Hello Matt,

MM>These thoughts are not written by me, but they are written by Dave
MM>Nalle and I agree with them.

I hate to bust your bubble, but...

MM>For those having trouble following the controversy over rules
MM>changes at the RNC, here they are in a nutshell:

MM>There are basically three proposed changes.

MM>First, that the delegates will be bound to vote in proportion
MM>to the popular vote regardless of how things go in our county and
MM>state conventions.

MM>Second, that the presumed nominee or his agents will be able to
MM>remove or replace delegates from state conventions at will.

MM>Third, that the members of the RNC may at any time between
MM>conventions change any of the party rules by a 3/4 vote.

That might all sound fine and dandy, but the reality is that
Mitt Romney (being the party nominee) is the man of the hour and
who will decide what goes and what stays in the RNC platform and
rules.

MM>It appears that most members of the Texas delegation are now
MM>opposing these changes.

Doesn't matter.  Mitt Romney will get (he did) what he wants.
Ditto with Barack Obama and the DNC.

MM>I signed on to the GOP to be part of a real political party, not
MM>just some pavlovian Punchinello who parades around in a pantomime
MM>pageant and claps when they ring a bell.

Are national conventions needed anymore?  Not really.  Parties
have chosen their nominees long before their national conventions.
No real need for delegates to get together, especially in today's
world with online access being available for everyone.  However,
the conventions do give folks an excuse to have a party...

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb