GOP Bosses Offer Olive Branch to Avert Floor Fight

GOP bosses offered a late night olive branch to delegates to avert a floor fight this morning at the RNC Convention. Romney supporters and GOP leaders agreed to back down from a proposed rule change that would have allowed presidential nominees to choose the delegates they want at national conventions. reported:

The GOP bosses offered an olive branch to delegates in late night sessions Monday to avert a floor fight on changing the party rules.

Republican leaders moved Monday to quell an uprising by Texans and Ron Paul supporters that threatened to steal the spotlight from GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney and expose rifts in the party right as its nominating convention got under way.

Under a compromise reached late Monday, Romney supporters and GOP leaders agreed to back down from a proposed rule change that effectively would have allowed presidential nominees to choose what delegates represent them at national conventions.

The proposed change was aimed at muting the power of insurgent candidates such as Tea Party favorite Ron Paul but prompted an uproar from Texas Republicans, who select their delegates through successive votes in conventions at precincts, then districts and finally statewide.

Butch Davis, a member of the RNC Rules Committee who fought off the proposal, said the existing Texas system often elevates grassroots activists and party faithful toiling in the trenches, but the proposed change would have instead allowed GOP leaders and presidential candidates to hand-select delegates and reward donors with delegate spots.

“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,” Davis said.

“This isn’t Reagan versus Ford, Goldwater versus Rockefeller,” Davis added. “This is George Washington versus King George.”

And Texas Republican Vice Chairwoman Melinda Fredricks had flatly told RNC rules committee members Sunday night that the Lone Star State would stand its ground…

…In an e-mail obtained by Hearst Newspapers (available below), Republicans who led the fight against the proposed change said the GOP leaders “heard the concerns of the conservative grassroots voices in our party” and amended their proposal.

“This will allow Republicans of all stripes to come to the convention united and focused on defeating Barack Obama in November,” they said.

Under the deal, delegates who are bound to a presidential candidate that hasn’t bowed out of the race or released them to vote for another contender are barred from casting a vote for a different person. During this convention, the change effectively would mean a delegate bound to Mitt Romney could not instead opt to throw his or her support behind Ron Paul, who has not freed his delegates.

Hat Tip Meg

Steve Deace has more on this controversy.

Michelle Malkin is all over the story with several updates.

Get news like this in your Facebook News Feed,
Gateway Pundit

Commenting Policy

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban.

Facebook Comments

Disqus Comments

  • Davis

    Ron Paul is not a TEA Party favorite.

  • Multitude

    “…Tea Party favorite Ron Paul” What the…?

    I’ve never, ever encountered Paul folks who identified themselves as the Tea Party, and every Tea Party event in our part of the Midwest was never a “Ron Paul and his Flying Circus” function. The Paulites have always been their own thing, more interested in foreign policy and economic isolationism.

    The proxy media will continually be surprised if they can’t even understand who’s who in grassroots politics.

  • Multitude

    Davis #1: I guess you too sprayed your coffee over your computer screen reading this nonsense. Jim ought to go find this person masquerading as a reporter and rough them up. Just tell ’em you’re a Elisabeth Warren hired thug giving them Democratic Party Chicago Treatment — they’ll understand.

  • hidelyheaux

    Ron Paul isn’t even a Libertarian, much LESS a TEA Party favorite! These nutbags are going to hand this election to Obama and I hope they rot in hell for it!

  • Kathy Mathews

    Ron Paul IS NOT a tea party candidate.

  • Jenny

    Ron Paul is NOT a Tea Party favorite !!

  • Granny

    If Ron Paul is part of the Tea Party then it is time to fish the Tea back out of Boston Harbor.

  • Multitude

    Just read Malkins updates… The Romney RINOs need to be told that a convention where the delegates are merely props selected by the elites to puppet only what the elites require isn’t a convention at all. Why waste the people’s time? You go off and do your Beltway smoke-filled LBJ inspired politics and we’ll start working on the replacement party.

    Think we’re not capable of a third party at this point? Don’t tread on us!

  • Ragspierre

    Ron Paul is a nasty old crank…who sometimes has an insight or two that should be heard.

    But mostly he’s a nasty old crank, who has run for president under a false flag for-freaking-ever, it seems.

    Thankfully, this cycle will be his last.

  • Jack

    Tea Party favorite? That’s news to me. Who is anyway?

  • Scott M.

    Ron Paul is not a Tea Party favorite. He SHOULD have been, but the Tea Party sold out to the establishment GOP to nominate a man who supported TARP, the bailouts, and the individual mandate. In other words, the Tea Party made themselves irrelevant by backing the wrong guy. What a disappointment.

  • …Tea Party favorite Ron Paul…

    Does Not Compute.

    The real “Tea Party favorite” in Texas is Ted Cruz.

  • Valerie

    #11 August 28, 2012 at 8:40 am
    Scott M. commented:

    The TEA Parties did not back Ron Paul.

  • stonedome

    “Tea Party favorite Ron Paul” ? utter nonsense. he might be smoking some tea, but he’s a libertarian quack. the writer should be pelted with used, wet tea bags. don’t ever equate that man with conservatives like me.

  • Shelly

    ScottM: The tea party should have nothing to do with Paul. Besides Paul being a nutty old man, he is part of the establishment. He’s well known for getting amendments into bills for his pork that he knows will pass then votes against the bill so he can pretend how noble he is.
    Read this article and tell me the tea party should hook their wagon to him.

  • even steven

    As was already pointed out by others, Ron Paul is NOT a Tea Party favorite. The hack who wrote the article is out of touch at best.

  • Radegunda

    I read another take on this: that it’s designed to minimize the mischief of the Paulbots, after the mischief they did in states where they exploited certain rules to get delegates way out of proportion to the actual popular support for Paul. (Similar to the way Obama “won” caucuses.)
    There was much talk of how the Paulbots intended to stir things up at the convention — even though Paul clearly did not win the primaries, and when the focus now should be on beating Obama, not weakening the GOP candidate.

  • Ragspierre

    The Houston Carbuncle is a notoriously clueless Collectivist rag. No news here.

    They understand the TEA Party as well as a dog understands plane geometry.

  • Ragspierre

    The rule that allows the candidate to vet all delegates chosen at the state level to insure their loyalty is also simple common sense. One need only read this dispatch from Mary Grabar about delegates attending the GOP convention from Pennsylvania being members of the “Pennsylvania Working Families,” a front group for ACORN, to realize the efficacy of such a rule being in effect for the future. Opposition political activists have become adept at infiltrating GOP gatherings for several years and if state parties aren’t going to keep the enemy out of the convention, the national party must do it for them.

    Everybody should read this…

  • J

    UPDATE via Erick Erickson:

    The rule fight is not over. Two other rules are in process that would allow to squash dissent and reinstate the original power-grabbing rule: GOP Rules Committee Rapidly Moving to Shut Out Grassroots at 2:00 p.m. Today

    “…The first rule to be proposed is one that would give the Republican National Committee the power to change rules between conventions with a three-quarters vote of the RNC. One source tells me, “With a Republican President, of course this is doable. Everybody will roll over if a President Romney asks them too. They’ll be able to get Ben Ginsberg’s proposal next year….

    The second rules change would front load winner takes all primaries. Grassroots conservatives point to both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum as reasons to stop this rule. Had there been front loaded winner takes all primaries, neither the Gingrich nor the Santorum campaigns would have been able to get any traction…”

  • J


    The national convention must do it for them? The national convention is already infiltrated as far as I am concerned. And even if it were not, why would it be immune? Once it’s infiltrated, such rule would allow it to squash states and take over GOP like they did Dems. It is possible to fool some, but not all. With the centralized rule, it is no longer even needed to try. Just take over the national convention, and who cares about states?

    You advocate centralization of power. Should we just roll over and do what Dear Leader Romney and his lackeys tell us? Sit, stand, lay down. If that is the case, we already have a dictator-wanna be president. We already have someone who’s centralizing power. And at least he’s not as closeted as Romney.

  • Pingback: RINO's at the RNC | American Patriot: Michael J. Maxim 08/28/12 | Foundry Radio Network()

  • Ragspierre

    “You advocate centralization of power.”

    No. I advocate a rational means to exclude people that our crappy primary system has allowed to gain a place with the specific intent of acting as saboteurs.

    Which is totally necessary. HOW we do that is open to debate.

    What is your suggestion?

  • This is the old GOP trying to change the rules on how business has historically been accomplished because they feel threatened by the grass roots uprising. They don’t seem to comprehend where thier wins are coming from. They do the same thing at the state level here in PA and even down to the County level. Scared of change or loss of power or the real deal being exposed, they will do anything to keep the barbarians at the gate. Change the rules, subvert the bylaws whatever.

    Screw them and thier Good Old Boy network.

  • J

    For those of you folks, who think this is about Paul bots…
    Is Michelle Malkin a Paul bot?
    Is Sarah Palin?
    Is Erick Erickson?
    Is Freedomworks?

    Are all these folks Paul bots?

    GOP establishment Romney are trying to screw you even before he’s a president. I know it’s disheartening, but don’t be like Paul bots, for whom Paul can do no wrong.

  • Ragspierre


    1. not “Pau-bots”

    2. PRIVATE breakfast…ergo credentials needed to gain access

    3. sounds a lot like the people described here…

    But, never mind….

  • J


    Necessity was the idea when Bush killed capitalism “in order to save it”.
    Necessity was the idea when Porkulus was passed
    Necessity was justification for Auto and Banks bailout
    Necessity was justification for Obamadeathcare.

    Strangely we’ve been doing just fine without centralization. Messy, painful, but welcome to the decentralized power. That’s how it works. And yet you speak of “necessity”, you sound like Bambi.

    Now that we’ve covered centralized power and “necessity” what else would you like to talk about?

    My suggestion is more sunlight and more citizen involvement (see Thomas Jefferson if you don’t like that idea), which is already happening and which would be killed by these rules. Whether you are intentionally advocating this centralization of power or not, the result is the same – centralization of power. I am sorry I wouldn’t trust you or anyone else with such power.

  • J

    @Jeff, you are absolutely right. For an example see Ragspierre here preaching Obama’s “necessity” but with an ‘R’ letter afterwards.

    If this is what Romney and his bots are about now, he’ll be like Bambi when he takes power. But weather he wins or looses he’ll be doing so without me and many other Tea Partyers. GOP establishment has been taken like DNC.

  • Ragspierre

    OK, kick open the doors, and let the OWS people in, too.

    Stupid. Idea.

    We have a miserably broken process for selecting presidential candidates.

    It is a dirty joke. And you want to make it dirtier.

  • J


    Red herring and Slippery slope fallacies are a poor substitute for a rational argument. Do you have anything else to add besides your advocacy for centralization of power in GOP and “necessity”? Or is it your definition of the “open debate”?

  • Ragspierre

    “Red herring and Slippery slope fallacies are a poor substitute for a rational argument.”

    Identify them.


  • Pingback: GOP Bosses Offer Olive Branch to Avert Floor Fight | Liberal Whoppers()

  • Robert

    It seems to me that the threat of liberal corruption does not justify the scope of the rules changes in question. I am more inclined to believe that the GOP establishment is more concerned with, and wants more control over, conservative grass-roots activity, than a few leftist infiltrators.

    After all, which do they go after with such intensity when they get riled up?

  • J

    Red Herring – A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.

    Your Red Herring: you want to make it dirtier
    (instead of discussing the arguments you change the subject and introduce a personal accusation)

    Slippery Slope – The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed.

    Your Red Herring: kick open the doors, and let the OWS people in, too

    And now you add an explicit Ad Hominem – personal insult

    But let me repeat the question, do you have any more statements to make besides expressing the need for centralized control and covering it up with “necessity”? Or is insulting people and using fallacies all you can conjure up?

  • Ragspierre

    Your Red Herring: you want to make it dirtier
    (instead of discussing the arguments you change the subject and introduce a personal accusation)

    “My suggestion is more sunlight and more citizen involvement”. You did not qualify that simplistic BS one iota.

    At no TEA Party event I have attended are people free to come in and slime the movement. There are people there who identify them, isolate them, and make sure they are suppressed. I have been one.

    My response was directly related to your statement.

    But, while on the subject of fallacies…

    You have employed the ad hominum by circumstance (I pointed out that control of who gets into the convention is a simple necessity. Rather than deal with that, you associated the word “necessity” with a bunch of BS about other circumstantial uses of “necessity’).

    You also have corruptly used the guilt by association fallacy (associating me with Obama).

    I have called you a liar, because you have demonstrated you are one. That is not ad hominem.

    Now, the Romney people ARE being resisted, and are arguably too ham-fisted here, but it is simply dopey to claim there is no legitimate interest in protecting the integrity of the convention process by SOME means. Kind of like elections, yes?

    Which, I feel confident, we will get to by the push and shove taking place.

    But note that I am not the one here advocating for NOT voting for Romney (not my first, second, or third choice).

    Because I understand the stakes here.

  • J

    LOL, more red-herring.

    Do you want to discuss the issue, aka why these rules should be placed to centralize power in GOP (which is the reason to likening you to Bambi, rather than “association”, but apparently you don’t even read the messages), or you going to continue your demagoguery Mr. Country Lawyer?

    P.S.: dear fool, I grew up in the old USSR run by degenerate marxists, do not lecture me on understanding the stakes. Romney is demonstrating that he’s a similar “dragon”, he seeks to replace. If you knew the history of USSR, including the post break up, you would understand what’s happening.

  • Ragspierre

    Now you resort to the fallacy of an appeal to special knowledge (you are from the USSR).

    And you continue to use your own Red Moby Dick (centralized power).

    I have raised the necessity of controlling the integrity of the convention.

    You dodge the question.

    I have asked what your suggestion for that would be.

    You said “more citizen involvement” (with a vague appeal to authority via Jefferson).

    You have stated you are not voting.

    I wonder at whether you are, in fact, here as a Moby.

  • Guy

    I wish to add this point : if Obama comes out now hand in hand with Clinton saying he will
    Follow Clinton’s past policies shouldn’t we somehow now show the Absurdity of such a posture,
    Expose ahead the dishonesty with some humor ….

  • Pingback: Tea Party Take-over of the GOP « While you were sleeping()

  • J


    LOL, Mr. Country laweyer, fallacy is only a fallacy if it’s false. I do have a first hand knowledge and history which you apparently lack, whether you acknowledge it or not.

    Your asked me to point out your fallacies. I have. You responded with attacking me, without refuting my explanation of fallacies.Who’s dodging the question? Who’s doing the red herring?

    You accuse me of dodging the question. But you haven’t posed the question until 12:26 pm after I kept asking your for the reason for your support besides Obama/Bush’s “necessity” 12:26 pm. Who’s dodging the question? Who’s doing the red herring?

    And it wasn’t after I kept pressing you about your support for the centralization of power, that you started picking on what I said before. Strangely you had no problems with what I said before… Who’s dodging the question? Who’s doing the red herring?

    Nonetheless I’ll answer your question about Jefferson, and citizens involvement and sunshine. (interestingly a Russian immigrant has to teach a republican? lawyer on the founding principles, sad huh?)

    1. Jefferson said,
    “If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.” That is no matter how good intentioned the rulers are, if people don’t pay attention the former will become wolves. The centralization by its very nature takes away citizens involvement, thus inevitably leading to “wolfanization” of GOP.

    2. Sunshine I refer to is the new media, what both you and me are using. What Michelle, Sarah, Erickson, Freedomworks are doing right now. And what are they doing? Ringing ‘Red Alert – Danger’ over this power grab.

    There you have it. Now to your original statement – controlling the integrity of the convention:

    – You propose to do that via power centralization in the name of “need”. That’s marxist talk. From your posts elsewhere you don’t appear to be one, so I’ll give you a benefit of a doubt. But understand, centralization in the name of control only creates convenience of the the controlling structure once the controlling body is infiltrated. It is then used against the very people/principles it was intended to protect. That is not a solution.

    Now if you would like to lick your wounded lawyer’s ego, by all means continue personal insults and red herrings. But if you want to have a discussion, put aside the fallacies and personal attacks.

    Let me repeat the question, do you have any more arguments in favor of the GOP power centralization?

  • Ragspierre

    At 10:12
    “Opposition political activists have become adept at infiltrating GOP gatherings for several years and if state parties aren’t going to keep the enemy out of the convention, the national party must do it for them.”

    At 11:12
    “You advocate centralization of power.”

    No. I advocate a rational means to exclude people that our crappy primary system has allowed to gain a place with the specific intent of acting as saboteurs.

    Which is totally necessary. HOW we do that is open to debate.

    What is your suggestion?

    At 11:26


    1. not “Pau-bots”

    2. PRIVATE breakfast…ergo credentials needed to gain access

    3. sounds a lot like the people described here…

    But, never mind….

    As I said, you are a demonstrated liar.

  • J

    read, dude, read, I have just answered your points. your wounded ego is getting the best of you and now you are just raving.

  • J

    P.S.: It seems Romney just killed off a good portion of his supporters… He might still win. Maybe.

    This is far beyond just me being sick with him for exploiting a crisis within crisis, Mr. Country Lawyer. As I told you, similar manipulations happened before in the USSR. But go on, mock on. I’ll check on you in 2-3 years.

  • Ragspierre

    (interestingly a Russian immigrant has to teach a republican? lawyer on the founding principles, sad huh?)

    Yes. Sadly delusional conceit.

    I am not a Republican, btw.

    Is it necessary to control the integrity of the convention by controlling who participates?

    Yes or no, please.

    Is there evidence that the states have failed to vet delegates?

    Yes or no, please.

    Is our primary system a monstrous mess?

    Yes or no, please.

    Have the Ronulans demonstrated a capacity for creating disruptions completely outside their numbers?

    Yes or no, please.

    Given (aruendo) that the convention process has to be protected, such that its work can be performed, what is your suggestion for doing that?

  • J

    please don’t blow a fuse, but allow me to illustrate your questions.

    -have you stopped beating your wife?

    Yes or no, please

    Loaded, leading in a specific direction, not allowing for full explanation, except for a slightly open door on the last one.

    My suggestion is the same, decentralization. If this is impossible to do it with decentralization, then GOP already lost. Because centralization (always), as I mentioned above, leads to inevitable “wolfe-nization” and makes it convenient to control all right spectrum when the infiltration occurs, and it will occur (if states are not immune, why should the committee be?If the committee is immune, why is it?). We saw it over and over again in the x-USSR. Poop in ANY centralized structure ALWAYS floats to the top. Hayek wrote the same thing in the ‘Road to Serfdom’.

    As far as the convention protection? Is Paul able to sabotage the convention? Romney is the nominee. Only paul bots are still in denial or reality.

  • Pingback: » GOP Bosses Offer Olive Branch to Avert Floor Fight()

  • Ragspierre

    Thanks for demonstrating your intellectual dishonesty.

    “Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no”, requires the respondent to subscribe to a false premise (you beat your wife)

    None of my questions did.

    Hayek was not, as you pretend, referring to any system of order. Rather, he addressed COMMAND ECONOMIES.

    You are Gen. Jack Ripper of “centralization”

  • bg


    ht onbe

    Blame It On Bush

    God how i miss having a US President & First lady.. *sigh*


  • bg


    Leftists Are Intellectually Dishonest

    [And therein lies the intellectual dishonesty that suffocates those I labeled above as minions. They refuse to realize that they, like the persons of color who embrace victimology and despair, are guilty of perpetuating the very racism and conquest that they decry.

    Obama has no loyalty to persons of color, despite what they absurdly have convinced themselves to believe. They are simply useful idiots in his grand plan. The leftist minions I address are nothing more than modern day slave hunters looking to keep persons of color on their ideological plantation.

    Obama has been anything but truthful about his real intentions, but for those who are willing to factually assess what he has done thus far, his intentions are crystal clear.

    But, those leftists who believe themselves to be wise and all-knowing, have bought the Neo-Leninist lies that America is evil as they espouse views critical of our capitalist free-market economy and foment class warfare.

    All of this being said, I believe Obama aspires to accomplish three primary objectives: fundamentally change America, collapse America’s economic system to the point that we fall under a world rule, and redistribute America’s wealth in the way and manner that pleases him, consistent with his Neo-Leninist philosophy.

    What I’ve said may be difficult for some to believe, but that makes my assertions no less true. If one listens to what he says and observes what he does as being consistent with what he believes, it is there for all to see.]

    but hey, not to worry, the rightists are legitimately closing in on them..


  • Pingback: GOP Bosses Offer Olive Branch to Avert Floor Fight | Born Conservative()