RNC to Cull Grassroots by Changing the Rules
The new RNC recruitment slogan.
Social media is atwitter with protest from Republican delegates and grassroots activists as the Republican National Convention stands poised to vote on proposed rule changes which will fundamentally transform the process for nominating future presidential candidates. In an open letter to delegates in Tampa, Republican Liberty Caucus national chairman Dave Nalle summarizes what is at stake and urges opposition from the floor of the convention next week.
One of the cornerstones of the Grand Old Party is a belief in republicanism and the idea that power is distributed and limited by checks and balances. Those values are embodied in our Constitution and they were the basis of the Republican Party when it was founded and for most of its history. Historically this has meant that most of the power in the Republican Party has rested with the party members in the states, working as delegates through their local and state caucuses and conventions to generate policy for the party in a unique collaborative process where the voice of the people could be heard strongly.
… Now there are those in Tampa who seek to overturn this traditional structure of the party, set restrictions on the free choice of party members and introduce a new and alien process which would minimize the input of the party’s rank and file and put power in the hands of party leaders and wealthy special interests who can buy the loyalty of the mob. They have borrowed the organizing structure of the Democrats and authored rules which would cause our delegates to be bound by the votes of primary voters who may not be Republicans or share our values. They have also proposed that the presumed presidential nominee could remove our elected delegates at whim. Finally they want to remove control over the rule making process from the state parties to a small elite within the national committee of the party who can change the rules under which the party operates at any time. Without fixed rules arrived at by the consent of the rank and file of the party we [state and national delegates elected at local conventions] become pawns rather than participants in the political process.
…
I hope that all delegates in Tampa will join me in opposing this coup within the party. If you are a [delegate], please join with others in supporting the minority report and opposing these changes which will be voted on from the floor on Monday. If you are watching from home, please realize that the media is not covering this issue and reach out to any delegates you know and encourage them to stand up for the rights of the state parties and the many dedicated Republicans who took part in the grassroots process which makes our party unique and protects the interests of all of its members.
The text of the proposed rule changes is attached to Nalle’s letter. The RNC rules committee approved the changes last week. But the rules will not go into affect unless approved by the convention this week. If passed, these rules will make it significantly more difficult for minority delegations to effectively participate in the convention process.
It is worth pondering why the architects of these rule changes feel it necessary to shut out new blood. This “coup” as Nalle calls it is no doubt in response to the limited success of the Ron Paul organization in a handful of caucus states. Yet, Paul was unable to secure the plurality of delegates in fives states necessary to secure a speaking appearance at the national convention. His campaign never posed a credible threat to presumptive nominee Mitt Romney. So why act to silence such a slim minority within the party? Why not embrace their contribution and grow the party? Making the process more esoteric and inaccessible will only insulate future campaigns from the grassroots activists they need to recruit and motivate in order to succeed.
I have long maintained that the GOP and the Democrats were merely opposite sides of the same corrupt coin, the only difference being which group of self-appointed elitists would be in charge.
Nice to see I was, and am, right.
The Republican party has long been set onto the road of adopting Bolshevik style “leadership” principles. The practice of “socialism for the rich” (TARP, the Chrysler bailout, etc.) is still just another form of socialism. The proposed rule changes fit in perfectly with the mindset of the Republican party’s leadership. They are no different from the Democrats in fundamental political philosophy, they merely pander to different influence peddlers.
There’s more as well. According to Karl Dickey at examiner.com, the Romney Campaign hired lawyers to remove Gary Johnson from Iowa ballot
“The Romney campaign’s challenge was filed Friday afternoon and set for a hearing on Monday afternoon. The 106-page challenge includes photographs of Johnson supporters asking fair-goers to support having Gov. Johnson and the Libertarian Party offered as a choice on the ballot. The Republicans’ challenge claims that the state fair signatures should be thrown out because the signers are not Libertarians.”
http://www.examiner.com/article/republicans-work-to-remove-gary-johnson-from-iowa-ballot
It’s not nicknamed the Stupid Party for nothing.
What ever happened to the “Big Tent” Republican Party? Why shut out Conservatives, Teaparty/Ron Paul supporters? Why are Republican leaders calling Conservatives “Knuckledraggers”?
Why does the GOP call conservatives “knuckle draggers” and shut us out?
Because they are the right pocket of the mega-criminal global mammon complex, while the Democrats are the left.
The central bankster network controls the world.
They found out that the Tea Party was working from the ground up to take over their Party and they don’t like it. Turns out we aren’t nearly as stupid and uninformed and unable to understand their little party as they thought. Now, they’re changing the rules to shut us out before they find out they’re on the outside looking in.
It is the primary purpose and goal of power to maintain and strengthen itself. Any benefits to others is purely accidental.
I’ve read multiple stories about PaulBots getting on the ballot as Romney delegates. If you haven’t heard about it’ you’re too ignorant to be writing articles, for anybody.
If you know about it, but don’t mention it, because you’re in favor of the deception, well that would fit my impression of you.
When I vote for someone in the primary, I’m not voting for some random delegate, I’m voting for Perry, or Romney, or whoever. If someone claims to be a Perry supporter, but is actually lying, then I, as a voter who wanted to support Perry, am quite happy that Perry will be able to replace the lair w/ an actual supporter.
IOW, the GOP would be the “stupid party” to oppose this measure.
The root issue here is whether or not state parties should retain control over how their delegates are selected. Highlighting abuse of the process, such as delegates misrepresenting their support for a particular candidate, is not an argument for denying state parties their autonomy. It may be an argument for changes in the process at the state and local level; but that’s not on the table at the RNC.
If you want a delegate to represent candidate X, then become that delegate.
They rig the game to protect the old guards. They are tired of what the TeaParty could do to them. Time for a Third Party?
Exactly how do you come up with this fantasy? If I vote for a Tea-Party candidate, I expect that the delegate selected by my vote (and the votes of other people like me) is one acceptable to that Tea-Party candidate. I certainly don’t want some establishment bozo getting the spot by dishonestly claiming to be a Tea-Party supporter.
What you’re whining about is the elimination of fraud. The fraud being carried out by delegates who take advantage of voters rational ignorance, in order to get to the convention under a false flag.
Every single delegate who goes to the convention because of votes for Romney should be someone who is acceptable to Romney. Every single delegate who goes to the convention because of votes for Perry should be acceptable to Perry. When I voted for Perry in the primary, I was voting to give him a voice, not voting to give a voice to some random individual who managed, by hook or by crook, to get to be the delegate empowered by those votes for Perry. I most certainly wasn’t voting to give power to some lying sleazebag who’s benefiting from votes for Perry, despite actually being opposed to Perry.
Why should you be able to go to the Convention empowered by my vote, when I don’t know you, and did not vote for you? This isn’t “Establishment v Insurgents”, it’s “liars v. the voters”. Because if you actually are a Perry supporter, and the best one in the area, Perry’s going to put you at the top of his list, no?
As you know, the process is different in particular states. Here in Minnesota, delegates to the state convention vote for delegates to the national convention. While state delegates no doubt factor presidential preference into their vote for national delegates, there is no direct vote for a particular presidential candidate aside from the non-binding referential poll at caucuses months earlier. Our national delegates are unbound. Whether that’s a wise process or not is properly debated within the Minnesota GOP. It should not be dictated from on high at the RNC.
As a primary voter, I want to vote for a Presidential candidate. It takes enough time and effort for me to check them out, and decide who I wish to support. I have NO interest in wasting my time getting to know all the potential convention delegates, and trying to decide which ones of those I want to support.
99% of Republican primary voters feel the same way. We’re not voting for you. We’re voting for Perry, or Romney, or whoever.
If the RNC is going to change the rules to force the State Parties to honor those votes, and to honor the understanding that the vast majority of voters have (I’m voting for Perry, the delegate doesn’t matter), then I say “good for them.”
No, that’s not properly the domain of the MN GOP Establishment, or the NY GOP Establishment. Because the only reason to oppose this is because you have an agenda different from that of the voters, and you wish to push your agenda over that of the voters.
You’ve drawn a clear line delineating our fundamental disagreement. There is the view you share, which is that political parties exist to service the agenda of voters. And there is the view I share, which is that political parties exists for their own sake and ought to be steered by their grassroots activists.
We ought not confuse the fact that parties produce candidates for political office with some imagined entitlement to have a say in which candidates are produced. The caucus and convention process is deeply involved, resulting in a platform and candidate endorsements/nominations which properly ought to reflect the will of those within the party, not the public at large. The public gets their say in the general election. An open caucus process which has this effect more accurately emulates (small-r) republican ideals than a primary where voters potentially do not share the party’s principles and values.
It is the job of a political party to service its activists. That means first ensuring that candidates adhere to the party’s platform (accomplished by having them endorsed or nominated by the same activists who craft the platform), and second by selling those candidates to the general electorate. Under such a system, if you want to have a say, you have to get involved in the party in a far more meaningful and committed way than showing up to cast a ballot in a primary. I think that is a good thing.
In my state of Missouri, you vote on a slate of delegates.
The candidate’s ground crew assemble this list and vet the candidates for you.
Doesn’t sound like extra work to me.
You need to educate yourself a bit more.
Except that we have data from multiple states/counties showing that the primary process is open to fraud and tampering.
The caucus/convention method is open and transparent, especially when run inproperly. Just take a look at the St Charles MO caucus of 3/17. Corruption happened, we refused to participate in the corrupt process and demanded they follow the rules.
How can you tell when someone is shredding ballots, or flipping votes electronicly? You can’t see it immediately, it takes weeks of investigation and usually by the time you come to a conclusion it’s too late and everyone thinks candidate X won the primary.
IF YOU ARE PASSIONATE ABOUT A CANDIDATE, SHOW UP TO THE CAUCUS/CONVENTION.
In my state, any voter can come in, declare party affiliation, and vote in a primary.
How secure of a process is that? Sound like a terrible way to choose yoru candidates.
Just don’t vote. Certainly don’t donate. Don’t volunteer.
It’s not that I think the system they are trying to replace is ideal–it’s that sometimes I trust a guy like Mitt Romney as far as I can throw him. If he can get away with winning and blowing off Tea Party-types at the same time, he will. He’s not a RINO. He’s a Mormon. Certain things are important to him, and certain other things aren’t. On certain things he’s more trustworthy than a RINO. On other things, less.
Concentrate on your local areas. Let the national Republicans go to blazes.
Considering all the shenanigans that Ron Paul’s slavishly devoted followers have pulled, I’m not surprised by these actions. In Nevada, his supporters turned our caucus into chaos. Despite coming in THIRD in the caucuses, Paul’s people grabbed nearly all the delegates, thus taking away the voice of the vast majority of the Republicans who took the time out to caucus!
His people also created chaos as the county and state GOP conventions to the point of alienating and driving away anyone who was not 100% behind Ron Paul. As a result, the state and Clark County (home of Las Vages and 60% of Republicans) are nothing more than a “Rump Parliament” that is run by people actively trying to defeat Republicans, who do not support Ron Paul, in the GENERAL ELECTION.
Ron Paul and his supporters create this situation.
Let them reap what they sowed.
This will not end well.
Perhaps there are details you haven’t shared, but I fail to see how a presidential campaign successfully organizing to elect their delegates through the caucus is “chaos.” We had a similar situation here in Minnesota. Santorum won the non-binding preference poll at our caucuses. Nevertheless, the Ron Paul organization snatched up a plurality of delegates resulting in a sweep of the national delegate and alternate spots. That’s a testament to the lack of organization among the other campaigns, not an indictment of wrongdoing on the part of Paul supporters.
I do think the Paul organization overplayed its hand in many cases, wasting opportunities to build goodwill and advance their ideas on a futile effort to nominate their candidate. However, that hardly justifies shutting out the grassroots across the board. As Nalle points out, our principles yield a preference for local solutions. It’s much better for local and state conventions to figure out how best to cull bad actors from their midst than to wield a blanket national response.
There was chaos.
During the Presidential caucus, they delayed any and all counting in Clark County (home to 60% of Nevada’s Republicans) resulting in the Nevada GOP turning into a laughing stock; furthermore, they purposefully tried to swamp a special late-evening caucus for observant Jews & Seven-day Adventests – which was manifestly against the rules.
At the county convention, they abused parliamentary authority to disrupt and delay the convention until everyone else gave up in frustration and left. They won not by “organization” but by sowing chaos.
At the state convention, they similarly delayed the credentials report for most of the day while openly talking about conspiracies against them.
Once in power, they spent their energy attacking other Republicans for not being pure enough, and ignored the Democrats. Many of them openly believed that Republicans who did not support the Ron Paul agenda were no different from Barack Obama. This harassment got to the point where most of the non-Ron Paul people threw their hands up and walked out. The Nevada and Clark County GOP parties are nothing more than a “Rump Parliament.” They have spent their time, not addressing all the horrible things the Democrats are doing, but “uncovering” grand conspiracies involving the UN and electricity meters.
They are not the “grassroots,” the “base,” or even representatives of most liberty-minded Americans: They are a small cabal that grabbed power.
William F. Buckley said the conservative movement needed to shun the Birchers; similarly, we must act similarly to the followers of the Ron Paul cult of personality. The Ron Paul supporters have no one to blame for this situation but themselves.
Ron Paul people didn’t pull any “tricks” – they showed up, they organized and they got what they were going for. If your candidate doesn’t have the ability to properly organize and motivate his base, well then, he must be pretty terrible. At any rate, I say, let them do what they want to do (RNC). Romney cannot win without the help of the liberty activists, and he has just sealed his fate in them not voting for him.
It was not just a matter of “showing up” and “organizing.” They have engaged in a systematic attempt to drive out any non-believers.
Their belief in their own purity, and the equal impurity of everyone else, can be seen by their calling themselves the “liberty movement.” I have always been an advocate for small government, the limitation of powers stated in the Constitution, and liberty in general. I was a YAFfer for [expletive deleted] sake!
Many, if not most, of the Ron Paul followers are decent people who do care about liberty, but their actions are naive at best, destructive at worst. Their ranks seem to be populated, at least among the more vocal crowd, with conspiracy theory nutjobs and people whose understanding of liberty is shallow at best. Just look at the temper-tantrum they made when Rand Paul endorsed Romney!
How can they think that they can kick everyone else to the curb, and then expect for those people to blindly further the Ron Paul agenda? From the incompetence to the arrogance, neither I, nor the vast majority of liberty-minded conservatives, will ever work with the Ron Paul followers.
Yikes, all the way around.
Would closing the primaries to Republicans only serve to reduce the shenanigans by Dimocrats who want an easy target in the general election? Just askin’.
I think the Republican Party would prefer not to be taken over by some lunatic fringe as the Democratic Party has been. Given my druthers I would also have the GOP get rid of caucuses altogether and close their primaries to anyone other than registered Republicans. I’m just not in favor of having the party suddenly over run by a bunches of outsiders who are only interested in voting for the newest fad (see Dems w/Obama).
You’re joking, right?
The answer is right in the passage you quoted:
“Now there are those in Tampa who seek to overturn this traditional structure of the party, set restrictions on the free choice of party members and introduce a new and alien process which would minimize the input of the party’s rank and file and put power in the hands of party leaders and wealthy special interests who can buy the loyalty of the mob. They have borrowed the organizing structure of the Democrats and authored rules which would cause our delegates to be bound by the votes of primary voters who may not be Republicans or share our values.”
Now let’s notice the absurdity of this.
In the first sentence the complaint is that free choice of party members will be changed and limited.
In the second sentence we see what this change is, that delegates will have to abide by the votes of the “rank and file” members who voted for them.
Say what?
The rank and file will be disenfranchised if their votes are not allowed to count, and delegates can just vote for whoever they like?
The party leaders, who would otherwise choose or be the delegates, would gain too much power if the delegates have to vote for who the rank and file members want?
Yeah, can’t have too much of that “democracy” for Ron Paul and his “libertarian” followers; only their district bosses are qualified to determine who their followers they put forward to be delegates can vote for.
As has been explained by Walter Hudson above, this move (while it may seem as you described) is actually an attempt to wrest control of the process from state parties and their volunteer participants.
Both party’s presidential selection processes have already become exercises determining a pre-determined outcome through money, mass psyops, and the character assassination of competing candidates who should be respected as allies.
This measure would seal the deal for top-down control through mob rule. Did I see the word “democracy” in a post above? And is that from a Republican? Study a bit and learn that democracies always fail to despotism. That is the very reason we have “republican” (say it slowly and think) based government and why we must have a more republican Republican Party, not less.
If this measure is adopted, the GOP must be abandoned and go the way of the Whigs, straightaway.
“party’s” = parties’
“They have also proposed that the presumed presidential nominee could remove our elected delegates at whim. Finally they want to remove control over the rule making process from the state parties to a small elite within the national committee of the party who can change the rules under which the party operates at any time.”
Because nothing says “we believe in a federal, limited, localyl-oriented, Jeffersonian self-government-by-the-people system” like removing delegates at whim and having no state-level body inputs.
Locally, not localyl. Sorry.
Meanwhile…
I disagree with your assessment, Mr. Hudson. The proposed rule changes are not in response (solely) to Ron Paul’s campaign, but rather the increasingly powerful ability of THE TEA PARTY to select, support and elect TRUE CONSERVATIVES in the primary process. Numerous incumbent establishment congressmen and senators have either been defeated or had the crap scared out of them by Tea Party candidates.
The Tea Party is the future of the Republican Party, but the established elites will not stand for that…to their own detriment. They are apparently willing to burn the house down before sharing it with the ‘great unwashed’. If they succeed, the republicans will cease to be of any national importance and the Tea Party will in time eclipse them as the opposition to the socialist democrats.
Sorry, but that’s a load of crap. If the voters vote for a Tea-Party supporting candidate, then presumably that candidate will want to have delegates who are also Tea-Party supporting people.
If the voters vote for an establishment candidate, then they are entitled to get Establishment delegates. That’s what democracy is all about. No?
Exactly, Greg….the rule changes are designed to disenfranchise any and all delegates of other than establishment candidates. I believe you misunderstood the gist of the article.
What is the source of the delegates “franchise”?
IOW, where did they get the “franchise” they’re being “disenfranchised” out of?
Do they get it from the Primary voters? Those primary voters are voting for a national candidate, not a delegate. If there’s any conflict between the two, it is the candidate who should be winning, because that’s the one who actually got the vote.
Did some of them get it from caucus voters? How many of those voters know anything at all about the delegates, other than who the delegate is professing to support? If John professes to support Perry, and Mike professes to support Perry, and Perry would rather have Mike as his delegate than John, in what shred of a rational world should Perry be stuck w/ John as “his” delegate?
This is the way the rules always should have been. Anyone who goes as a candidate’s delegate should be someone who the candidate WANTS as his or her delegate. If that hasn’t been true in the past, that’s a bug.
You want to go, with the ability to vote as you see fit? Great. Get voted in on your own, without the benefit of anyone else’s name.
Clearly GReg does not understand that not all candidates can win in a primary because not all candidates can muster the same $$$ for advertising, or they may not be able to door to door for a national campaign.
The primary system favors big $ candidates. The caucus system favors hard work and open discussion/debate.
Perefect example: The MO govenors race. Dave SPencer won in a landslide, but I didnt see him going to events, debates (he actually refused and failed several times) etc etc. He just ran TV ads. Bill Randles had a HUGE movement behind him, but almost no $. He had 10:1 yard signs, billboards, etc. The media he could afford.
We were all absolutely shocked when he lost. If there had been a caucus or convention to select the Gov candidate, maybe things would have been different.
Not to mention primaries are easier to cheat in to make it look like a candidate won, but didn’t.
Jeremy
While I agree that the struggle for establishment control of the GOP extends beyond their confrontation with the Ron Paul campaign, in the context of the national convention there is no higher profile conflict. It is the Ron Paul campaign which has advanced rogue delegates through the process to the national convention. And the rule changes in question are a reaction to that.
Yeah. Because every rule change by the Establishment Republicans is in the interests of everybody …. who matter.
At least to the Establishment Republicans.
PJMedia:
Due to this article’s excellent, brief summation, I took liberty to repost it in its entirety at Gulag Bound, with link-back. Please let me know via email, if you wish me to merely excerpt it, instead.
Arlen
The RNC wants to turn the convention process into one giant, expensive pep rally.
And that’s exactly why I didn’t throw my hat in the ring to attend at the Texas GOP convention. Why bother?
This of course, is predicated on the assumption that there are accurate accounts of the vote. As Iowa and other states’ primaries and caucuses proved, the ballot counting is suspect to say the least. Faced with unreliable ballot counts, the individual delegate process is a safety valve, has rules (when they’re followed), and shouldn’t be cast aside for “convenience” of the media-ordained nominee. What’s the point in having a convention at all? And where is our voice to be heard?
Why do I suspect that this has more to do with the Tea Party’s gaining momentum and strength than with Paulbots?
OTOH – I’m FOR any measure that removes open primaries in our process. Only Republicans should pick their nominee. Indies gave us both McCain and Romney, and at a time when the country is vaporizing before our eyes, I don’t trust anyone who considers themselves “a moderate” in this atmosphere. Moderately delusional is still delusional.
What brilliance! Change the rules and see how to shrink the GOP just prior to the presidential election. Who are these people? Are they democrats? Oh, sorry. Maybe you’d prefer Rino or Neo-Con.
From what I’ve seen, the primary for president is seperate from all other primaries. From what I understand of federal election code no delegate is bound to a candidate for president. If they were bound, why bother to have delegates at all, you could just have a vote on the platform by mail and be done with it. This issue is a fundamental difference between a democracy and a republic. The point is that the primary vote is one influencing factor on a delegate not any indication that the delegate elected by a very different electorate will hold the primary results as the only factor. Delegates did not necessarily reveal who they supported during the 3 minutes they campaigned at my state convention. Evote = corporate control is the only explanation for the primary results being so far away from the reality of the state convention in a very neo-conservative state like mine.
All this reminds me that I hope the Republicans win, as long as it’s not the Republicans who win.