslave their children tomorrow for their own wants today cannot have any solid moral grounding at all. I think the socialist/communist of the last century succeeded in destroying what made this nation too powerful to ever be taken by another nation. Now it is just a waiting game until we decline far enough to be taken. From within.

astonerii on August 26, 2012 at 7:21 PM

OT:

From Bay News 9:

A Republican National Convention protestor was arrested while he allegedly carried a machete strapped to his leg, according to deputies.

According to Hillsborough County Sheriff’s officials, Jason T. Wilson, of Tallahassee, was arrested as he walked in the RNC Event Zone carrying a “full size” machete.

Via Twitchy

pambi on August 26, 2012 at 7:26 PM

@FloridaDecides #Louisiana Gov. Jindal says he’s considering skipping speaking engagement at #RNC because of #Isaac.

Flora Duh on August 26, 2012 at 7:27 PM

I personally no longer find this country is a moral one. Anyone who thinks that it is OK to enslave their children tomorrow for their own wants today cannot have any solid moral grounding at all. I think the socialist/communist of the last century succeeded in destroying what made this nation too powerful to ever be taken by another nation. Now it is just a waiting game until we decline far enough to be taken. From within.

astonerii on August 26, 2012 at 7:21 PM

I wish I didn’t agree with all you just said. Look, I’m not an atheist or promoting atheism, but religion simply isn’t the panacea that a lot of folks want it to be and think it is. What religion does is reinforce one’s inner self – whether for good, for ill, or for naught.

abobo on August 26, 2012 at 7:27 PM

According to Hillsborough County Sheriff’s officials, Jason T. Wilson, of Tallahassee, was arrested as he walked in the RNC Event Zone carrying a “full size” machete.

Via Twitchy

pambi on August 26, 2012 at 7:26 PM

How did he get that far? You can’t hide a machete under your shirt.

Flora Duh on August 26, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Do you know when he was supposed to speak?

INC on August 26, 2012 at 7:29 PM

Flora Duh on August 26, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Hi, Flora. No one could blame Jindal for being concerned and sticking close to home after Katrina.

thatsafactjack on August 26, 2012 at 7:30 PM

thatsafactjack on August 26, 2012 at 7:30 PM

I wish that he could have given his speech, but you’re right, of course. His duty is to the people of his state.

MJBrutus on August 26, 2012 at 7:32 PM

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/26/revised-rnc-convention-schedule/2/
Hug-A-Bee keeps a slot. He is to speak in prime time on Wed night, sometime between to 9 to 10 pm hour, right before Condi, Susana Martinez and then Paul Ryan.

bayview on August 26, 2012 at 7:34 PM

bayview on August 26, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Wouldn’t put it above him to personally knee ca Ryan literally within an hour of his moment in the sun. Trust huck at your own peril.

abobo on August 26, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Thomas Jefferson, the architect of our liberty, was rooted in atheism as well. As for metaphysical insanity – what does that even mean? Also, you seem to have blurred the line between amoral and immoral.

abobo on August 26, 2012 at 6:56 PM

“I, too, have made a wee little book,” Jefferson wrote in 1816 of the earlier version, “from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigm of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, this is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.”

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/aroundthemall/2011/03/thomas-jeffersons-bible-is-sent-to-the-conservation-lab/

unclesmrgol on August 26, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Establishment Whigs, all to be corrected in due time, patience.

Bmore on August 26, 2012 at 7:37 PM

unclesmrgol on August 26, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Yep. And in so doing, he excised all the accounts of miracles and magic and just preserved the words attributed to JC. Jefferson did not believe that his god intervened in the affairs of men.

MJBrutus on August 26, 2012 at 7:40 PM

unclesmrgol on August 26, 2012 at 7:37 PM

I take it you fancy Lincoln and Billy jeff Christians in good standing as well?

abobo on August 26, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Romney and the Republican establishment have been in cahoots since before the 2008 election was even finished.

They have been in control of the primary order of states frontloading friendly Romney states early, especially Mormon states. The primary timing to make it advantageous for Romney and difficult for others, especially in the Florida primary. The get on the ballot issues while working with some of the states, like Virginia. The debates, which I could do a whole thesis on why they WANTED the mainstream media to run those puppies. I bet their heavy handedness with the big money people and manipulating that process would be shocking. Fox News. Etc, etc, etc. I think they even played a part in getting some of the conservatives to run including Michelle Bachmann just to split the conservative vote. Romney has been running the party from behind the scenes since September of 2008. I am quite sure Reince Priebus was approved by Romney aswell.

I hope the Tea Party powers that be including the Paulites fight this crap with all they have. This is about 2013 and beyond. If Romney loses, the establishment must not retain their power and control over the future of the party.

People who give their money to Romney or the RNC clearly are not Tea Party or consevatives. Well…… In my opinion anyway.

KMav on August 26, 2012 at 7:50 PM

I wish that he could have given his speech, but you’re right, of course. His duty is to the people of his state.

MJBrutus on August 26, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Sure would be cool if he could send a video, made before landfall, but I’m s’posing there’s way too much to do, atm.
Darno.

pambi on August 26, 2012 at 7:52 PM

People who give their money to Romney or the RNC clearly are not Tea Party or consevatives. Well…… In my opinion anyway.

KMav on August 26, 2012 at 7:50 PM

I identify with the tea party. Romney was not my guy in the primaries, but since he won the nom I have been sending him money. I’m hoping for the best as far as how he will govern, and I know that the country can’t take another four years of the communist. I’m in realville. Obama must go.

tom daschle concerned on August 26, 2012 at 7:54 PM

kingsjester on August 26, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Then put me down as an ergonomically inclined foot rest because I’m pro-military, pro-fiscal responsibility and I split socon issues at certain points; I’m not for gay marriage, I’m not for gay couples able to adopt, but I could care less what they do in their own bedroom and if they want civil unions. I’m not for late term abortions, I’m not for government money given to Planned Parenthood or for personal healthproducts (includes both men’s viagra and women’s birth control), but I am pro-choice within 90 days and would like to see Plan B available at all pharmacies as that’s as little as 3 days. If Republicans are for personal responsibility then women have to step up and take it for themselves which means no dallying over a decision, education at the forefront, $9/month birth control if need be, and that’s that.

Everyone is screaming about Obamacare because they don’t like the limitations it places on them, their bosses, their right to choose their healthplan, etc. – well, I think MEN are finally waking up to what Pro-Choice in healthcare is, and they don’t like the restrictions.
Welcome to our 51% female world.

athenadelphi on August 26, 2012 at 7:56 PM

But let’s be honest: if a Huckabee, Murkowski, or Ron Paul type were the nominee – and one may be in the future – you’d all want this power to stay decentralized and would want to use it against what you consider a lethally flawed candidate.

abobo on August 26, 2012 at 6:27 PM

we already have a flawed candidate … however his opponent is even more
flawed and much more deeply flawed candidate … so that gives me hope …
we need to fight these rule changes … on the floor if needed …
a naked power grab …

conservative tarheel on August 26, 2012 at 8:00 PM

rpjr on August 26, 2012 at 6:47 PM

Nicely written.

+1

kingsjester on August 26, 2012 at 6:48 PM

indeed … +100 thank you

conservative tarheel on August 26, 2012 at 8:05 PM

People like me will probably buy into the debunking, the cycle will continue.

libfreeordie on August 26, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Except that someone like you will never go see the movie. Your “debunking”, therefore, won’t mean spit.

Solaratov on August 26, 2012 at 8:11 PM

tom daschle concerned on August 26, 2012 at 7:54 PM

I didn’t say Obama should win or you shouldn’t vote for Romney.

This is about 2014-2016 and control of the party. We had success when the party was kind of controlled by conservatives like Reagan, Newt, and the Tea Party in 2010. If Romney and the RNC does this, it will be just that much more likely we will get a Chris Christie or Jeb Bush shoved down our throats. I am tired of losing. Bush sr.-Dole-McCain-Romney-Christie? When does it end?

This is about if Romney loses or Romney doesn’t fulfill your “best hopes”.

As for your money, I think there are much ways to spend your money. But like I said, just my opinion.

KMav on August 26, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Akin telling the folks of Misery, “Hi it’s your buddy Tard and I am here to tell you vajayjays have magic shields” would be a local matter if TRUCON put his money where his mouth was.

harlekwin15 on August 26, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Are magic shields like m@gic underwear?

idesign on August 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM

It’s somewhere along the lines of an enchanted jockstrap.

Myron Falwell on August 26, 2012 at 8:14 PM

I identify with the tea party. Romney was not my guy in the primaries, but since he won the nom I have been sending him money. I’m hoping for the best as far as how he will govern, and I know that the country can’t take another four years of the communist. I’m in realville. Obama must go.

tom daschle concerned on August 26, 2012 at 7:54 PM

THIS.

Myron Falwell on August 26, 2012 at 8:15 PM

“Those in power usually exercise their power. Film at 11.”

Akzed on August 26, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Bigger problems……..
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/paul-says-his-backers-will-become-gop-tent

athenadelphi on August 26, 2012 at 8:41 PM

This looks like it is aimed at the Ronulans..:)

Dire Straits on August 26, 2012 at 8:45 PM

With that in mind, it’s a net positive to avoid turning it into a circular firing squad. But the process shouldn’t be so burdensome and heavy handed that it turns the entire proceeding into a complete beauty pageant. Or at least that’s how I see it.

Spot on Jazz Shaw!..I agree!..:)

Dire Straits on August 26, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3