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   
    * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)