Texas delegates planning floor mutiny over RNC rules changes

[warrior1]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/texas-delegates-planning-floor-mutiny-over-rnc-rules-225837647.html



TAMPA--On Monday morning, at a meeting of more than 100 Texan delegates and alternates at the Saddlebrook Resort 20 miles north of Tampa, one topic got the crowd more fired up than any other. Delegate Melinda Fredricks read aloud a letter condemning recent changes to the national Republican party's rules that would allow the GOP presidential candidate to veto and replace state delegates.

"Our delegates are in shock that such an amendment even would be presented before the Rules Committee much less passed into rule," Fredricks said. "Please know from the Texas delegation standpoint that the only way a floor fight can be avoided is for this rule to be stricken."

snip

[muntrv]

1. I'll have a large butter popcorn.

[mysuzuki2]

7. As long as you're going to the concession stand.

pick me up a box of raisonettes, wouldja?

[JDPriestly]

22. May I join you, please? K&R for the OP for just plain hilarious.

[a geek named Bob]

27. It's not all that often

You see the republicans fracture like this...

Where are the chips and the salsa?

[Marr]

2. Good for them-- that's a bullshit rule,

and clearly meant to insulate the party establishment from the people they claim to represent.

[leftyohiolib]

3. bs rule it may be but they would have done this anyway. the only ones the establishment cares about

is themselves.

[WCGreen]

4. Yep..

That's the stuff that revolutions are made of...

[UnrepentantLiberal]

41. It's a cynical slap in the face.

From the article:

The changes, which Mitt Romney's top lawyer put forward last week and Gov. Haley Barbour along with some other Romney supporters have embraced, are seen by opponents as intended to significantly weaken the power of grassroots politics and insurgent candidates such as Ron Paul. Many against the move worry that it would give national candidates the power to replace delegates--often grassroots party faithfuls--with big-time donors or friends.

[Raine]

5. In the end I bet nary a peep will be heard from them, IMO it will fizzle totally out. nt

[ashling]

6. Hey Texas GOPers

stick to yer guns no matter how much GOP blood has to be spilt.

Hey, I know how to show 'em: Y'all be sure and stay home in November ... or, better yet, go vote for the Black guy. That'll show 'em!

[Saokymo]

29. We'll go Green before we go Blue

But that's still enough to sink Romney -- without this state's 32 electoral votes, he will never be able to win the election.

[FSogol]

8. LOL

[frylock]

9. so what night is this happening..

think i might have a few folks over.

[Canuckistanian]

10. The Paulbots are pissed, too

They amassed a boatload of delegates, and the new rule doesn't allow all for those hard-fought delegates to be seated.

[nc4bo]

17. Tweety interviewed one this morning...

He an older fellow, red hot po'd.

I hope they go for it along with a not so happy Herman Cain.

Really wouldn't mind a front row seat to the RNCDome.

[klook]

26. Texas Death Cage Match! (n/t)

[LongTomH]

28. ROTFLMAO

[nc4bo]

35. LOL! nt

[RB TexLa]

11. That's a good rule. If the conventions were actual conventions where things were fought over and

decided then they would have a point. But they're a showcase for the parties nominees and just because some nutjob got enough votes to get some delegates doesn't mean they should have to risk people getting out of line. They didn't win, the nominee did.

[Ruby the Liberal]

21. So you think its a good idea to not seat elected delegates

and allow the party insiders to micromanage and control the nominating vote?

Shocking.

(Not really)

[RB TexLa]

25. The nomination is done. The vote is a show. Yes I think the campaigns should be able to control

four day TV show that the conventions are now.

[yardwork]

31. What is the point of annoying allies?

From what I'm reading, Ron Paul's delegates are so angry about this they may not vote for Romney in the general election, and they'll tell all their friends and relatives not to support Romney either. How is that strategic for the Republicans?

As you say, the nomination is won. What harm would it do to Romney to have a handful of delegates supporting other candidates at his convention?

It looks to me like Romney's ego is so fragile he can't stand the idea that anybody in the convention hall isn't 100% committed to him, and it looks like the Republican Party has no discipline and can't organize their way out of a paper bag.

[Generic Other]

34. And isn't it mostly a voite for show? They back who they pledged in round one

then back the candidate in round two? Wonder if he fears a hostile takeover?

[RB TexLa]

39. They are no more going to not vote against the president than a bunch of Howard Dean delegates

kicked out of a convention would not vote against the republican. That isn't a real concern.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

40. Some are supporting Gary Johnson instead.

Which isn't really too surprising.

Paul supporters are not Republican party loyalist. They never have been, and never will be.

[Ruby the Liberal]

12. Tweety had a guy on from Oklahoma (I think)

that said he was an elected delegate, but wasn't allowed to be sat because of the rule changes, even though this article says it is for future contests.

Guy was just some guy in a crowd line, so no more information than that. Anyone know what thats all about?

[JBoy]

16. I saw that guy. He didn't explain the situation much, but it's starting to make sense.

[Le Taz Hot]

18. I think it has to do with

Paul delegates being replaced by Romney delegates in 4 states: Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon and Louisiana.

The following is a link to a Paul Bot site (if you can stomach it) but it DOES reveal how the GOP has resorted to dirty tricks (surprise!) in order to unseat the Paul delegates.

http://rt.com/news/blogs/contrarian-view/ron-paul-delegates-tampa-welcome/

I'm not sure if this is what you were referring to but I remember reading this information a couple of weeks ago.

[Ruby the Liberal]

20. Thank you kindly.

As much as I am loving this dissent, it just isn't right to screw with elected delegates. That pisses me off.

[JDPriestly]

23. If so, then the Republican establishment has basically ejected the Ron Paul people from the Party.

Surely the Paul people can't vote for Romney after this.

[Le Taz Hot]

24. It's almost sure to cause a split with

the Paul bots who could easily break away to the Libertarian Party. There's a good chance that the rest of the extremists (sans the christofascists) would follow. PLUS, the strong arm tactics by the party elites will sow some bad mojo with the rank-and-file. I'm thinkin' the GOP has FINALLY overreached here and their undoing (OK, thinning) will be self-inflicted -- as it should be.

[Le Taz Hot]

13. Read the comments.

It seems the natives are VERY restless. I'm thinking there's going to be a MAJOR backlash over this -- at least among the delegates. I don't know whether the average voter would understand/care about the importance of this power play by the GOP elite. This could get VERY interesting.

[warrior1]

14. This is Mitt's republican party

only the rich have a say. Are you happy now teaparty?

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. I love a good ole republican family squabble

[longship]

19. Food Fiiiiight!

[LongTomH]

30. K&R

[B Calm]

32. Someday they'll realize their party

has been taken over by the top 1% and they have no say.

[liberal_at_heart]

33. it's about time they did it to their own

They've already been taking our right to vote away, now they are planning on doing it to their own party. I don't know whether I should laugh at them or be really furious because this is our fundamental American right to vote we are talking about.

[spanone]

36. this will be an interesting week

[Raster]

37. Does Rinse Penis know about this?

[Chorophyll]

38. Oh please oh please oh please...

I want to see a floor fight at the RNC. I've been very good. Amen.