GOP Rule Change Takes Choice Of POTUS Candidate Away From Rank And File

[roo_ster]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/07/dramatic-little-known-gop-rule-change-takes-choice-of-presidential-candidate-away-from-rank-and-file-republicans-and-hands-it-to-party-elite/

The Romney/RNC shenanigans designed to muzzle Ron Paul in 2012 will bear putrescent fruit in 2016.  The GOP is not known as the Stupid Party for nothing.

But there was something else the Committee did to insure that Ron Paul would receive no love whatsoever from the delegates who filled the Tampa convention center—something that would get little in the way of publicity but would come complete with serious consequences not only to future candidates but to those who desire to express their choice for their party’s nominee through the primary process.

Led by Romney loyalist and pitbull GOP lawyer Ben Ginsberg, the RNC made changes in the rules that would not only insure an orderly convention for the front-runner in 2012 but would make it extremely difficult—if not completely impossible—for an intra-party challenge to be mounted against a President Romney in 2016.

Apparently, it never occurred to the majority of the Rules Committee that there might not be a President Romney in 2016  to protect.

Take a look at how Republican National Committee Rule No. 40(b) read before the 2012 convention changes:

“Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a plurality of the delegates from each of five (5) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination.

Simply put, the rule meant that any candidate for the GOP presidential nomination who showed up at the convention with the largest number of delegates in five states—or was able to twist enough arms at the convention to achieve a plurality of delegates in five states—was entitled to have his or her name placed in nomination at the convention.

Rather than only requiring a candidate to have a plurality of the delegates from five states in order to have one’s name placed into nomination, the rule was changed to require a candidate to have a majority of delegate votes in at least eight states as a prerequisite to nomination.

Under the new rule, only [presumably elected POTUS in 2012--roo_ster] Mitt Romney would meet the test for nomination assuring that there would be no Ron Paul problem.

While this might worked out nicely for those controlling the GOP convention in 2012, the amended rule now poses a serious change in how the game is to be played in 2016. What’s more, given that the rule cannot be changed until the next round of delegates arrive at  the convention in 2016 and the Rules Committee convenes to establish the new rules of the convention, the Republicans are stuck with what they have wrought in 2012.

And that represents a very significant problem for anyone who believes the voters should have something to say about their party’s nominee or those who don’t favor a convention where the bosses and delegates get to decide who is the nominee, irrespective of what home state Republicans might have to say.

Thus, a Republican candidate who receives 49 percent of the vote in a “winner-take-all” state will not be permitted to get 100 percent of the state’s delegates. And that means it is an almost certainty that there will not be a candidate walking into the GOP convention with the requisite eight states producing a majority of delegates supporting a candidate now required to have one’s name placed into nomination.

The rule will also dramatically change the way the primary game is played.

Given the large field of GOP candidates that appear to be gearing up for the 2016 fight, regionally or ideologically defined candidates will know, as they go through the primary process, that all they need do is deny their opponents a majority of delegates in a state contest. By playing defense when the state doesn’t line up in a candidate’s direction, all of the major candidates stand to arrive at the convention with nobody in a position to have their name placed into nomination, meaning that there is going to be one hell of a free-for-all in the 2016 Rules Committee meeting!

...the 2016 rules committee gathering will bear representatives from the many candidates still in the game—meaning anything can happen.

While RNC officials are downplaying the situation, the fact is that the rule adopted in 2012 virtually guarantees that the 2016 primaries will become a tangle of deals between candidates, delegates and party bosses, even as the primaries continue.

Our best hope is a Thunderdome-like approach.  Liberty-loving folk in the GOP need to draft a physically imposing candidate good at knocking the stuffing out of folks.  He will likley end up facing Jeb Bush, Re-habbed Rubio (the RR Threat--pronounced like the Spanish rolling "rr") , or the Master/Blaster political S&M team of Boehner/Christie.  Any ideas?  The Russians & Ukes have a good half-dozen pro boxers or near-giant men in their legislature who look like they could beat an opponent to death.  Where are the GOP bruisers who want to put a beat-down on statism?







Vitali Klitschko

[Tallpine]

And you didn't know about this 

It was pretty common knowledge back in 2012 if you were following the Paul campaign.

[RevDisk]

Yep. Official story back then was that the rules were rigged to keep out renegade candidates. Anyone with half a brain realized that meant that candidate selection was being removed from the delegates and stored with the party bosses.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Dear God in Heaven, people are still whining about the failed Paulbot convention scam from 2012?

[RevDisk]

Dear God in Heaven, people are still whining about the failed Paulbot convention scam from 2012?

The unintended consequences of that, yes. 

[Jocassee]

Dear God in Heaven, people are still whining about the failed Paulbot convention scam from 2012?

This is not about Paul, it's about the refusal of the Yankee GOP to give the rank and file a candidate that actually likes to fight. I'm not even talking about electability. But if the Union is going stay together the South and the Midwest have to at least feel like they have a voice in the presidential elections.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

This is not about Paul, it's about the refusal of the Yankee GOP to give the rank and file a candidate that actually likes to fight. I'm not even talking about electability. But if the Union is going stay together the South and the Midwest have to at least feel like they have a voice in the presidential elections.

The rule change was made to protect the voice of the voters in states like Iowa and Minnesota, who had been disenfranchised at the convention by supporters of one losing candidate. 

[roo_ster]

The rule change was made to protect the voice of the voters in states like Iowa and Minnesota, who had been disenfranchised at the convention by supporters of one losing candidate. 

That reasoning, it does not pass the laugh test.  The actual reasoning was stated in the article and at the time (to keep Romney from facing even the chance of another nominee after he "won" 2012).

[Jocassee]

The rule change was made to protect the voice of the voters in states like Iowa and Minnesota, who had been disenfranchised at the convention by supporters of one losing candidate. 

I acknowledge the distastefulness of the Paul supporters. However they did their homework and legwork. The problem isn't the process, it's the Party.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

That reasoning, it does not pass the laugh test.  

Laugh if you want, it's the truth.  The rule change from plurality of 5 states to majority of 8 was done to deny Ron Paul a nomination he hadn't earn and which his supporters were trying to steal.  They increased the requirements just enough to make it difficult for him.  

The actual reasoning was stated in the article and at the time (to keep Romney from facing even the chance of another nominee after he "won" 2012).

The article is full of *expletive deleted*.  Romney was not terrified of Paul becoming an official candidate or getting speech.  Romney was not planning ahead to 2016 when he anticipated being the incumbent president afraid of a Republican challenge.  The author is one of those folks who are outraged that Paul's delegate scam was defeated and just can't let it go.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I acknowledge the distastefulness of the Paul supporters. However they did their homework and legwork. The problem isn't the process, it's the Party.

Not really.  The Paulians thought they found a loophole, a way to work the rules in their favor to overturn the decisions of the voters in several states.  They were wrong.  Their loophole was counteracted by another, and the votes of the people were more-or-less preserved.

I don't think the Paul supporters ever realized just how offensive their gimmick was to the great majority of the convention delegates.  I'm not sure why they expected that everyone else would let them get away with it.

[Balog]

Do you think the rules change is a positive thing HTG? Do you feel it will enable a better candidate to be chosen?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Not really.  The Paulians thought they found a loophole, a way to work the rules in their favor to overturn the decisions of the voters in several states.  They were wrong.  Their loophole was counteracted by another, and the votes of the people were more-or-less preserved.

I don't think the Paul supporters ever realized just how offensive their gimmick was to the great majority of the convention delegates.  I'm not sure why they expected that everyone else would let them get away with it.

the inability to realize is the key failing across the board

you get a group of bright folks who start hearing how much smarter they are than everyone else and they start to believe it.   and getting their ass handed to em by folks they are, in their minds, "clearly superior " to. is humbling for some  humiliating to most

[brimic]

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Do you think the rules change is a positive thing HTG? Do you feel it will enable a better candidate to be chosen?

I think it was a minor positive in that it countered the negative actions of that Paul-delegate-stealing crap.

I think in the future it won't make much difference at all.  Rick Ungar, the full-of-*expletive deleted* Forbes author, goes to great lengths trying to lay out a scenario in which the rule change will do... something... nefarious to the nomination process... somehow... tipping the balance of power to secret northeastern insider power-brokers or somesuch.  I don't buy it.  Consider that 2012 was one of the longest and most hotly contested primaries in a long time, yet even so, the eventual popular winner had no trouble securing the nomination at the convention under the new rules.  And in the end, that's what I want to see happen.  I want the peoples' choice to prevail, and I want any shenanigans that undermine the peoples' choice to fail.  

I don't always agree with the popular choice, but I think that's still the best method for choosing the nominee.

Incidentally, the rule-making process for 2106 is already underway.  It's not clear how much of the 2012 rules will remain in effect.  The talk so far is about moving the convention date forward, shortening the primary season by bringing the last primaries up, and requiring early-voting states to allocate their delegates proportionally so that no candidate can secure the nomination by wining just a few big winner-take-all states early on.  It's a (very small) step in the right direction.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Oops.

[RocketMan]

Doesn't matter to me, as I changed my voter affiliation from (R) to (I) when I moved to NC.  Just got damn sick and tired of being part of The Stupid Party^tm.

[roo_ster]

Htg you do realize that even with the paulians working the rules like mad that no one thought he could win the nomination after a few primaries.  The idea was to get paul a slot to speak and demonstrate that not all repubs were on board with the rino squad. 

All the rules mongering was not done to keep your precious romney safe from losing to paul but just a disgusting and petty move to deny a large part of the party from having any voice.

Disgusting and petty.  Pretty much describes those who rewrote the rules for the benefit of the party hacks.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Yeah, the idea was to get Paul a speech at the convention.  And possibly to get his name officially entered as a candidate that delegates could vote for, so his supporters could try to hail Mary some sort of coalition together and win him the nomination.  It was never going to happen but some of Paul's people just couldn't let the dream die.  Some still can't.

And yeah, the rules change was done to prevent all that.

The thing you're not grokking is that Paul didn't earn it.  His fringe supporters tried to steal it for him at the expense of voters in a handful of states who chose other candidates.  Maybe you think that sort of thing is OK, but the people at the convention sure didn't.

I get that you hate Romney and the Republican Party.  But surely you can see this business with Paul's delegates was a scam.  It should bother you, maybe just a little, that the actions of a few people overruled the choices of voters across several states.  

If Romney had done it instead of Paul, you'd be screaming bloody murder about it.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i liked this
  >:Dhttp://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread789930/pg1
 

[roo_ster]

i liked this
  >:Dhttp://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread789930/pg1
 

Not unknown at the time.  Pauls utility was in his role as doctor no.  And in rubbing congresss face in the cotus.  A better metric for an advocate of limited govt would be the number of bad bills be helped kill.

Paul was hadly my first choice in 2012 but he was the only one left willing to address the issues facing the gop instead of fellating the nominee to be by the time my states primaries were held.  Paul could hardly have done worse than romney in the general.

Despite all the rino pseudo analysis the gop lost because it once again told its base to piss off.  Paul had his issues but contempt for flyover country was not one of them.

[sumpnz]

I don't always agree with the popular choice, but I think that's still the best method for choosing the nominee.

How quaint, the thought that popular choice, among Republicans, had squat to do with it.  Until primaries are closed to all but registered R's, and those so registered for, say 6-12 months (with exceptions for those whose 18th birthday falls in that exclusionary zone) the R canddate will be at least as much a product of D preferences in terms of opponent than anything else.

[Balog]

If "the process" gives us guys like Bush the Elder, Bob Dole, Bush the Younger, McCain, and Romney then I have a hard time seeing how subverting that process is a bad thing.

[Scout26]

I guess I fail to see the problem with having more then one name/person being nominated and then a floor vote at the convention.

[Balog]

I guess I fail to see the problem with having more then one name/person being nominated and then a floor vote at the convention.

BUT BUT BUT BUT RON PAUL!!!!!!!ELEVENTYONE11!!1!!1!1