By Richard Engle

Did you see any coverage of the Republican National Convention? Well, congratulations as you may have seen the last Republican National Convention as we know it.

Why? While rules changes may seem like inside baseball with little real impact, the truth is that he who writes the rules determines the outcome. Rules changes made during this year's convention may have determined the outcome of all future presidential nomination battles for the Republican Party.

It is important to understand the process so you can then understand the impact. The Republican National Committee (consisting of three members per state) has a Standing Committee on Rules consisting of one member per state. I served on the RNC's Standing Committee for the past two RNC meetings as a proxy for Oklahoma's then National Committeeman, James Dunn. That committee recommends changes to the party rules for adoption to the Convention Rules Committee. This may seem a cumbersome process, but the whole thing is done to keep the grassroots dominated convention in control of the party. Then the Convention Rules Committee (consisting of two members from each state delegation) passes its recommendations on to the Convention itself for adoption. In 2000 I served as Oklahoma's Convention Rules Committeeman.

Ordinarily, the report of the Standing Committee is used as a draft by the Convention Rules Committee. They will make minimal changes prior to sending them on to the floor of the National Convention. It is extremely difficult for any change from the Convention Committee's report. As the Convention operates under rules of the U.S. House of Representatives and not the better known Robert's Rules, the convention is controlled very tightly by the Chair. The option to present a minority report exists, but is difficult under the rules. In 2000 we presented a minority report to prevent the creation of "Super Delegates" but we were prevented from getting a vote on the floor.

This year the Standing Committee made very minor and helpful recommendations to the Rules. While I had not favored every recommended change, I believe that on balance they were favorable to the grassroots of our party and an improvement from the existing rules. I was quite pleased with the product we presented to the Convention Committee and I believed it would move forward with little change.

Boy, was I wrong!

The Convention Committeeman from the District of Columbia, Mr. Ginsberg, who is an attorney for the Romney campaign pushed for extreme changes. National Committeeman, and member of the Standing Committee, James Bopp of Indiana called it a "power grab." Supporters of Ron Paul were joined by Tea Party Republicans, Christian conservative groups, Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum and many other opposed Ginsberg's proposals. The "establishment" didn't even desire these changes!

All these changes were being made, it was explained, to overcome the "Ron Paul problem." It's like Nero blaming the Christians for burning Rome. Perhaps we should avoid the blame game and get a bucket of water. Mr. Ginsberg would have done well to endeavor to put the fire out. Instead his efforts threw gasoline on it!

Mr. Ginsberg successfully forced major changes to the rules -- especially Rules 12 and 16.

Rule 16 is a Delegate discipline rule. It requires that a Delegate must vote as bound if they are bound. This is fine. Many states, Oklahoma included, bind their Delegates to vote for a presidential candidate in accord with the Presidential Preference Primary. This part of the rule would create enforcement at the National Convention of that binding. The rule also prohibits a Delegate from participating in the presentation of a candidate for nomination other than the one they are bound to. While a departure from existing practice, this also is fine. The rule goes further yet, and states that a Delegate may not "otherwise support" a candidate other than the one they are bound to. This language is overly broad and undefined. It can be used to remove duly elected Delegates over extraordinarily minimal deviations from the "approved talking points" of the presumptive nominee. Simply saying pleasant things about the original field of candidates for the nomination can send a Delegate packing.

The effect will be to give us conventions filled with "Stepford wife" Delegates. We will find ourselves observing an event that is reminiscent of the Soviet Politburo instead of an American political convention. Imagine being a Delegate, faithful to the presumptive nominee, and you find a comment by or about another candidate so good that you applaud vociferously. You are being watched. Make sure you applaud louder and stronger for the one you are pledged to. You may be required to give a standing ovation to every little comment by the candidate to whom you are pledged. Otherwise you may be found to have violated the rule and will be removed as a Delegate.

How will that removal impact you when you return home? Your elevation to Delegate status was a feather in your political cap, but now you are a pariah in the Party. So much for your future as a party leader or elected official. One can easily see that this rule allows the tentacles of power to reach down to local politics.

This rule predicts the death of the grassroots of the Republican party and foreshadows the same by overriding the local election of Delegates allowing the removal of credentials for anything or possibly for nothing presuming the state party is cooperative with the campaign.

The other major rules change, Rule 12, is even worse! Rule 12 is all about "Rules Flexibility." The concept of Rules Flexibility has been around for a long time. Back in 2000 people were talking about it and the RNC itself shut it down by strong margins. The idea is to allow the RNC to change the party rules between conventions. Indeed a convention is no longer needed at all! With this change the Convention will be a complete side show if it exists at all. The RNC was so strongly against Rules Flexibility that the new rule applies to Rules 1 through 11 and 13 through 25 but not to rule 12. There is no flexibility on Rules Flexibility!

Why is this a problem. When the president is a Republican, he is the titular head of the Party. This is also true while he is the nominee prior to the election. The RNC always has and must do the bidding of the President from their party. When the President, or his re-election campaign wants something the RNC will act accordingly.

A rules change can be written to assure the re-nomination of the incumbent President. Rules changes can also secure the nomination for the President's preferred successor. This is a return to the smoke filled rooms of a century ago. No longer will it be necessary to appeal to the voters of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and so on. To get the GOP nomination one will need to go on bended knee to the West Wing and kiss the ring of its occupant. Every Republican presidential nominee is now beholden to the previous. It is an incestuous system.

This may be the first nail in the coffin of the Grand Old Party. The process that gave us Reagan, Bush and Romney will be abandoned to a new all powerful elite.

Various state delegations met to vote on a minority report. Oklahoma was unanimous in favor of a minority report and in favor or retaining a grassroots controlled party. Virginia National Committeeman Morton Blackwell had the signed and sealed report ready to deliver to the convention. Unfortunately, the official Virginia Delegation bus to the Convention was prevented from arriving until the Committee report was adopted over strong and ignored objections from the floor. Much has been said elsewhere of the teleprompter dictated results of the vote.

On Thursday, the final day of the convention, I met up with my old friend Morton, and asked him about his being spirited away, thus preventing the presentation of the minority report. He wisely stated, "I will not credit cleverness where incompetence will suffice." With a soft answer he turned away wrath from the Romney campaign. However, I would suggest that Mr. Blackwell understands that a clever campaign can win, but an incompetent one is not likely to experience a victory.

What should grassroots Republicans do?

We must create an enduring coalition between the Christian Conservatives, the Tea Party, and the Liberty wing. We must work together to win the state parties and place persons with fortitude into the RNC who will stand against this usurped power.

We must restore the grassroots control to the Party or it will never be the majority party in America. We can overturn this overreach, and we must.