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:
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: « Previous 1 2 3
Yes. Now please tell us why you believe she was telling the truth when she said those words. And why you are desperately bending over backwards to give her and O’bama the benefit of the doubt in this matter, when we know you would have never done had this tragedy happened on Bush and Rice’s Watch.
But before doing so, please remember that many folks here on the Right Side of the blogosphere confirmed last fall that when she said those words, youtube’s own records (the view count for the video) showed that hardly anyone had viewed that “evil video” at the time she Lied about it on TV. You are familiar with the mechanics of youtube view counts, aren’t you?
F-
Del Dolemonte on May 7, 2013 at 5:33 PM
verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 5:29 PM
You’re a sad figure for typing that comment. If you don’t know it, you can’t be helped.
I told you immediately after it happened what was behind it. Amb. Stevens should have been in the bunker of the main embassy, in Tripoli, that day. It’s the MO of all major embassies, on such days. All else went sour from there and is a huuuuuge cover up, to keep Obama in power.
It’s very sad that you, of all the trolls, are as insane as all the others on this topic.
Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 5:33 PM
Paul Mirengoff at Power Line:
Del Dolemonte on May 7, 2013 at 5:36 PM
Media, most of you, suffocate from consuming Obama’s shit. It ain’t Beluga caviar and you all deserve to be depleted of oxygen over such dereliction of duty.
Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 5:37 PM
Why, you are already here. Your histrionics continues to amuse. You aren’t interested in a genuine investigation. You’re a pathetic little hack with your head so far up Obama’s azz it’s comical. Oh, and who is going to lead a genuine investigations? The democrats? The State Dept? The media? ROFLMAO!!!!! Your pathetic attempts to chastise commenters here who want the truth are a laugh riot.
Now phuck off and go back to blowing your Obama doll.
HumpBot Salvation on May 7, 2013 at 5:37 PM
Petraeus should burn in Hell on Earth, and then some.
Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 5:37 PM
verbie you lost your 2% of credibility on this thread. You are now the same as all the others, sadly.
Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 5:38 PM
Obama, McCain and Rubio were fully pushing the Libya invasion.
Obama owns Benghazi.
Hillary owns Benghazi.
Benghazi proved, without a shred of doubt, that Hillary is as dumb at 3:00a.m., when the phone rings, as is Obama.
Obama flew to Vegas to campaing, the next day, after he’d gone to sleep after being told the embassy was on fire.
Some caring characters they are.
Most derelict are the parents of Amb. Stevens. Were they not so leftist they’d have pushed for answers before the election. How derelict are they?
Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 5:41 PM
verbie, you’re needed on the Sheila Jackson Lee thread.
Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 5:44 PM
Yeah sorry no. Based on the various revisions to the “talking points” out there, it’s pretty clear they were edited in a way that made it possible to push the patently false youtube video narrative, i.e. removed all references to AQ, Ansar al-Sharia, weapons and militants in Libya. To say their later statements reflect what they got from the CIA … lol.
rightmind on May 7, 2013 at 5:45 PM
You’re lying, verbaluce.
blink on May 7, 2013 at 5:57 PM
And as I offered back then, a valid point to question why Stevens wasn’t more secure…or provided with more security.
(And thanks…but I’ll leave you to whatever i going on re: Shelia Jackson.)
verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 6:01 PM
Yea…everyone’s lying.
/sarc
verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 6:02 PM
You clearly lied. You falsely claimed that they didn’t knowingly provide false information.
Even the admin itself is now admitting that it knowingly provided false information (while justifying it by saying that they were protecting classified info).
You just decided to blatantly lie.
blink on May 7, 2013 at 6:07 PM
Benghazi Embassy:
The official told story, as of now seems to be falling apart at a fast and ferocious paced. Just thinking about some things that may not mean anything but here goes!
Looking back to the internet posting of 11-13 September 2012, there are literally 10,000′s posting stating in one manner or another that Sam Bacile and his film caused the riots that caused the deaths. Then almost nothing until he is arrested and gets 1 year in federal prison for parole violation. Then nothing after that he seems to completely disappear of the grid. There seems to be some indication that he may be out and under Federal protection but nothing provable.
The internet acts fast BUT 10,000′s postings all pointing to a film, with in 24 hrs, look a lot more like a mass mailing then news and opinion reporting. There is very limited evidence of any sustainability of outrage.
Next thing I fine most interesting is: If all this was outrage caused by the film, then why is the film still available on Youtube and no one in the world cares anymore?
Just all seems a bit strained of ones imagination.
jpcpt03 on May 7, 2013 at 6:23 PM
Nope. Go back and read the thread.
Um, it would bother me if ANY Commander-in-Chief did it. I was and still am bothered about what was said in the lead up to the Iraq War.
Um, it means that he was NOT acting as a Commander-in-Chief should when the first Ambassador in 33 years has gone missing – he wasn’t told until the following morning that Stevens had died even though it was known before then.
Why would any President not be concerned enough to about a missing Ambassador and an attack on the Benghazi consulate? Why would he NOT being in touch with the Secretary of Defence?
And, we deserve the TRUTH about it.
A sitting American President lied to the American public, his fellow citizens, for political reasons about a terrorist attack and, therefore, was actually covering up the real reason behind the attack: Islamists militants and Al Qaeda in a country that he decided to destabilise by acting militarily without the consent of Congress and during an election when his narrative that ‘GM is alive, OBL is dead, and AQ is on the run.’
See Bob Scheiffer and Salon mag, to name two, about that.
Resist We Much on May 7, 2013 at 6:37 PM
What genuine investigation?
The Mullins-Pickering investigation that failed to interview Hillary Clinton?
The one that would not allow – think how Orwellian that is – Congress access to the survivors and went so far as to change the names of them in their own medical records?
The one that didn’t interview the people on the ground?
The one where the Obama administration said ‘No comment pending the report of the ARB’ and then started squawking that ‘Benghazi happened a long time ago. We need to move on…’?
Resist We Much on May 7, 2013 at 6:54 PM
Nice attempt at lowering expectations.
J/K Verbie, that was actually a pathetic attempt.
JusDreamin on May 7, 2013 at 7:15 PM
ted c on May 7, 2013 at 7:17 PM
I have known a number of federal agents. Up to a point, most feds just do as they are told and they have good days and bad and weak sisters (excuse the sexism) in different jobs.
As indicated above, the entire video and spontaneous protest meme was absurd from the start. So the obvious question is who was selling it or ordering people to include it in the narrative?
It certainly lived long enough. It was publicly cited by the two Dem POTUS candidates in statements. Money was spent on TV ads in Pakistan.
Repeat, slowly…“money was spent on TV ads in Pakistan”.
LOL
And these people control nuclear weapons and a billion rounds of ammo in DHS!
IlikedAUH2O on May 7, 2013 at 7:20 PM
So I see not Bret hair, or bill o idiot is talking about the whistleblowers.mwell there you have it. No big deal mova along
Conservative4ev on May 7, 2013 at 8:04 PM
Pretty sure the sign on Obama’s desk reads, “The Buck Stops …. uhhhh, in the Bush Administration.”
There Goes the Neighborhood on May 8, 2013 at 12:23 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3