Texans join uprising against RNC rules change

Texans join uprising against RNC rules change

Republicans from Texas are leading a mutiny at their national nominating convention in Tampa and fighting proposed rule changes that they say amount to a power grab by entrenched GOP operatives at the expense of grassroots activism.

The issue could explode in a floor fight Tuesday, just after Republican leaders open the first full day of the convention and turn to consider party rules. Although the process is usually a quiet one, the dispute over the new delegate selection process proposal advanced by Mitt Romney supporters threatens to shine a spotlight on the schism.

The proposed change, which is aimed at muting the power of insurgent candidates like Tea Party favorite Ron Paul, would effectively allow presidential nominees to disavow and decide delegates bound to them at the nominating convention and selected under state rules. Delegates who are allocated to a presidential candidate would only be certified if they had been pre-certified or approved by the presidential candidate for whom they are bound to vote.

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.

Full Story Here:
Texans join uprising against RNC rules change

The FIRST thing I have to say is this; Ron Paul, and him being a TEA Party favorite, is the single most reason I left the TEA Party behind. I DETEST RON PAUL!

Ron Paul is a FOOL, his followers are FOOLS and I don’t care WHO agrees with that statement. I did NOT stutter, I said FOOLS, and these FOOLS need to be neutered.

Ron Paul his moronic followers are a danger to America. Somehow, Paul and Company continue to think that Ron Paul holds some special power to make America the land of plenty, a place where fairy dust and unicorn farts are all that’s needed to be happy.

Paul was discussing foreign policy when he said: “Somebody… said the other day on the Internet, ‘if those Paul people had been in charge, Osama Bin Laden would still be alive.’”

The former presidential candidate countered with emotion: “But you know what I think the answer is? So would the 3000 people [killed] on 9/11, be alive!” SOURCE

Ron Paul and his Paultards seem to think they are a force to be reckoned with, and I just don’t understand that kind of insanity.

Ron Paul ran as a GOP candidate only because he saw it, even in his befuddled mind it was painfully obvious; a Libertarian can’t get elected to ANY position of power anywhere other than a place like New Mexico … does Gary WHO ring any bells? So, Ron Paul and his band of Paultards foist themselves off on the GOP as a *real deal* candidate.

From the original story:

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, one of two Texans on the RNC rules committee. “It’s not a plain vanilla political fight. It’s a fundamental principle that we’re arguing for.”

I remember a fundamental rights fight a number of years ago, it was waged by Madalyn Murray O’Hair and the result was prayer being removed from schools. The WILL of one woman, an avowed atheist, took PRAYER down!

If ONE WOMAN like Madalyn Murray O’Hair can cause that kind of mind boggling disarray all by herself, what can a dedicated bunch of Paultards bring on America?

If the people that elected these delegates have specifically elected them to vote for a no chance in hell loser like Ron Paul, maybe there needs to be a rules change. We can’t let a Libertarian MOONBAT like Ron Paul and the Paultards disrupt the GOP convention with their shenanigans and childish behavior.

C’mon America, Ron Paul may garner 4% of the vote, if that much. All he is, as far as I am concerned, is a distraction, one not as entertaining as H. Ross Perot.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

This entry was posted in Decision 2012 and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Texans join uprising against RNC rules change

  1. BobF says:

    So Ron Paul thinks if he had been in charge, 9/11 wouldn’t have happened? I wonder what makes this narcissistic think he’s better than every American leader since our founding as a nation? Does Paul, like many others, believe it’s our policies in the Middle East that caused Muslims to hate us and attack. Here’s a bit of American History…sorry this is long Fred.

    Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors. (sounds like what’s being done today with the Somali pirates.)

    Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled “through the medium of war.” He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.

    In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the “Dey of Algiers” ambassador to Britain.

    The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress’ vote to appease.
    During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey’s ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

    In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam “was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

    Ron Paul couldn’t have done squat to prevent 9/11. That attack was in the making for over 200 years. Paul is just too stupid to realize it.

  2. minuteman26 says:

    Didn’t Madalyn Murray O’Hair end up in a 55gal. drum?

  3. The BoBo says:

    Hate to say it, if Ron Paul is a Tea Party favorite – it is only in Texas! That guy is a nutjob and does not even come close to what the Tea Party stands for. Sounds like some nutjob libertarians usurped the Texas Tea Party then. I consider myself Conservative Libertarian – but – those guys who support Ron Paul are true psychos. Those guys are closer to being anarchists than libertarian.

  4. Texasperated says:

    Now Fred be honest with folks. The moonbattery Rowlett TEA party consists of enough members to count on one hand.

    I’m not sure if the rules change was about Ron Paul or if he was just used as a boogey man to ram through some rules changes. As things stand right now delegates can be sent to the RNC without ever receiving a single vote for their candidate. The proposed rules change would address that.

    Were there other motivations? I’m not sure, but it was the Sarah Palin folks who turned this into an establishment vs. conservative fight. I’m as conservative as any of them (and have been since H2O days) and I see a reason for the rules change.

    Keep your powder dry

  5. That frikn’ nut case Ron Paul is a TEA Party favorite..? Sure as hell not in Wyoming. Or among philosophical Libertarians such as myself. He may indeed have one or two very good ideas. However, that only proves the old adage about broken clock politics.

    The way that I read the rule changes it appears to be a power grab by the country club Republicans that is intended to keep the unwashed masses, such as Fred and the rest of us, out of the circles of power. Not only the Paultards, but all of us! It would be akin to making an end run around the Bill of Rights whereby the party minorities would be virtually voiceless.
    That said, if it passes, my voter registration will immediately be changed back to unaffiliated. While I don’t expect for all of my issues to become platform planks I damned well better have the right to raise my voice and it had better not be squashed by some big government authoritarian that knows better for me than I do simply because they are so damned much “smarter” than I am.

    Anyone else see a connection here with “Rules for Radicals?”

    • TexasFred says:

      Unwashed asses?? I take a shower.. :?

    • Texasperated says:

      There seems to have been a “last minute compromise” and I have not seen the final wording. They avoided a floor fight though. As I understood the rules change, it was designed to keep folks like Occupy Wall Street (or any group that could organize in a given year) from taking over the party apparatus.

      Patrick I completely understand what you are getting at and I don’t entirely disagree. But I also think there is such a thing as spending some time in the trenches in order to earn your stripes so to speak.

      Just my 2 cents worth. Keep your powder dry

  6. Katie says:

    On a better note? Are you going to run for local office? I personally could see you as a US Senator. At least the language would be ‘colorful’ in the Congressional Record.

Leave a Reply