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 4 5 6

Palin on Levin’s radio show right now.

bluefox on August 28, 2012 at 7:36 PM

The GOPe is using our fear of an Obama second term to purge rules/people/power from the grassroots and centralize at the top.

This is what happens when you have the attitude that you MUST WIN AT ALL COSTS.

Then you get the classic pyrrhic victory: a squishy moderate in the White House who will in the end tarnish and destroy the GOP in the end.

Romney needs to stop the Obamaesque/HugoChavez activity NOW before it alienates further the Base.

Fools.

A Convention of squishes and mods it is.

KirknBurker on August 28, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Guess what folks – no one will care in a few days if more than a handful care right now.

The facts are that delegates should belong to the winner of the caucus or primary or in the precentage based upon their standing.

And astoneri – please try and figure out what wavelength you want to try and use. Because you are moving form channel to channel so fast it is impossible to make sense of your arguments. You don’t like Romney – I get it. You don’t want to vote for him because he is an affront to your political beliefs. Check. So you are trying to manufacture something to justify your feelings. WE all do that.

This has nothing to do about federalism, or the direct election of senators – which by the way I don’t care for much, I happen to agree with you, that allowed the leviathon state to grow. You have votes and caucus and there are winners. This is an over-reaction to the Paulistas creating trouble and circumventing the vote in their states. Thats what it is. I would prefer a solution on delegates must be bound if there is a way to do that. But this is all about that – nothing else. Palin, Rush. MM and Levin can scream from the mountain tops all they want. This is a manufactured crisis that will have no impact on election day.

Zomcon JEM on August 28, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Because if the GOP thinks they can win elections without the tea party and socons – they are dreaming.

Zomcon JEM on August 28, 2012 at 7:41 PM

So, the odds of a third party bid just jumped by a lot, I’d say. And the odds of the TEA Party forming it’s own party by 2014 just ballooned as well.

Buckshot Bill on August 28, 2012 at 4:53 PM

I hope so. Because we really need an alternative of Constitutional governance to Totalitarian governance.

KirknBurker on August 28, 2012 at 7:42 PM

bluefox on August 28, 2012 at 7:36 PM

There’s going to be fallout.

Also, I found that Ginsburg did work on Bush v. Gore. He also worked on the Coleman/Franken debacle in MN. That has to be why Hillyer called him: (the longtime, over-respected lawyer who specializes in screwing up election-law battles). A MN paper had this quote from a video of a speech he gave in 2006:

Just like, really, with the Voting Rights Act, Republicans have some fundamental philosophical difficulties with the whole notion of Equal Protection.

Odd statement to make when he words for the GOPE.

INC on August 28, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Zomcon JEM on August 28, 2012 at 7:40 PM

That’s not all this was about.

INC on August 28, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Terrye on August 28, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Wrong Terrye.

Ron Paul was no danger to anyone.

This is Romney’s Reichstag moment or excuse to seize power and centralize things so there is no chance of a rebellion against him in 2016.

This now means only one thing: Romney intends to govern down the middle or even somewhat to the left of center, and knows he will be challenged on the right by the Rand Pauls and Scott Walkers of the Party if he continues the big government policies.

KirknBurker on August 28, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Just like, really, with the Voting Rights Act, Republicans have some fundamental philosophical difficulties with the whole notion of Equal Protection.

Odd statement to make when he words for the GOPE.

INC on August 28, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Why? You don’t agree with him?

Guess what folks – no one will care in a few days if more than a handful care right now.

The facts are that delegates should belong to the winner of the caucus or primary or in the precentage based upon their standing.

And astoneri – please try and figure out what wavelength you want to try and use. Because you are moving form channel to channel so fast it is impossible to make sense of your arguments. You don’t like Romney – I get it. You don’t want to vote for him because he is an affront to your political beliefs. Check. So you are trying to manufacture something to justify your feelings. WE all do that.

This has nothing to do about federalism, or the direct election of senators – which by the way I don’t care for much, I happen to agree with you, that allowed the leviathon state to grow. You have votes and caucus and there are winners. This is an over-reaction to the Paulistas creating trouble and circumventing the vote in their states. Thats what it is. I would prefer a solution on delegates must be bound if there is a way to do that. But this is all about that – nothing else. Palin, Rush. MM and Levin can scream from the mountain tops all they want. This is a manufactured crisis that will have no impact on election day.

Zomcon JEM on August 28, 2012 at 7:40 PM

I’m still amazed people are trying to sell that as an “establishment power grab”.

joana on August 28, 2012 at 8:12 PM

This is Romney’s Reichstag moment or excuse to seize power and centralize things so there is no chance of a rebellion against him in 2016.

This now means only one thing: Romney intends to govern down the middle or even somewhat to the left of center, and knows he will be challenged on the right by the Rand Pauls and Scott Walkers of the Party if he continues the big government policies.

KirknBurker on August 28, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Really?

Why would he approve a rule that takes the power out of the party officials and establishment and basically assures that the nominate will be the candidate most voted by the base in the primary and caucus?

Can you please explain this to me? Without insults or deflections. Just answer that simple question.

joana on August 28, 2012 at 8:13 PM

INC – I guess we will just have to agree to disagree – I will never put it past some insiders wanting to smooth things for the presidential nominee – let’s face it, there are aspects of “I just want the power, even in the minority” so I can get my way in this as well. Just because Rush can be off in this area doesn’t mean he cannot be on. His Bob Michel bits on the minority house leader when the GOP was in the wilderness are classic. I have been to Washington and talked to even allegedly conservative reps, and they are just somewhere else.

Romney over-reacted (and by this I mean his people), there is surely some power playing going on (I am not that naive), and the Paulistas wanted to make some trouble (by pulling delegates away from their state caucus or primary results).

I still think we should blow it all up – but unfortunately I know I don’t have many takers outside of the fair posters of this site!

Zomcon JEM on August 28, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Zomcon JEM on August 28, 2012 at 8:13 PM

I’ve been reading about this for two days. It was beyond insiders wanting to smooth things over. Long time GOP delegates considered it an unprecedented power grab. It’s being blamed on the RPs, but there was a lot more to it. You think Romney couldn’t have reined his people in if he had wanted to do so? Please. This entire scenario was bad from beginning to end. The avid Mitt supporters here at HA has misrepresented what actually went on.

John Fund at The Corner:

The GOP Grassroots and Establishment Clash Again, over Rules

Unfortunately he doesn’t say if this quote is from yesterday or today. It does show why no matter what advantage for the GOPe in 2016, this was a stupid political move for 2012:

“This move clearly shows how detached the party leaders are from their own party, let alone the Tea Party,” Tom Zawistowski, president of the grassroots Ohio Liberty Coalition, told me. He told GOP leaders in writing that passage of the new rules would “severely damage the efforts that our members will make to help win Ohio for the Republican ticket. In fact, I will go as far as to say that it will immediately cost you 5,000 volunteers for your Election Day Task Force project. The party keeps betting that we will support you know matter what you do to us. You lost that bet in 2008.”

INC on August 28, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Who is an insider is often a tricky question, to be fair. Just because someone sits in an office doesn’t necessarily mean they are an insider.

Had a colleague who worked in the Florida House described it well. He said, you’d look at a vote. And when the vote was called for, some people would stand up, and a moment later, a bunch of other people would stand up. Those people who stood up first… they were the insiders.

In no way shape or form are the Ron Paul people in charge of the NVGOP “insiders”. Nor are any of the AK people, or the ME people.

But it certainly is a step in the right direction.

JohnGalt23 on August 28, 2012 at 6:01 PM

I get it.

Insiders/establishment/etc are the people who disagree with you ideologically.

Those words have become an insult with no proper meaning.

It’s just a red herring kooks of all strips like to parrot.

joana on August 28, 2012 at 8:23 PM

let’s face it, there are aspects of “I just want the power, even in the minority” so I can get my way in this as well.

“Let’s face it?”

That wasn’t it at all. That you say this indicates you haven’t yet read enough about it or you want to confuse the issues.

INC on August 28, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Odd statement to make when he words for the GOPE.

INC on August 28, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Glad you could research that. I had heard last evening that Ginsberg was the RINO go to Atty. From what we know at this point, the RNC/Romney/GOPe/Rove are all involved in this power grab.

Wanting to see the polls in a few days. Of course it’s hard to find one that is legit:-)

We’re surrounded by crooks, LOL

bluefox on August 28, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Because if the GOP thinks they can win elections without the tea party and socons – they are dreaming.

Zomcon JEM on August 28, 2012 at 7:41 PM

They will probably just crown themself as Napoleon did, LOL

Why bother with all of these non-essentials:-)

bluefox on August 28, 2012 at 8:27 PM

INC on August 28, 2012 at 8:21 PM

You keep saying it’s bad. We all know some people made a big fuss out of it – Paulistas started making noise and a few others joined them (because they have a Pavlovian reaction to buzzwords like “establishment”). What you don’t do is to explain why it’s bad. Your only argument is because people who you identify with “the mormon” proposed it. So, as always, you’ll oppose it.

Anyway, if you disagreed about that quote on the VRA, I have my doubts that you’re a conservative confirmed. You parrot liberal sites lines to attack conservatives all the time. Now it’s odd to be against the VRA philosophy?

joana on August 28, 2012 at 8:27 PM

That wasn’t it at all. That you say this indicates you haven’t yet read enough about it or you want to confuse the issues.

INC on August 28, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Hahaha.

That’s the go-to argument of the crazies.

They question your motives and say you didn’t read enough.

I’ve been asking for someone to explain why on earth is the proposed change bad or, bizarrely, “a power grab” and so far the explanations are zero.

I don’t think it’ll ever change.

Prediction: in four years, these same halfwits will be in favour of this proposal. Just wait.

joana on August 28, 2012 at 8:29 PM

bluefox on August 28, 2012 at 8:27 PM

This afternoon a guy tweeted this from Reagan’s Farewell Address:

“Don’t be afraid to see what you see.”

MM added:

“And speak what you see.”

INC on August 28, 2012 at 8:44 PM

joana on August 28, 2012 at 8:29 PM

You’re just a mouthpiece for Romney….

Are you on the clock?

idesign on August 28, 2012 at 8:49 PM

This is a manufactured crisis that will have no impact on election day.

Zomcon JEM on August 28, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Think again. I wrote the rules committee earlier that going forward with this would cost my vote, and I’m alone. I refuse to be used by that corrupted establishment. Let the America see BHO unleashed for 4 more and then tell us Tea Party conservatives are too extreme.

elfman on August 28, 2012 at 8:53 PM

INC on August 28, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Good advice and both seeing and speaking are necessary.

Scott Walker going to speak. He’s getting a great reception.

bluefox on August 28, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Scott Walker going to speak. He’s getting a great reception.

bluefox on August 28, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Thanks. He’s one I would like to see.

INC on August 28, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Zomcon JEM on August 28, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Think again. I wrote the rules committee earlier that going forward with this would cost my vote, and I’m alone. I refuse to be used by that corrupted establishment. Let the America see BHO unleashed for 4 more and then tell us Tea Party conservatives are too extreme.

elfman on August 28, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Thanks for taking the time to write them. What is evident is that they passed these changes proposed by and backed by Romney. This was not needed and was a WOW, unbelievable moment for me.

That they didn’t listen to the Delegates remind me of how Congress didn’t listen when I worked very hard and long against Obamacare. Complete disregard. Sad state of affairs.

bluefox on August 28, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Thanks. He’s one I would like to see.

INC on August 28, 2012 at 9:06 PM

I did some research on Gov. Sandoval and he has a great background. I wanted him to be VP, but that was before Ryan. I just hope for Ryan’s sake, he’s not being used as a throw-a-way.

bluefox on August 28, 2012 at 9:13 PM

I did some research on Gov. Sandoval and he has a great background. I wanted him to be VP, but that was before Ryan. I just hope for Ryan’s sake, he’s not being used as a throw-a-way.

bluefox on August 28, 2012 at 9:13 PM

So, you’d be okay with a pro-choice VP choice?

Had Romney picked a pro-choice VP like Sandoval and you’d be here raising hell saying it was an insult to conservatives and that we shouldn’t vote for him bla bla bla.

Transparent moby is transparent.

joana on August 28, 2012 at 9:27 PM

The GOP has betrayed you

True_King on August 28, 2012 at 9:48 PM

The GOP has betrayed you

True_King on August 28, 2012 at 9:48 PM

So it has. We are down but not out, wounded, but not dead. We will overcome.

bluefox on August 28, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Ann Romney up next..

bluefox on August 28, 2012 at 10:09 PM

Michelle Malkin has a final report on the dirty tricks used by the GOPe the stifle the grass roots.

And no, this wasn’t all about the Ron Paul people.

RNC power grab: the aftermath

There were several inspiring speeches delivered at last night’s Republican National Convention. Talk of “unity” filled the air. Many GOP leaders praised the “grass-roots.” But behind the scenes, the RNC power grab has exacerbated distrust between a diverse group of rank-and-file activists and party bosses.

I have no patience for the Republican party-bots telling these front-line soldiers to shut up in the name of unity — and to hide “in-fighting” because the Left will publicize it. It should be publicized. Conservative activists and Tea Party members have worked their asses off within the system, doing the groundwork of righting the wayward GOP ship from the inside….

I also have no patience for the sideline-sitters who gripe that rules fights are booooooring and meaningless. The Tea Party conservative activists are doing what an effective movement is supposed to be: They’ve moved on from protests and rallies to the nuts and bolts of party politics. These battles matter, because exercising grass-roots muscles makes them stronger.

Finally, I have no patience for the addled critics who think we are unable to multi-task. Yes, you can criticize bad GOP maneuvers AND maintain the fight against Obama and the progressives at the same time! It’s easy if you try.

INC on August 29, 2012 at 2:24 PM

She included information from South Carolina GOP activist Drew McKissick:

…With the Rules meeting itself, the first problem was attendance. Many, many of our supporters simply didn’t make it there do to buses that were up to an hour late to pick them up, (Morton Blackwell of Virginia had this problem). Many of them who didn’tmake it would have been additional signatures to our petition. But they started the meeting anyway…

As the meeting was going on, we were circulating our minority report petition. At one point, the male delegate from Massachusetts snatched it out of the hands ot the lady from North Dakota, refusing to give it back after repeated demands, resulting in a shoving match when the delegate from Colorado came to her defense.

After the final vote was over, according to party rules, we had one hour to file our minority reports, and, according to Rules, they have to be filed with either the committee chair, secretary, or convention secretary. Of course, after the meeting, they were no where to be found.

We continued to pick up signatures after the meeting, getting up to 24 our our Rule 12 minority report…but 4 shy of what would have been needed. Again, many people simply weren’t there. Others had their arms twisted. And others, as I learned, were simply “replaced” on the committee by their delegations.

As you heard, the two Florida delegates and one other were replaced!!!

…The downside is that all of the rest of the garbage went through, (i.e. letting the RNC change the rules between conventions, removing a March proportionality rule that will result in a massive front-loaded national primary in 4 or 8 years, forcing some caucus/convention states to bind delegates against their own rules and state law, etc..).

Worst yet, due to the RNC’s new power to change the rules, the [genie] is out of the bottle and, who knows, a proposal for candidates to have delegate veto power may yet be in our future….

The takeaway for conservatives is this: GET INVOLVED – AND STAY INVOLVED. Yes, those boring old precinct meetings matter. Going to county party meetings matters. Running for delegate matters. Who your delegates pick for Platform and Rules Committees REALLY MATTERS. Show up…support good people who can’t be bullied.

Right now we have a campaign – or many campaigns – to win this November. And conservatives should do everything they can to win. But after Election Day remember, the candidates represent the party, not the other way around.

Keep the heat on, and keep them honest. This shook people up. Keep them that way.

Thanks again for all of the support. You have no idea how much it meant.

Sincerely,
Drew McKissick
Delegate, SC

INC on August 29, 2012 at 2:29 PM

The GOP has betrayed you

True_King on August 28, 2012 at 9:48 PM

These words are true, unless, of course, their actions were unsurprising to you. You can’t be betrayed in the present by those you have learned to mistrust because of past betrayals.

INC on August 29, 2012 at 2:32 PM

MM also has:

More from Dean Clancy here and here:

That second link is titled:

Romney’s “RNC Power Grab”: What Really Happened

It’s important reading as Clancy outlines the debacle of the power grab. He put together all the details of the maneuvering and dirty tricks. This is the takeaway.

Yesterday’s fight offers a sobering glimpse of what life will be like for conservatives in a Romney Administration. It proves once again that sometimes we have to beat the Republicans before we can beat the Democrats.

INC on August 29, 2012 at 2:40 PM

I want to say this about Ron Paul so called “delegates” at the convention, who are the true inspiration of more control over who the delegates are. Ron Paul should only have the delegates he won on each primary election day, and no more.

The first thing they say is that they are being DISenfranchised.

Think about this: If you go to the convention to represent the actual voters in your state, and you intend to vote for Ron Paul instead, YOU are the one disenfranchising everyone who went to the polls on super tuesday and cast their vote for Romney.

In Massachusetts Romney won all the delegates, and yet there were Rumors that Ron Paul voters wanted to be electors so they could vote for Ron Paul. But the election was held on super tuesday and he lost.

That is the true stealing of the vote, the disenfranchisement of the intent of the majority of voters in your state that wanted Romney.

A lot of people in tea party states think this is all about them and their grass roots efforts.

I tell you a lot of the Ron Paul supporters in MA, that showed up for the delegate selection had barely cooled their heels from changing their party membership to R, some had not done it on time, and many of them looked like Elizabeth Warren supporters. No one had ever seen them work for or support a republican state or local candidate, and they could not promise to sign up to volunteer to help the local candidates that are on the republican ballot now.

And of course, some seemed conservative/libertarian and sincere.

When I heard tea party people thought this was aimed at them, I knew it was a Rumor. Probably started by the culprits.

Fleuries on August 29, 2012 at 7:38 PM

INC on August 29, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Thanks. I’ve bookmarked the links and have read some and will finish the others.

Watching Rand Paul at the moment…He’s doing great so far!

bluefox on August 29, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Fleuries on August 29, 2012 at 7:38 PM

You obviously have not read up on this to find out what actually happened.

I suggest you go to Michelle Malkin’s site.

INC on August 29, 2012 at 8:00 PM

bluefox on August 29, 2012 at 7:40 PM

You’re welcome. I’m glad MM did that aftermath report of the gory details. And they were gory.

INC on August 29, 2012 at 8:01 PM

You’re welcome. I’m glad MM did that aftermath report of the gory details. And they were gory.

INC on August 29, 2012 at 8:01 PM

I’m glad she did too. What I read of the details, were tactics too Dem like. Voices were not allowed to speak and shut down. So much for Rules. Boehner needs a hearing aid in each ear.

bluefox on August 29, 2012 at 9:48 PM

This is another site that has covered this Rule Change by Romney and Team. I’ve read this site before, but hadn’t checked it lately.

On the right side bar, the Hot now and Recent are similar.

http://markamerica.com/

I meant to read up on the articles, but my day took a different turn:-)

bluefox on August 31, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6