• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Romney's "RNC Power Grab": What Really Happened

Schweddy

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,938
Reaction score
8,396
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Romney's "RNC Power Grab": What Really Happened | FreedomWorks

Yesterday, the Republican National Committee in Tampa adopted some rules changes that shift power from the state parties and the grassroots to the RNC and the GOP presidential nominee. Former Governor John Sununu of New Hampshire touted the new rules as providing “a strong governing framework” for the party over the next four years. But in fact the new rules should be very troubling and disappointing to conservative grassroots activists, because they move the national Republican Party away from being a decentralized, bottom-up party toward becoming a centralized, top-down party.

The Romney rules effectively disenfranchise grassroots delegates, and will thus tend to weaken and splinter the party over time. They specifically represent a blow to the Tea Party and the Ron Paul insurgency -- movements that have sprung up precisely because Washington insiders (of both parties) have abandoned the traditional bedrock principles of the Republican party, namely, economic freedom, fiscal common sense, and smaller, constitutionally limited government. Indeed, these vibrant new movements (which have attracted many young people, politically active citizens, and non-Republicans) represent what could fairly be characterized as "the Republican wing of the Republican party." They want a real voice in the Grand Old Party. They've played by the rules. But the power brokers have now changed the rules, in order to shut them out. This unexpected hostility forces grassroots conservatives to reconsider their future within the GOP.
Click to expand...

This blog is pretty much spot on and a good read. Even the teleprompter had the outcome of the 'votes'.
The current party leaders are in for a rude awakening in 2 years once they realize that elected leaders at the local level are grassroots old school Ron Paul Republicans that will again play by the rules and maybe even make their own.
 
Last edited:
vauge said:
Romney's "RNC Power Grab": What Really Happened | FreedomWorks



This blog is pretty much spot on and a good read. Even the teleprompter had the outcome of the 'votes'.
The current party leaders are in for a rude awakening in 2 years once they realize that elected leaders at the local level are grassroots old school Ron Paul Republicans that will again play by the rules and maybe even make their own.
Click to expand...

Maybe, and this is just me, but maybe, the Pauligans and Tea Partiers should be more worried about getting people to actually agree with their positions and gain power and influence that way, rather than worrying whether a delegate(who is an insider by definition) can vote for them. If Paul or Bachmann, representing the two groups, had gotten the votes from the people, they would not have had this problem.
 
Redress said:
Maybe, and this is just me, but maybe, the Pauligans and Tea Partiers should be more worried about getting people to actually agree with their positions and gain power and influence that way, rather than worrying whether a delegate(who is an insider by definition) can vote for them. If Paul or Bachmann, representing the two groups, had gotten the votes from the people, they would not have had this problem.
Click to expand...
You don't get it. I'm guessing you believe the system works and is honest. The problem is very deep. It was written in the cards that Romney was the nominee long ago. They made it happen and not in an honest way. There were plenty that voted, but again there was also quite a bit of shenanigans going on. I firmly believe this.

What happened with changing rules is not uncommon or illegal, but it is what it is. The blatant direct screwing of grass roots Republicans is unprecedented and pathetic. In two years, the new folks (grass roots) that will be in charge will be making the rules. That will either be better or worse, time will tell. But the party we know today has lost its way and losing ground fast.
 
Isn't this how both parties function? Do whatever is needed so whoever is 'in charge' at the time consolidates their power. Nothing new, the whole thing is insane. But what is worse is how the two parties ensure they are the only two parties that can put someone in power.

I'd really like to see all the people in solid blue or red states, that are in the minority thus their vote 'doesn't count', all get together and vote 3rd party. Really send some shockwaves. But it will never happen.
 
vauge said:
You don't get it. I'm guessing you believe the system works and is honest. The problem is very deep. It was written in the cards that Romney was the nominee long ago. They made it happen and not in an honest way. There were plenty that voted, but again there was also quite a bit of shenanigans going on. I firmly believe this.

What happened with changing rules is not uncommon or illegal, but it is what it is. The blatant direct screwing of grass roots Republicans is unprecedented and pathetic. In two years, the new folks (grass roots) that will be in charge will be making the rules. That will either be better or worse, time will tell. But the party we know today has lost its way and losing ground fast.
Click to expand...

I am having a hard time understanding how ensuring delegates vote for who they are bound to is some big draconian measure. It ensures that, like this year, the people chosen by the republican base are the one who actually is the nominee.
 
vauge said:
Romney's "RNC Power Grab": What Really Happened | FreedomWorks

This blog is pretty much spot on and a good read. Even the teleprompter had the outcome of the 'votes'.
The current party leaders are in for a rude awakening in 2 years once they realize that elected leaders at the local level are grassroots old school Ron Paul Republicans that will again play by the rules and maybe even make their own.
Click to expand...

If this rule change requires that delegates vote for the candidate their constituents voted for (I'm thinking that's the major change), then I'm all for it. I was always amazed that delegates, only by custom, voted for that person. That's the way it should be.
 
MaggieD said:
If this rule change requires that delegates vote for the candidate their constituents voted for (I'm thinking that's the major change), then I'm all for it. I was always amazed that delegates, only by custom, voted for that person. That's the way it should be.
Click to expand...
The issue is that they can change the rules at any time. Therefore next time around they can change how the delegates vote on the fly. Which then leads to commercializing our delegates.

Not a good thing.
 
Redress said:
I am having a hard time understanding how ensuring delegates vote for who they are bound to is some big draconian measure. It ensures that, like this year, the people chosen by the republican base are the one who actually is the nominee.
Click to expand...

Its about platform concessions and policy control. The concede their delegates to get things they want. The establishment decide to say screw that. Which is exactly why the establishment has been getting primaried whenever possible---power is their game, not governance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom