Romney team “optimistic” that floor fight over rules can be avoided

posted at 11:21 am on August 28, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Give the followers of Ron Paul credit for this misstep by Team Romney.  They apparently spooked the nominee’s campaign enough to provoke a floor fight over delegate control, which blew up in their face rather spectacularly yesterday.  By the end of the business day, Team Romney had retreated to a compromise proposal that seems to be gaining a little momentum, but is still far from over.  Jazz Shaw had a good analysis of the situation on Sunday, and yesterday the Texas delegation threatened to go into full rebellion:

Texans, who select their delegates through a voting process that often elevates grassroots activists, say the change is an affront to the Lone Star State.

“We believe in Texas as a principle that no presidential candidate nor the RNC should be able to tell Texas who can or cannot be a delegate to the national convention,” said Butch Davis, a Lone Star State representative on the RNC rules committee. “It’s not a plain vanilla political fight. It’s a fundamental principle that we’re arguing for.”

Davis said the battle is over fundamental freedoms and voting rights: “This isn’t Reagan versus Ford, Goldwater versus Rockefeller,” Davis said. “This is George Washington versus King George.”

“We won’t allow this control by Republican candidate to take place,” Davis added.

By yesterday evening, Romney’s team had backpedaled significantly, but perhaps not to the extent sought by the suddenly-angered delegates:

 Jim Bopp, a conservative delegate who had led the opposition to Mr. Romney’s proposed rules, issued a statement on Monday, saying he was pleased with the compromise.

“The Romney for President campaign has heard the concerns of the conservative grass-roots voices in our party and has crafted an amendment to the rules adopted on Friday to address these concerns,” Mr. Bopp said.

Under the compromise, delegates would be selected by the state and local level without interference or control by the party’s presidential candidate. That would allow competing voices inside the convention, both sides said.

But in a nod to the concerns of Mr. Romney’s campaign, delegates sent on behalf of a candidate would be required to vote to nominate that candidate on the first ballot. If they tried to vote for someone else, their vote would be recorded for the candidate to whom they were bound.

We’ll come back to the concept of “bound delegates” in a moment.  Today, BuzzFeed reports that Team Romney feels more optimistic about this controversy dissipating before a floor demonstration:

“It’s an evolving process and its going well,” Romney aide Ron Kaufman, a longtime RNC insider, told BuzzFeed Tuesday morning. …

“Everyone wants the same thing,” he said.

Romney’s goal, he said, was merely to allow the party more flexibility in changing its rules in responding the changing political circumstances, something Democrats can do now and which, he said, “gives them a political advantage.”

I understand the anger over the initial proposed rules change, but it springs from a ridiculous anachronism in the presidential nomination process in both parties: caucuses.  Primaries almost always result in bound delegates, and they also reflect the will of the voters in each state; they also don’t take days to tally from handwritten sheets.  Caucuses may allow for grassroots activism, but they also create embarrassments for the parties and the candidates, as we saw this year in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and other states.  Delegates selected in primaries represent voters of that state, while delegates selected in caucuses represent themselves.  Which is actually more valuable to the process of nominating a candidate?

Why not get rid of them altogether — and get rid of nominating conventions, too?  That’s what I argue in my column today for The Week.  Here’s the practical argument, which is that the little remaining novelty of nominating conventions has been eclipsed by the Internet for at least a decade:

In the evenings, of course, conventions feature more provocative fare — politicians giving speeches. Before the advent of the internet, this may have provided a novelty for some Americans, who otherwise would not have had an opportunity to see a potential nominee speak at length, having had to satisfy themselves instead with sound bites provided by local and national news broadcasters. Today, however, every speech given by a politician lives forever on their websites, YouTube channels, Tumblr pages, and Facebook accounts. Not only can voters watch speeches at their own pace, they can also watch commentary on the speeches, read the transcripts, and debate their meaning on social-networking platforms — all with or without a national convention.

Perhaps this is why a Rasmussen poll this week shows that most voters have little interest in the national conventions of either party. Twenty-seven percent of likely voters will watch all or most of the Republican and/or Democratic conventions; only 16 percent of independents plan to do so. The likelihood of these being previously unengaged and undecided voters is not exactly high, and even before the convention coverage starts, 35 percent of likely voters believe the media has paid too much attention to them.

Nor does a convention seem to matter that much in the outcome of the election. Gallup reviewed the last 15 presidential elections and found that the candidate leading in their poll prior to either convention won 12 of the 15 contests. The three exceptions — 1988, 1992, and 2004 — had no particular convention issue for either party that suddenly boosted or demolished a nominee.

This floor fight is another reason to get rid of caucuses and nominating conventions, unless needed when primaries don’t produce a clear winner.  We’re having a fight over whether bound delegates should vote as bound, at the same time we’re nominating the candidate who won overwhelmingly.  Voters who cast their ballots in primaries certainly expect them to vote as bound, at least on the first ballot; caucus state delegates are (mostly) not bound anyway.  All of this nonsense produces nothing but dissension, division, and uncertainty months after voters had their say, and just weeks before the general election.  That’s not a system for success for either party, nor is it a system set up to do the will of voters overall.

Each party still needs a convention to handle rules changes and the platform planks, but that doesn’t mean that the nomination has to be part of the convention, either, unless the primaries don’t produce a clear winner.  Voters mostly don’t care about the four-day pageants, nor do they make any real difference in the outcome of elections, but we spend tens of millions of dollars to stage them.  Maybe we should seriously rethink this before 2016.


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 4 5 6

Zomcon JEM on August 28, 2012 at 3:49 PM

If it was, why would MM, Levin, and Rush all say it was not?

kingsjester on August 28, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Personally not sure the reaction is worth it compared to what has been allegedly done. Do voters control the primary or do the delegates? That seems to a question. If I read Joana correctly I would assume she is arguing against her stated interest, as the Romney rule change moves against consolidated power in a small elite – albeit we all have questions about the huddle masses. Her opinion on trusting democracy is actually a very common opinion of the Founders, who with few exceptions, mistrusted the people on a rather grand scale.

I do kow that most voters in the primary believe that they are voting for a person and don’t expect their delegate to change that vote. We can argue the insider/outsider notion all you want. Rush is wrong on this one, as this will play amongst people like the tea party/Paulistas wants to take away the meaning of the vote. Not a good place to be.

Zomcon JEM on August 28, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Pretty much.

joana on August 28, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Romney Inc. will betray you…

idesign on August 28, 2012 at 2:21 PM

OH, that’s a good one!!! I like it!!

bluefox on August 28, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Obama would be thrilled to hear this. No doubt about that.

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM

This strikes me as another unforced error. Totally unnecessary.

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2012 at 3:52 PM

If it was, why would MM, Levin, and Rush all say it was not?

kingsjester on August 28, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Why don’t you explain us why they are saying it? Once for all, what are the arguments?

All they say is “herp derp establishment, grassroots, herp derp”.


Why do MM, Levin and Rush want the power to stay with the corrupt insiders at the state conventions instead of going to the grassroots and base republicans who vote in primaries and caucus?

Can someone answer this? Four pages of comments and nobody was able to do it.

joana on August 28, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Is there anywhere else other than Malkin I can get information. I am not a big fan of hers. I listened to a little bit of Rush today and the part I heard was not all that useful. But I have missed a lot of what he said about it.

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 3:41 PM

They all say the same thing.

joana on August 28, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Though I don’t believe the polls, I do know that Romney needs for a fired-up base to stay fired up. This is horrible strategy and abysmal timing.

This is disappointing, having spent the day hammering signs in the ground for the man.

hillbillyjim on August 28, 2012 at 3:55 PM

I do kow that most voters in the primary believe that they are voting for a person and don’t expect their delegate to change that vote. We can argue the insider/outsider notion all you want. Rush is wrong on this one, as this will play amongst people like the tea party/Paulistas wants to take away the meaning of the vote. Not a good place to be.

Zomcon JEM on August 28, 2012 at 2:23 PM

This is what I wondered about. People can be upset because they think it can hurt the grass roots or whatever…but the grass roots can vote in a primary system and have their delegates stay with the person they voted for…what is stopping a small group of highly organized and devoted people who are loyal to no one but their leader from taking over these caucuses and then once they vote…sticking with their guy no matter how the people feel about it?

That is a sort of power grab too. Surely, there is some compromise that can be reached that would satisfy the concerns not only of the leadership, but of the voters too.

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 3:55 PM

This strikes me as another unforced error. Totally unnecessary.

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Why was it an error?

I mean, can you explain with your own words?

So far, the only argument people have is “MM and Rush said so”.

The only argument MM and Rush make is “well, it’s an error because…erm.. wel.. because….Establishment! Let’s scream louder, the establishment is going after us!”

joana on August 28, 2012 at 3:55 PM

joana on August 28, 2012 at 3:53 PM

I told you why you’re not getting any takers, Joanna. For an answer, please use your fingers to type “michellemalkin.com”.

Of course, if you do that, then you won’t be able to call us all stupid, will you?

kingsjester on August 28, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Though I don’t believe the polls, I do know that Romney needs for a fired-up base to stay fired up. This is horrible strategy and abysmal timing.

This is disappointing, having spent the day hammering signs in the ground for the man.

hillbillyjim on August 28, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Why are you against the change of rules that Romney proposed and would put more power in the hands of the grassroots and primary voters and take it off the hands of the party insiders in the state conventions?

joana on August 28, 2012 at 3:57 PM

bluefox on August 28, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Well, I’m kind of a RINO in some ways. I also don’t agree with Malkin a lot of the time and never listen to Rush. I’ve always thought Mitt will make a good president. Yet,…here I am.:)

a capella on August 28, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Oh, I didn’t mean to say I follow in lock step. Malkin, Rush, Levin and many other Conservatives aggravate me many times.

I didn’t care for Romney. I was Palin>Perry>Gingrich. Then Romney seemed to be getting his act together and I was ok with that. Now, this Rule Change thing which has shocked me and I’m angry. Don’t know if the Rules Committee voted at 2PM today or not. Need to do some checking.

bluefox on August 28, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Obama would be thrilled to hear this. No doubt about that.

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM

You tell ‘em, Terrye! Party Unity! Except for Akin, of course. No unity there! Better for McCaskill to win than a Republican nominee who says things we don’t agree with; it’s not like she’s a bad democrat or anything.

But total party unity behind Mittens, even as he attempts to push conservatives out of the party and continues to argue in favor of the Healthcare Mandate, and even though he has a terrible record of supporting Cap and Trade and gun control and nearly every other liberal policy. Party Unity!

Buckshot Bill on August 28, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Why do MM, Levin and Rush want the power to stay with the corrupt insiders at the state conventions instead of going to the grassroots and base republicans who vote in primaries and caucus?

Can someone answer this? Four pages of comments and nobody was able to do it.

joana on August 28, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Well, I guess that unless Malkin and Rush ask this question, it does not count…people here do not trust you joana, they doubt your motives and assume that you are not sincere.

But I do think that is a good question. There were a lot of problems out there this year due to the caucus system and Ron Paul..this might not all be about Paul, but I do think that his tactics probably had a lot to do with the RNC making some of these changes.

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 3:58 PM

It’s raise a stink for no good reason. Why change the rules at all? Have a nice united convention and to get Obama out of office.

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2012 at 3:59 PM

joana…I did not mean to strike that.

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Though I don’t believe the polls, I do know that Romney needs for a fired-up base to stay fired up. This is horrible strategy and abysmal timing.

This is disappointing, having spent the day hammering signs in the ground for the man.

hillbillyjim on August 28, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Yeah, the whole thing seems hinky. I can understand the thinking on Rule 16, but, what exactly was the reason they stuck #12 in there, if not a power grab?

a capella on August 28, 2012 at 4:00 PM

It’s raise a stink for no good reason. Why change the rules at all? Have a nice united convention and to get Obama out of office.

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Excellent question, ma’am.

kingsjester on August 28, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Why are you against the change of rules that Romney proposed and would put more power in the hands of the grassroots and primary voters and take it off the hands of the party insiders in the state conventions?

joana on August 28, 2012 at 3:57 PM

You do realize that the literal definition of “grassroots” is not “people who always agree with me”, right?

Buckshot Bill on August 28, 2012 at 4:00 PM

bluefox on August 28, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Will do.

Zomcon JEM on August 28, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Good. It’s sort of complicated and not easy to explain in a sentence or two. Anything that Attorneys put together is like that:-)

bluefox on August 28, 2012 at 4:00 PM

It’s raise a stink for no good reason. Why change the rules at all? Have a nice united convention and to get Obama out of office.

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2012 at 3:59 PM

The timing may be off, but they need to get rid of the caucus system and go to primaries.

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Is now the time you want to p.o. Paulbots?

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Why do MM, Levin and Rush want the power to stay with the corrupt insiders at the state conventions instead of going to the grassroots and base republicans who vote in primaries and caucus?

Can someone answer this? Four pages of comments and nobody was able to do it.

joana on August 28, 2012 at 3:53 PM

The reason no one addressed it is that it’s based upon a false premise. The rule change would allow a nominee to select his own delegates, for Pete’s sake. How is that giving power to the base republicans?

That and the Rule 12 end-run are nothing but naked power grabs. Romney needs to think independently from his shysters.

hillbillyjim on August 28, 2012 at 4:00 PM

They all say the same thing.

joana on August 28, 2012 at 3:53 PM

It is not empowering the people. Well, unless you think mob rule is an empowerment of the people. It is taking power away from individual states which currently and since the founding have had the power to make these decisions and putting the power directly into the hands of a federal level beaurocracy that is not in any way shape or form an elected group, but a bunch of self selected establishment hacks. But you look at a tiny sliver of the entire picture and go, but they want to ensure the will of the voters and like so many progressive liberal useful idiots fall in line and praise the betters of yourself for saving you from yourself!

astonerii on August 28, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 4:00 PM

I am sure there are all sorts of things that need to be changed but like you, I question the timing.

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2012 at 4:01 PM

BB – Akin was just stupid – complete unforced error that keeps the seat with the dems. If you cannot articulate yourself without creating a unintentioned firestorm you seem to have demostrated a lack of the skills necessary to be successful.

We will see if he can rebound – but if he cannot, what a waste.

Zomcon JEM on August 28, 2012 at 4:02 PM

kingsjester on August 28, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Who are “us”? It was just you, I think.

Why don’t you simply copy paste Malkin’s explanation to my question?

Simply, because there is none. Because all that she wrote amounts to zero. It’s just hysteria and persecution complex. Paulistas started screaming “establishment” and they went after the scream because that’s what they do. They didn’t even understand the rule change being proposed.

Fact: the proposed change would give more power to the the grassroots and the base – primary voters and caucus goers – while taking it away from the establishment/insiders/party hacks – delegates to the state conventions.

Can you, Malkin or anyone else explain why is this bad?

joana on August 28, 2012 at 4:02 PM

You tell ‘em, Terrye! Party Unity! Except for Akin, of course. No unity there! Better for McCaskill to win than a Republican nominee who says things we don’t agree with; it’s not like she’s a bad democrat or anything.

But total party unity behind Mittens, even as he attempts to push conservatives out of the party and continues to argue in favor of the Healthcare Mandate, and even though he has a terrible record of supporting Cap and Trade and gun control and nearly every other liberal policy. Party Unity!

Buckshot Bill on August 28, 2012 at 3:57 PM

What the hell has this got to do with Akins? Nothing is what. Party unity my ass. I do not want to see Obama reelected..if you want to bail on Romney over this and sit home with your thumb up your ass this November..that is up to you…But I just do not happen to feel that way.

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Yeah, the whole thing seems hinky. I can understand the thinking on Rule 16, but, what exactly was the reason they stuck #12 in there, if not a power grab?

a capella on August 28, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Likely as not, they just assumed they could push it through before anyone noticed; or they thought no one would ever dare to call them on it in the first place. Either way, they’ve shown their true colors/agenda to a lot of people now.

Buckshot Bill on August 28, 2012 at 4:03 PM

I know people do not like changes like this….but it is not fair to see some guy like Ron Paul take advantage of the system and wield more power than he actually has in terms of votes.

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Best to read Malkin’s website on these Rule Changes. It’s not about Ron Paul per se. It’s about ALL Delegates & States.

bluefox on August 28, 2012 at 4:03 PM

It’s raise a stink for no good reason. Why change the rules at all? Have a nice united convention and to get Obama out of office.

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Way more disgruntled supporters than need to be, even if they get it repaired. I think there was justifiable concern about a Ronulan sideshow, but, there seems to have been some overreach. Tone deaf.

a capella on August 28, 2012 at 4:04 PM

I am sure there are all sorts of things that need to be changed but like you, I question the timing.

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2012 at 4:01 PM

I know. I wonder if they were expecting something from Ron Paul and were trying to head him off…before all of this he was being funny about releasing his delegates.

Hell if I know.

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Well, I guess that unless Malkin and Rush ask this question, it does not count…people here do not trust you joana, they doubt your motives and assume that you are not sincere.

That’s just the same half a dozen of deranged crazies and their sock-puppets.


But I do think that is a good question.
There were a lot of problems out there this year due to the caucus system and Ron Paul..this might not all be about Paul, but I do think that his tactics probably had a lot to do with the RNC making some of these changes.

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Of course.

They’ll never answer it. They’ll never explain why they suddenly want to keep the power within the establishment hacks at the state conventions.

joana on August 28, 2012 at 4:05 PM

BB – Akin was just stupid – complete unforced error that keeps the seat with the dems. If you cannot articulate yourself without creating a unintentioned firestorm you seem to have demostrated a lack of the skills necessary to be successful.

We will see if he can rebound – but if he cannot, what a waste.

Zomcon JEM on August 28, 2012 at 4:02 PM

It just seems odd to me that so many people can demand Party Unity behind Romney, on the grounds that the primaries are over and he won, as a way to shut up any and all criticism of Romney; while at the same time they have totally abandoned an elected Senate nominee because of a gaffe (regardless of how stupid it was to say). This is all just totally inconsistent within itself; it bugs me.

Buckshot Bill on August 28, 2012 at 4:07 PM

I am sure there are all sorts of things that need to be changed but like you, I question the timing.

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2012 at 4:01 PM

What would be your timing? The next national convention? Wouldn’t that be just as bad if not worse?

joana on August 28, 2012 at 4:07 PM

a capella on August 28, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Hasn’t Rep. Paul said that he is done? Just yesterday I was reading that they (Romney and Ryan) were trying to play nice and get as many of his followers on board. Add that to how this will be portrayed in the media and it just doesn’t make sense to me.

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2012 at 4:07 PM

bluefox on August 28, 2012 at 3:31 PM

I have to admit, I have heard so many contradictory things about all of this, that I honestly do not know exactly what to think.

But I do agree with Ed, the caucus system is an anachronism and it creates a lot of problems.

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 3:40 PM

I know the whole thing is confusing and that’s because they are trying to change at least 3 different rules and then changed #15 to #16. I don’t even know what the latest is myself:-) Going to Malkin’s site in a few.

I’ve been against Caucus States ever since 2007. Found out today that the States can change that and go to just Primaries & should in my opinion.

bluefox on August 28, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Best to read Malkin’s website on these Rule Changes. It’s not about Ron Paul per se. It’s about ALL Delegates & States.

bluefox on August 28, 2012 at 4:03 PM

I mentioned this earlier, but I stopped reading or even paying much attention to Malkin during Katrina. That is some time ago. She put Spike Lee to shame during that whole debacle. She bought into a lot of what the Democrats were saying and came up with some crazy Bush hating claims of her own. I just lost faith in her at that point. I felt that much of what she was saying was false and I have not paid attention to her since then.

So. No.I doubt that I will go read Malkin.

I just want the facts…not her telling of them.

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Of course.

They’ll never answer it. They’ll never explain why they suddenly want to keep the power within the establishment hacks at the state conventions.

joana on August 28, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Keep beating that dead horse.

If there’s a problem at the state level, then fix it at the state level, and not in the national glare of the convention spotlight.

hillbillyjim on August 28, 2012 at 4:08 PM

The timing may be off, but they need to get rid of the caucus system and go to primaries.

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 4:00 PM

I agree with this, but only if the primaries are all held on the same day, or in large batches. There’s no point in changing the system, if the nominee is still going to be decided months before some states hold their primaries.

Buckshot Bill on August 28, 2012 at 4:09 PM

bluefox on August 28, 2012 at 4:07 PM

I wish all the states would go the primaries. CLOSED PRIMARIES!

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Hasn’t Rep. Paul said that he is done? Just yesterday I was reading that they (Romney and Ryan) were trying to play nice and get as many of his followers on board. Add that to how this will be portrayed in the media and it just doesn’t make sense to me.

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2012 at 4:07 PM

He is not running again, but he has not said what he is doing now..in this convention. I do not trust him.

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 4:10 PM

It just seems odd to me that so many people can demand Party Unity behind Romney, on the grounds that the primaries are over and he won, as a way to shut up any and all criticism of Romney; while at the same time they have totally abandoned an elected Senate nominee because of a gaffe (regardless of how stupid it was to say). This is all just totally inconsistent within itself; it bugs me.

Buckshot Bill on August 28, 2012 at 4:07 PM

You’re probably the biggest cry baby I ever met on the internet. And in my life. Man up, maybe?

If Romney commits a gaffe so unbelievably horrifying that instantly makes him unelectable, leads to more than half of the Republican electorate to want him to quit the race and Obama to ask him to keep running, then I’ll be all in favour of abandoning him. Just like Akin.

joana on August 28, 2012 at 4:10 PM

I just want the facts…not her telling of them.

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 4:08 PM

I think this is one of those situations where the facts vary from person to person.

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2012 at 4:11 PM

I do not trust him.

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 4:10 PM

He’s given plenty of reason not to.

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2012 at 4:12 PM

I wish all the states would go the primaries. CLOSED PRIMARIES!

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2012 at 4:10 PM

We have a primary system here in Indiana, but we do not register as a member of a party.In other words, we can go in and vote in one primary..but when the election comes of course we can vote how we like..we are not constrained by party. It has always been that way here. My understanding is the states makes these rules.

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Keep beating that dead horse.

If there’s a problem at the state level, then fix it at the state level, and not in the national glare of the convention spotlight.

hillbillyjim on August 28, 2012 at 4:08 PM

What? The RNC rules are set by the RNC. How could it be differently?

The RNC isn’t telling the state parties how they should rule on the process of picking their delegates to the state conventions. They’re ruling on the process of certifying delegates to their own, national, convention.

That’s more obfuscation and disinformation.

There is a problem and it needs to be addressed. You people were played like a fiddle by the Paul crowd. Proof: none of you has been able to defend the current status quo that allows party insiders and Paulists at the state conventions to overturn the will of the people.

joana on August 28, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Yep. Depending on your political ideology.

kingsjester on August 28, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 4:12 PM

I believe that is how it is in Virginia (when last I lived and voted here) but that allows shenanigans but unopposed incumbents. Supposedly as in the case of Missouri. In Florida you have to be a registered member of the party to vote in the primary. Unaffiliated voters either make a commitment or shut up about their options.

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2012 at 4:15 PM

I think this is one of those situations where the facts vary from person to person.

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2012 at 4:11 PM

That seems to be the case. People have their particular perspectives..and the problem I have with people like Malkin is that her point of view is such that if a cry went forth from Paul or anyone that the evil establishment was in the process of a power grab…she would start screaming about Rinos. I know this is true before she even says anything.

So sometimes.I would just like to know what is happening without getting a lot of hyperbole in the process.

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 4:15 PM

asteroni – sorry, I guess I need to correct you on something – you are blending all sorts of stuff into things that never were or have been.

The Founders opinion of political parties was negative – they hated them and hoped to avoid factions. Of course, as we all know people are going to line up around a position and others against it. James Madison, one of the Founders most worried about factions, created the dem-rep party. Whatever.

This is a politcal party nominating process – there is nothing regarding the constitution or federalism involved here. It is merely deciding who will run for president. Delegates are only referenced in the Constitution regarding the electoral college and are determined by the state. End of story.

This appears probably to be an overreaction to a planned active dissident group to vote against the wishes of their body politic. Not sure how smart that is. Yes, Rush and MM can be wrong just like I can be. Rush knows media as does MM. But when I talk arcane political goings ons from an election perspective Rush and MM aren’t the leading authorities. In fact their track record on that subject isn’t much better than anyone else posting here.

I’m not a Mittbot – I had high hopes for Perry based upon the way he governed Texas – but he looked like a dear in the headlights in the campaign so I had to look elsewhere. There is no great GOP candidate out there. The use of arcane procedural rules to make him look weak at the convention doesn’t impress me. And this is what this appears to be all about.

Zomcon JEM on August 28, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Political parties can’t force states to adopt voter registration by party.

joana on August 28, 2012 at 4:16 PM

If Romney commits a gaffe so unbelievably horrifying that instantly makes him unelectable, leads to more than half of the Republican electorate to want him to quit the race and Obama to ask him to keep running, then I’ll be all in favour of abandoning him. Just like Akin.

joana on August 28, 2012 at 4:10 PM

You aren’t even mad about what is going on with the convention right now, nor that Romney spent the weekend bragging about his continued support for Government mandated healthcare. He could jump parties at this point, and you’d be here making excuses for him.

Buckshot Bill on August 28, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Can you, Malkin or anyone else explain why is this bad?

joana on August 28, 2012 at 4:02 PM

I’m only putting up a single response to you because I think it will fall on deaf ears. The fact is Rule 12 will place control over delegate rules to a portion of a national committee (not the grass roots) and essentially allow them to do as they please with delegates. As such, why do you support such a rule?

Furthermore, why should kingjester or anyone else be expected to spoon feed you the information? They provided a source go read it. Red State, among plenty of others, has stuff on it too and here is a post by Limbaugh since you asked. You can also look up the minority reports etc. If you disagree, I don’t really care just go read and do some work yourself instead of demanding everyone else do it for you.

batter on August 28, 2012 at 4:17 PM

There is a problem and it needs to be addressed. You people were played like a fiddle by the Paul crowd. Proof: none of you has been able to defend the current status quo that allows party insiders and Paulists at the state conventions to overturn the will of the people.

joana on August 28, 2012 at 4:13 PM

And this cannot be fixed at the local and state level?

hillbillyjim on August 28, 2012 at 4:17 PM

I am curious who tipped off the “insiders” on this one though.

Zomcon JEM on August 28, 2012 at 4:18 PM

This is a politcal party nominating process – there is nothing regarding the constitution or federalism involved here. It is merely deciding who will run for president. Delegates are only referenced in the Constitution regarding the electoral college and are determined by the state. End of story.

This appears probably to be an overreaction to a planned active dissident group to vote against the wishes of their body politic. Not sure how smart that is. Yes, Rush and MM can be wrong just like I can be. Rush knows media as does MM. But when I talk arcane political goings ons from an election perspective Rush and MM aren’t the leading authorities. In fact their track record on that subject isn’t much better than anyone else posting here.

I’m not a Mittbot – I had high hopes for Perry based upon the way he governed Texas – but he looked like a dear in the headlights in the campaign so I had to look elsewhere. There is no great GOP candidate out there. The use of arcane procedural rules to make him look weak at the convention doesn’t impress me. And this is what this appears to be all about.

Zomcon JEM on August 28, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Excellent comment.

joana on August 28, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Texas is rebelling. Floor fight. Oh sh!t.

steebo77 on August 28, 2012 at 4:18 PM

I believe that is how it is in Virginia (when last I lived and voted here) but that allows shenanigans but unopposed incumbents. Supposedly as in the case of Missouri. In Florida you have to be a registered member of the party to vote in the primary. Unaffiliated voters either make a commitment or shut up about their options.

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2012 at 4:15 PM

One thing about Indiana..maybe it is hoosiers and their lack of imagination but we have not had a lot of problems associated with the primaries..Missouri always seems to have some kind of drama.

We did have problems here in Indiana when the DNC got caught doing some stuff in Indlps. and the man running it got in some legal trouble over it. But that was because they were over registering people.

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Floor fight on CSPAN…

idesign on August 28, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Why would Romney want to start this war with the base? Shaking my head.

bluefox on August 28, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Like most Rinos, he views the conservative base as his real enemy. The conservatives/TEA Party are trying to replace the Rinos, whereas the Dems can win all the elections they want and the Rinos aren’t really any worse off politically. They see fighting the Conservatives as battle for their own survival within the party.

Buckshot Bill on August 28, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Your explanation makes sense as I certainly understand the agenda of the RINOS. Perot said there wasn’t a dimes worth of difference between the two:-)

I just didn’t expect this power grab now before the General Election.

One would almost think he’s throwing the election…..

bluefox on August 28, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Some floor fight. It’s already over.

steebo77 on August 28, 2012 at 4:20 PM

And this cannot be fixed at the local and state level?

hillbillyjim on August 28, 2012 at 4:17 PM

So far it has not happened that way, perhaps because the people who control it at the state level like the status quo.

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 4:20 PM

And this cannot be fixed at the local and state level?

hillbillyjim on August 28, 2012 at 4:17 PM

How? First, do you really expect the Paulistas and establishment hacks who control the state parties and conventions to change the rules in order to give more power to the grassroots? Second, why shouldn’t the NRC dictate the rules to certify its own delegates? It’s not like they’re telling the state parties how to elect delegates to the state conventions, is it?

joana on August 28, 2012 at 4:21 PM

I have finally found the right comparison I think.

This move by delegates to disavow their state vote results reminds me most of the EU not accepting a voting result and either threatening the voters to redo it – or to just ignore the vote and do what they want anyway.

Zomcon JEM on August 28, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Those partisan hacks at the state conventions are insiders by definition. Supporting candidate X or Y doesn’t change that.

joana on August 28, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Really? Ron Paul supporters who were at the IA and MN conventions are now “insiders”?

We had a saying around Philly… that one doesn’t pass the giggle test.

You’re arguments are pathetic. Perhaps we could direct you to a nice blog about sewing. Or cats. They tell me cats are popular.

JohnGalt23 on August 28, 2012 at 4:22 PM

There is a problem and it needs to be addressed. You people were played like a fiddle by the Paul crowd. Proof: none of you has been able to defend the current status quo that allows party insiders and Paulists at the state conventions to overturn the will of the people.

joana on August 28, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Feel free to show me where the top down approach of allowing a federal level group of people to solve it better than the closer to the people groups.

The state conventions are controlled by those closer to the people. In the state than the RNC is. They have more accountability there. They have the ability to try things that might work better. They have the ability to make better changes for the more local people than the far off distant RNC establishment can.

But who are you kidding? You are a die hard Romneybot that can never find anything wrong with anything he does or has done in his life. You are not looking for an answer, you are just trying to get a tiny bit of doubt put into those who are not willing to actually look at the changes and see the truth you are trying to hide.

So answer the question. Who is going to be held more accountable by the people. The RNC at the national level or the individual state republicans? Who is more likely to represent the will of the people?

astonerii on August 28, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Your explanation makes sense as I certainly understand the agenda of the RINOS. Perot said there wasn’t a dimes worth of difference between the two:-)

I just didn’t expect this power grab now before the General Election.

One would almost think he’s throwing the election…..

bluefox on August 28, 2012 at 4:19 PM

This was probably supposed to be the big consolation prize if he loses in November.

Oh well, at least we screwed those conservatives over!

Buckshot Bill on August 28, 2012 at 4:23 PM

How? First, do you really expect the Paulistas and establishment hacks who control the state parties and conventions to change the rules in order to give more power to the grassroots? Second, why shouldn’t the NRC dictate the rules to certify its own delegates? It’s not like they’re telling the state parties how to elect delegates to the state conventions, is it?

joana on August 28, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Do you really expect the national group of far less accountable insider hacks to do so?

astonerii on August 28, 2012 at 4:24 PM

batter on August 28, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Gaaa! Wish the was an edit feature here…I forgot to mention Levin is on it too and screwed up and didn’t add the second portion of Limbaugh on this.

batter on August 28, 2012 at 4:24 PM

So far it has not happened that way, perhaps because the people who control it at the state level like the status quo.

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Compared to the elites in DC? LOL

idesign on August 28, 2012 at 4:24 PM

The more I learn about you Ronulan’s the more I respect and fear you guys. You kind of remind me of Adolph Hitler’s Nazi Party circa 1933. Half of your fellow Ronulan’s are probably only 2 bong hit’s away from a suicide kool-aid pool party and the other half actually scare me.

SWalker on August 28, 2012 at 3:44 PM

I’d invoke Godwin, but I don’t think you can do so when the argument is question is a backhanded compliment.

JohnGalt23 on August 28, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Y

our explanation makes sense as I certainly understand the agenda of the RINOS. Perot said there wasn’t a dimes worth of difference between the two:-)

I just didn’t expect this power grab now before the General Election.

One would almost think he’s throwing the election…..

bluefox on August 28, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Do you consider Ron Paul a conservative? He is a libertarian..these rules have nothing to do with whether or not the delegate is a conservative or a RINO or a libertarian…the point is that a small group of people who do not reflect the will of the people can use the current rules to take over delegations. That much I know because I have seen it happen.

I would think that conservatives would want the voters to have more say in this system than they currently do. Maybe this is not the time, but I do think some changes need to be made.And I do not trust Malkin to tell the unvarnished truth about this. She has an agenda just like so many other people do.

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 4:24 PM

I guess I spoke to soon.

steebo77 on August 28, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Update 2:50pm Eastern…The Rules Committee just voted 78-14 to accept the Romney-approved deal on Rules 15(16) and 12. There is now an effort to gather enough signatures to force a floor vote on the minority report. 25 percent of committee members are needed.
Apparently, the Virginia delegation was stuck on a bus and didn’t make it in time for the vote.

Update 3:34pm Eastern Dissidents have until 3:47pm Eastern to gather enough signatures to force the floor vote, according to right-leaning Examiner’s Tim Carney, who is on scene. Left-leaning BuzzFeed’s Zeke Miller, also on scene, says it appears dissidents have gathered enough signatures for minority report on Rule 12, but not yet on Rule 15(16).

idesign on August 28, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Thanks so much for this info and update. Wow, so replacing 3 of those Rules Committee members paid off for Romney & Team. This is a game changer.

bluefox on August 28, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Is now the time you want to p.o. Paulbots?

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2012 at 4:00 PM

The answer to that question is “No. now is precisely the wrong time to piss off Paulbots”.

JohnGalt23 on August 28, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Now it’s over. Onto the platform.

steebo77 on August 28, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Really? Ron Paul supporters who were at the IA and MN conventions are now “insiders”?

We had a saying around Philly… that one doesn’t pass the giggle test.

You’re arguments are pathetic. Perhaps we could direct you to a nice blog about sewing. Or cats. They tell me cats are popular.

JohnGalt23 on August 28, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Yes, yes, we all know your point of view that party insiders aren’t really party insiders as long as they support Ron Paul. I mean, Paulistas are in control of the party structures in IA or NV, but they aren’t insiders. Why? Because they’re “paulistas”. That’s a great logic: one can argue that the party insiders are only those who support other candidates. Never those who support mine.

We know that peculiar reasoning of yours.

You don’t expect anyone to take it seriously though, do you? I mean, c’mon… “state party convention delegates, state party committeemen, county party executive… all a bunch of insiders… oh, except if they support the candidate I like. In that case, they’re pure outsiders“.

joana on August 28, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Do you consider Ron Paul a conservative?

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Do you consider Willard Romney a conservative?

idesign on August 28, 2012 at 4:28 PM

So far it has not happened that way, perhaps because the people who control it at the state level like the status quo.

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Compared to the elites in DC? LOL

idesign on August 28, 2012 at 4:24 PM

As compared to the voters. Remember them? No one seems to care about that. This is about whether a state machine can control the outcome by stacking the deck on a local level as much as it is about some power grab by the feds.

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 4:28 PM

I have finally found the right comparison I think.

This move by delegates to disavow their state vote results reminds me most of the EU not accepting a voting result and either threatening the voters to redo it – or to just ignore the vote and do what they want anyway.

Zomcon JEM on August 28, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Yeps.

But hey, to Malkin, Rush and the rest, that’s actually the grassroots fighting the establishment.

joana on August 28, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Floor fight on CSPAN…

idesign on August 28, 2012 at 4:18 PM

That didn’t take long. Voice vote only? LOL.

a capella on August 28, 2012 at 4:29 PM

The Ronulans really need to grow up.

Arssanguinus on August 28, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Do you consider Ron Paul a conservative?

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Do you consider Willard Romney a conservative?

idesign on August 28, 2012 at 4:28 PM

He is more of a conservative than Ron Paul..and btw, if people wanted someone more conservative they should have found and supported an electable conservative candidate. Rather than failing to do come up with an alternative and then just endlessly whining about Romney and always looking for some reason to threaten to sit out the election. It is childish.

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Do you consider Willard Romney a conservative?

idesign on August 28, 2012 at 4:28 PM

I believe Willard considers himself to be a progressive, if memory serves.

Buckshot Bill on August 28, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Do you really expect the national group of far less accountable insider hacks to do so?

astonerii on August 28, 2012 at 4:24 PM

No. I expect that as long as we have primaries the respect of the will of those who voted in the primaries (and caucuses).

This question is this simple.

Paulistas hate that thought – for obvious reasons – so they started screaming, a bit nonsensically “establishment! Grassroots!” and suddenly people start marching behind them without even questioning what were they doing.

joana on August 28, 2012 at 4:32 PM

I mean, Paulistas are in control of the party structures in IA or NV, but they aren’t insiders. Why? Because they’re “paulistas”. That’s a great logic: one can argue that the party insiders are only those who support other candidates. Never those who support mine.

We know that peculiar reasoning of yours.

You don’t expect anyone to take it seriously though, do you? I mean, c’mon… “state party convention delegates, state party committeemen, county party executive… all a bunch of insiders… oh, except if they support the candidate I like. In that case, they’re pure outsiders“.

joana on August 28, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Yes. The Paulestinians who took over the Nevada party are so much insiders, that the Romney campaign set up it’s own alternative to the NVGOP.

So inside, they have to do battle with the GOP’s own nominee.

Once gain, pathetic. Try needlepoint blogs. Or there’s always cats.

JohnGalt23 on August 28, 2012 at 4:33 PM

This move by delegates to disavow their state vote results reminds me most of the EU not accepting a voting result and either threatening the voters to redo it – or to just ignore the vote and do what they want anyway.

Zomcon JEM on August 28, 2012 at 4:22 PM

I have to admit, I was shocked when people started doing that..it was as if they were looking at the people who had trusted them and said Suckers. They need to make it plain to people who they do and do not support…right from the git go.

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Paulistas hate that thought – for obvious reasons – so they started screaming, a bit nonsensically “establishment! Grassroots!” and suddenly people start marching behind them without even questioning what were they doing.

joana on August 28, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Okay. Now the Paulestinans are so insider, they’ve tricked Malkin and Limbaugh into “marching behind them”.

Needlepoint. Definitely needlepoint. Cats would provide a little too much stimulation for ya.

JohnGalt23 on August 28, 2012 at 4:34 PM

I believe Willard considers himself to be a progressive, if memory serves.

Buckshot Bill on August 28, 2012 at 4:31 PM

No, he does not. That was taken way out of context.

However,when Ron Paul took the side of Assange and Bradley Manning…when he referred to 911 as blowback…when he said we should legalize drugs..he was not speaking as a conservative. The man has never pretended to be a conservative.

Romney is a center right politician and he is the man who is going to be running against Obama…that would be Barack Obama..remember him?

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 4:38 PM

It’s not like they’re telling the state parties how to elect delegates to the state conventions, is it?

joana on August 28, 2012 at 4:21 PM

What the hell difference will it make with the new rules in place?

hillbillyjim on August 28, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Okay. Now the Paulestinans are so insider, they’ve tricked Malkin and Limbaugh into “marching behind them”.

Needlepoint. Definitely needlepoint. Cats would provide a little too much stimulation for ya.

JohnGalt23 on August 28, 2012 at 4:34 PM

That is not that hard to do…in fact, if the Paulbots yell loud enough, they get a lot of people who distrustful of the party establishment to go along with them.

Malkin and Limbaugh both have a following of people who tend to question move such as this no matter what the reasoning behind it. They smell a rat and then they go with that.

It happens. They tend to go off the deep end from time to time.

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 4:41 PM

I still don’t think Romney needed to be worried about this – but perhaps someone in his group felt it was a threat – just goes to show how paranoid everyone is right now.

Dumb move by Romney reacting – silly temper tantrum by the Paulistas to drive a wedge. We all lose!

Isn’t politics fun!!

Can we blow them all up from every party and start over?

Zomcon JEM on August 28, 2012 at 4:42 PM

What the hell difference will it make with the new rules in place?

hillbillyjim on August 28, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Do the new rules say that it does not matter how people vote or who they vote for? Do they actually say that…or does Malkin say they say something like that?

I am not being facetious.

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 4:42 PM

What the hell difference will it make with the new rules in place?

hillbillyjim on August 28, 2012 at 4:38 PM

What?

The rule has no impact whatsoever in the way state parties conduct their business. Zero. If they want to pick the delegates to the state conventions in this or that way, they can.

What they can’t do is to have those partisan hacks overturning the will of the Republican base.

joana on August 28, 2012 at 4:43 PM

bluefox on August 28, 2012 at 4:07 PM

I wish all the states would go the primaries. CLOSED PRIMARIES!

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Now that’s GOLD right there!! I have been ranting about Caucus States and Open Primaries for several years. Probably 2007:-)

This early voting, mail ins, same day register & vote, Caucus all just invite fraud.

bluefox on August 28, 2012 at 4:43 PM

What?

The rule has no impact whatsoever in the way state parties conduct their business. Zero. If they want to pick the delegates to the state conventions in this or that way, they can.

What they can’t do is to have those partisan hacks overturning the will of the Republican base.

joana on August 28, 2012 at 4:43 PM

RIF.

hillbillyjim on August 28, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Once gain, pathetic. Try needlepoint blogs. Or there’s always cats.

JohnGalt23 on August 28, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Is this really necessary?

Can you explain to us why party insiders are party insiders except if they support Ron Paul? I mean, a party committeeman in some precinct, county or state party is an insider… unless he or she supports Ron Paul.

Can you clarify this stance of yours?

I mean, can a Huckabee supporter claim the same thing about Christian Right party insiders? And so on?

joana on August 28, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Update: 4:34pm Eastern Well, that was…something else. First, Maine delegates were replaced with Romney people. Then, rules chairman John Sununu and GOP Speaker of the House John Boehner stood on stage at the RNC to rule on the compromise rules report. No minority report was mentioned. When asked for yeas and nays on the report, the room seemed equally divided. Boehner forged ahead and approved the report over loud boos and calls of “point of order” from activists on the floor.
No vote on the minority report.

FW’s Dean Clancy observes: “If @SpeakerBoehner had been wielding the Speaker’s gavel instead of the GOP convention gavel, he wouldn’t have gotten away with that trick.”
And the show went on…

GOP Rep. Marsha Blackburn just declared that “this has been a great exercise in grass-roots” and that GOP stands for “Great Opportunity Party.”

What a load of crap….

idesign on August 28, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6