Posts

Why the ‘Establishment’ Media Is Finding Itself on Shaky Ground

As a member of The Daily Signal team, I took offense to The Washington Post’s recent questioning of our “legitimacy” as a news organization.

The Washington Post began its story stating that, “In an age of partisan media, the lines between ‘partisan’ and ‘media’ can sometimes blur.”

I wonder if the reporter has taken a look at just how partisan some of our country’s media behemoths actually are. Here is a summary of the ownership, lobbying, and political contributions of several of America’s largest media companies.

ABC is owned by the Walt Disney Co., which has spent over $70 million lobbying the federal government since 1998. During the 2016 election cycle, individuals and PACs associated with the company contributed $1.6 million to Democrats and $250,000 to Republicans.

NBC is owned by Comcast Corp. In 2014, Comcast spent $17 million in lobbying and hired 128 lobbyists. When it came to the 2016 election cycle, contributions were almost evenly distributed between the two political parties, with Democrats receiving $3.5 million and Republicans $3.3 million.

However, if you look at the contributions related specifically to NBC properties, the vast majority of contributions were to Democrats. The only outlier was NBC Sports.

CBS is owned by CBS Corp., which spent $4,470,000 in lobbying in 2016.

CNN is owned by Time Warner Inc. In 2016, individuals and PACs related to the company gave 87 percent of contributions to Democrats and 11 percent to Republicans. The only year since 1990 that such contributions didn’t heavily favor Democrats was 1996, when contributions were split 50-50.

And then there is The Washington Post, which is owned by billionaire businessman Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com.

Among his political donations? A reported $2.5 million was given to support the gay marriage referendum in Washington state. He has also been a vocal supporter of the internet sales tax. The Washington Post editorial pages have reflected similar views on both marriage and taxes.

To say that the aforementioned political contributions are nowhere near “balanced” is an understatement. And while you can’t link every dollar to every instance of bias, most Americans have come to the conclusion that the media is less than trustworthy.

According to Gallup, Americans’ confidence in the media “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly” is at its lowest point in Gallup’s polling history with only 32 percent saying they have “a great deal or fair amount of trust” in the media.

Also of note, a recent Emerson College poll showed voters find the Trump administration “to be more truthful than the news media.” Forty-nine percent of voters considered the administration truthful, but only 39 percent said the same about the news media.

In addition to a lack of trust among American news consumers, technology is playing a role in the changing and broadening media landscape.

According to a 2016 study by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are now more people working in internet/digital publishing (outlets like The Daily Signal) than working at newspapers. And the numbers are pretty stark.

In 1990, there were 458,000 people working in the newspaper industry. Fast forward to 2016, and that number had fallen by 60 percent, to 183,000. On the flip side, the number of people working in internet publishing grew from 30,000 in 1990 to almost 198,000 in 2016.

And, as more and more Americans are going online to get their news (44 percent of U.S. adults now get news on Facebook, according to the Pew Research Center), newspaper circulation continues to decline, and the traditional broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) have fewer eyeballs watching their morning programs and evening news broadcasts—1 million fewer than last year.

Perhaps it’s little wonder that what is known as the “establishment” media is feeling, well, a little less established than it used to. (For more from the author of “Why the ‘Establishment’ Media Is Finding Itself on Shaky Ground” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Unreal: The GOP Establishment Resurrects Crony Ex-Im Bank

It’s hard to be a proud Republican these days. The party of limited government has capitulated to a plethora of Obama’s big government demands, while achieving no conservative victories of their own.

Yet, it’s one thing to surrender to Obama. But it’s an entirely different thing when the Republican party actively seeks to promote their own big government, cronyist agenda.

Once again, the Republican establishment is up to its old antics.

Congressional Republicans are now attempting to strip any role Congress has in stymieing the operations of the big business, lobbyist-loving, taxpayer-funded Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im).

The Ex-Im Bank is an independent government agency that provides taxpayer-backed loans and insurance to foreign businesses that seek to purchase American products. Yet, most of the loans protect goods purchased from the largest, and wealthiest, U.S. businesses.

A Mercatus Center study finds that at least 76 percent of the billions of dollars in financial assistance ends up with companies like Boeing, General Electric, Applied Materials, and Caterpillar. These are multibillion dollar companies that should not be supported by the taxpayer.

Last year, conservatives were successful in temporarily allowing the bank’s charter to lapse. However, that victory was short-lived when five months later the Republican establishment renewed the charter by forcing it into the “must-pass” highway funding bill.

Still, conservatives had one more trick up their sleeve.

Although the bank returned to operations, it was able to do so only partially. It still faced another problem: the bank’s charter requires a quorum of at least three board members to vote on any deals in excess of $10 million. But the board currently only has two members; the third board member, an Obama nominee, is currently help up in the Senate.

Without the necessary board members, the Ex-Im Bank is seriously curtailed. According to the Financial Times, more than two-thirds of the loan money provided by the Bank cannot be spent without at least three members on the board; thus, the Bank can do very little.

The conservative hero responsible for delaying this nomination is Republican Senator Richard Shelby, R-Ala. (C, 70%). Shelby chairs the Senate Banking Committee, that has jurisdiction over the bank and the nomination process. So far, Shelby, who opposes the mission of the Ex-Im Bank, and refused to process the nomination to fill the third seat on its board, is the only one doing anything to attempt to stop this from going forward.

As usual, every battle fought by conservatives seems to be met with a more ruthless counterattack by the Republican establishment. That brings us to the latest attempt to crush this conservative cause …

Originally, I raised the concern that Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. (F, 44%) may attempt to bypass Shelby’s committee altogether and bring the nominee up for a vote on the Senate floor. While that hasn’t transpired (yet!), there is a more deceptive plan in the works.

On Tuesday, the House Appropriation Committee debated the annual State and Foreign Operations spending bill. In doing so, Republican amendments were considered. One amendment that was considered, and passed, was an amendment by Republican Charlie Dent, R-Pa. (F, 30%).

Dent’s amendment actually modifies the Ex-Im Bank’s charter by doing away with the need for a board to approve any financial transactions larger than $10 million, through September 2019. This effectively removes the important oversight and accountability at the Bank by simply scuttling the need for the board to be involved in the Bank’s actions.

That’s just how desperate Republicans are to re-instate their corporate cronyism. Why fight a nominee when you can just legislate his importance at the bank out of existence? This is cronyism on steroids.

That’s the pathetic nature of the Republican Party today. This is the party that we’ve become: a party that no longer believes in the spirit of political debate, or the adherence to their own process or principles. It’s a party that simply doesn’t recognize the voices of its own members, and would rather legislate away the tools and rights of those members than listen to them. This is the state of our party – and it’s certainly nothing to celebrate. (For more from the author of “Unreal: The GOP Establishment Resurrects Crony Ex-Im Bank” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Establishment Senators Push GOP Unity Ahead of Conservative Values

6161473677_d865e1b30f_b (1)The nickname was reinforced last week by a behind the scenes account of GOP senators who view their “club” as a pretty exclusive place.

Basically, conservative ideas, opinions, and research need not apply.

The main focus of The Hill’s article was about GOP senators criticizing Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, for not showing more “collegiality” towards fellow Republicans, i.e., not being more of a go along, get along, get in line type of lawmaker.

Lee apparently believes the GOP conference rule on term limits, which holds that senators in leadership positions must step aside after three terms, should be followed. But as the account reveals, this is about more than certain senators just wanting to hold on to their leadership positions. It would seem some senators don’t like the fact that Lee and his staff talk to people outside the club to fact check and get input about legislation that has been introduced by other Republicans.

As The Hill reports:

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., accused Lee’s staff on the Republican Steering Committee of coordinating with outside groups to oppose compromise bills put together by Republican senators, according to sources who attended Thursday’s meeting…

Corker argued that it’s counterproductive for an internal Senate policy group funded with dues from GOP senators to stake out positions against bills championed by those member senators.

So, is Corker suggesting that the Republican Steering Committee should simply support whatever legislation any GOP senator, who is a member, introduces? Is he suggesting that senators should not seek research from outside groups about the impacts of this or that legislative proposal?

Frankly, I would expect my members of Congress to do a little homework. I don’t want them rubberstamping a bill simply because one of their colleagues introduced it or a group of them have put together a “compromise” bill.

Maybe Corker doesn’t like the fact that organizations like The Heritage Foundation have buildings full of researchers and policy experts whose full-time job it is to comb through legislative proposals, analyzing the pros and cons, what they will cost taxpayers, and how people will be affected by them. And that’s exactly what Heritage scholars did with a current proposal put forward by Corker dealing with the issue of human trafficking.

Corker should be applauded for taking on this issue. He should not take offense that Heritage’s analysis of the bill, which we made public as we do with all our research, found that the legislation needed to be strengthened to achieve its objectives and to ensure U.S. taxpayer dollars and “funds from any organization or program established by the U.S. government” are not spent in ways that conflict with U.S. policy.

Unfortunately, Corker isn’t alone in his view that organizations like Heritage and others, who represent millions of Americans, shouldn’t be meddling in their business. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, is quoted in the article saying that “Generally speaking, any effort that would encourage outside groups to weigh in on internal discussions is not healthy.”

When “internal discussions” are about the positive or negative impact a particular bill might have, it would seem our public servants shouldn’t be so afraid of input from, well, the public.

Perhaps Corker and Murkowski wish others weren’t paying such close attention so their legislative proposals could sail through. It would be much easier for them if things operated that way. But it would not be good for the American people—who may not “pay dues” to the Senate conference but who do pay the salaries of every member of Congress. (For more from the author of “Establishment Senators Push GOP Unity Ahead of Conservative Values” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Rise of the ‘Obama Republicans’

Photo Credit: AP…By 1972, many conservative Democrats supported Nixon over George McGovern so at least in presidential campaigns, culturally conservative Democrats were already moving away from their historic home. Only the election of Jimmy Carter in 1976, a southern populist reformer–and Watergate–and Betty Ford’s liberalism–forestalled the inevitable.

The Gipper’s massive victory in 1980 was fueled by more that 30 percent of Democrats nationwide, who took a powder on Carter after he moved to the left. Reagan received the same amount in the 1984 election in part because he’d done nothing to disappoint them and the liberal establishment nominated Walter Mondale, a good man who was trapped in a New Deal past.

Reagan ran again as the anti-establishment candidate of the future and swamped the lifetime Democrat, ironically with the help of Democrats. Yet the Establishment Republicans simply could not abide by the realigning elections of 1980, 1984, and 1994.

By the final years of the last century, some inside the GOP wanted the Reagan Revolution to be over, thus the phrase “compassionate conservative.” George W. Bush ran and lost the popular vote in 2000 without once ever calling for a spending cut or the elimination of one single wasteful federal program. After that, the GOP would continue to embrace the persona of Reagan–they had little choice–but no longer would they embrace the American conservative philosophy of the Gipper.

Hence, the stirrings of the Obama Republicans.

Read more from this story HERE.

Establishment Groups on Retreat Against Tea Party Incumbents

Photo Credit: Getty Images Big-business and establishment groups vowed they would wage war on conservatives and Tea Party candidates, particularly incumbents, in 2014, but they are backing off after realizing they may not want to throw money at losers.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce vowed to spend $50 million taking sides in GOP primaries for establishment-friendly candidates, and other GOP establishment front-groups vowed to raise and spend millions more dollars against conservative and Tea Party candidates.

“Big Business swore this would be the year it would wrestle back the soul of the Republican Party from the grip of the tea party,” Politico writes. “But with primary season looming, the big threats from Big Business appear to be just that.”

Politico notes that the big-business groups are not backing many candidates early and have not “cowed conservative groups fueling challenges to incumbent senators.”

The Republican party has shifted to the right for at least the last thirteen years, according to Gallup polls, and on issues like amnesty, grassroots have mobilized against it even without big-money being spent by amnesty opponents. For instance, after the House GOP released its so-called “immigration principles,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) slammed the document as “amnesty.” That was enough to stall whatever momentum there may have been as the grassroots galvanized against amnesty, forcing GOP leaders to declare that they would not go forward on amnesty until they can trust President Barack Obama to actually enforce any new law that may be passed.

Read more this story HERE.

Rand Paul – An Early GOP Presidential Front-Runner

Photo Credit: BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFPRepublican strategists like to say the party’s next nominee needs to hail from the GOP’s gubernatorial ranks. It’s a response to how unpopular Washington is—particularly the party’s congressional wing—and a reflection of the party’s strength in holding a majority of governorships. But another reason for the gubernatorial focus is to sidestep the one formidable candidate that gives the establishment heartburn: Sen. Rand Paul.

Make no mistake: The Kentuckian scares the living daylights out of many Republicans looking for an electable nominee capable of challenging Hillary Clinton. At the same time, he’s working overtime to broaden the party’s image outside its traditional avenues of support. The 2016 Republican nominating fight will go a long way toward determining whether Paul is the modern version of Barry Goldwater or at the leading edge of a new, more libertarian brand of Republicanism.

“That’s the big challenge—is America ready? I think that Rand and his small-L libertarian Republicanism can break through,” said Paul’s longtime adviser Jesse Benton. “He’s a fundamentally better messenger than Barry Goldwater—[Goldwater’s 1964 campaign slogan] ‘In your heart you know he’s right’ is not very compelling. Rand is a wonderful communicator, and I think a message of individual liberty can build wide support.”

Either way, Paul’s brand of politics is a distinct departure from the party’s traditional moorings. His occasional sympathy for Edward Snowden puts him on an island within the party. His critique of the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance techniques and noninterventionist views on foreign policy are gaining some conservative followers, but are still outside the party mainstream. Many conservative foreign policy hawks could sooner support Clinton than Paul in a 2016 matchup.

Read more this story HERE.

Will Failing to Support This Movement Prove the GOP’s Demise?

Dear Friend of Liberty,

Current GOP Establishment leadership “wisdom” in Washington is saying it is time to stand up to the Tea Party and show them who is boss.

This misguided way of thinking seeks to oppose a movement that stands for a limited federal government, grounded in the Constitution, which should be exactly what the Republican Party is for, especially at this critical moment in our nation’s history. 

A return to these bedrock principles is the only hope for restoring the United States to a land where freedom and opportunity thrive.

The passion, principles, and political engagement of the Tea Party made the Republican Party relevant again. It fueled the GOP’s winning back control of the House and gave it the chance to get back in the game in the Senate only two years after the devastating losses of 2008, in which the Democrats not only took the Presidency and strengthened their grip on the House, but won a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. 

It was the Tea Party that understood immediately the fundamental transformation of America that Barack Obama and the Democrats were seeking. It was the Tea Party that stood, and continues to stand, in opposition to that socialist agenda. And it is the Tea Party that is fighting for a new birth of freedom in America.

Here in Alaska, Senator Mark Begich has been a faithful foot soldier in Barack Obama’s and Harry Reid’s march towards their socialist, utopian dream. From voting for the trillion dollar failed stimulus package, to exponentially growing the entitlement state as the nation racked up $7 trillion in new debt, to his 60th and deciding vote for ObamaCare, Senator Begich has been an unquestioning “yes” for the Democrat agenda. 

We have the chance to replace Mark Begich next year, but it must be with someone who is committed to a fundamental restoration of America. In this great challenge, a “go along to get along” Republican mentality will not be enough to stop and roll back the encroachments of the federal government during the last several years. 

You know where I stand; I’m not “Johnny come lately” to this fight! 

You don’t have to wonder whether I’ll fight for your Constitutional Liberties. You don’t have to wonder whether I’ll advocate for the free market. You don’t have to wonder whether I’ll speak up for those who can’t speak for themselves. You know I will.

I have been a strong opponent of ObamaCare from the start. I have advocated for its repeal. And I am the only candidate in this senate race who has embraced the accountability of signing the Senate Conservatives Fund Pledge to Defund Obamacare!

As Alaska’s next United States Senator, I will stand with leaders like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, because they understand the grave consequences to our nation if we fail to act and act soon to restore fiscal soundness and our constitutional freedoms.

Truthfully, my opponents will likely talk a good talk in the months ahead, but when given the opportunity to support tea party reform in the past, they chose the establishment status quo with its bailouts, crony capitalism and trillions in deficit spending. 

The contrast couldn’t be clearer. 

Our country is at peril, and there is little time to turn it around. It’s time to take a bold stand for the country we love and fight for its future!

When I am elected to the United States Senate, I pledge to confront this lawless administration and its radical socialist agenda. You can bank on it.

I cannot do this alone; but together we can. If you want a fighter in the United States Senate, I need your help today.

Thanks for your generosity and support!

Because America is worth fighting for . . .

Joe

Establishment Betrayal, Other Factors Leading Republicans to Abandon Party Label

Photo Credit: legalinsurrectionThis week, The Frontier Lab published the results of months of research into why some Republicans are refusing to go by the label “Republican,” choosing to identify as anything but. I was the Research Director for this study, which applied a research approach called “Behavioral Event Modeling,” which essentially reverse engineers and maps all events that precede an individual’s disaffiliation…

The results were fascinating; after combining the flowcharts from individuals who share conservative or moderate views and no longer will use the label “Republican” to describe themselves, we ascertained four core patterns that they had in common:

1. Rejection of the “Lesser of Two Evils” argument;
2. Articulation of “Loss of Hope” in the GOP;
3. Affiliation with a new community, and
4. Incident of perceived betrayal by the GOP establishment.

…Disaffiliation from the Republican label is not only, or even primarily, a matter of philosophical differences. Rather, the perception of former Republican adherents that their party has personally attacked them, continued to present choices as a “lesser of two evils,” select candidates and principles unpalatable to voters to the point where they retain “no hope,” and failed to provide the sense of community that other outlets like talk radio and the Tea Party provide, reveal that ideology takes a back burner to what is essentially a hollow brand for those disaffiliating.

Read more from this story HERE.

GOP Establishment: Stupid or Sinister?

Photo Credit: Lifestyle News

Photo Credit: Lifestyle News

A question I’ve been asked a lot lately goes a little something like this:

Beyond the fact it betrays the rule of law and rewards lawbreakers by giving them what they broke the law for in the first place, I don’t understand why all these Republican “leaders” want to engage in a scamnesty program that will just result in adding over $6 trillion more in debt for taxpayers while simultaneously allowing Democrats to register millions of more new voters. Hispanics have voted Republican only 31% of the time since 1980. Do they want the whole country to look as broke as California following the Reagan Amnesty, which was a Republican-leaning state for decades (GOP won California in 7 of the 10 previous presidential elections prior to the Reagan Amnesty) and now less than 30% of Californians are registered Republicans? Are these GOP “leaders” so stupid as to not understand they’re actively aiding and abetting their own destruction?

The answer, of course, is yes – they are this stupid. But the answer doesn’t end there. To truly understand what’s driving the GOP ruling class’ self-immolation train you have to realize why they’re this stupid.

There are two reasons for their stupidity.

The first is easy to identify, because we recognize the ruling class mindset is largely a non-partisan phenomenon. It seems nobody, regardless of party, gets more principled the longer they’re a part of the District of Corruption. The den of iniquity known as the beltway culture is like a rotting corpse that eventually infests everything and everybody it touches. Some have the depth of worldview, character, and courage to resist its side effects longer than others, but prolonged exposure over time eventually leads to even the best of us being infected with a lack of critical thinking, self-righteousness, and ambition masquerading as conviction.

Once infected, the patient then loses detachment from all reality outside of the 202 or 212 area codes. This produces an echo chamber, whereas a bunch of people presume to play God by making decisions with regular people’s lives they themselves haven’t had to live in a long time and no longer understand. From high atop their subsidized Valhalla they issue edicts and commandments they often exempt themselves from. Sure we complain, vent, and when we’re really upset we might even – gasp! – blog about it. Because nothing threatens gangster government like a blog.

However, when they do descend down to the depths to commiserate with we in the huddled masses, which is usually only for fundraisers or campaigning, they are often treated by their bosses (us) like they are rock stars and not our employees, which only feeds their egocentric existence. Instead of holding them accountable for what previous generations of Americans would’ve called treason, we often thank them for not selling us out even more. We then send them right back to the source of their temptation expecting a different result each time.

Wash, rinse, and repeat.

So, yes, the insulated ruling class world these people are allowed to live in (often for decades) feeds their stupidity. But there is something else afoot here that is far more subtle and sinister.

Those that run the Republican Party are ashamed of their base. I say that knowing ashamed is a strong word, yet in this case it might not actually be strong enough. These are often successful and wealthy people. They understand Coke doesn’t make money promoting Pepsi, or that the Yankees shouldn’t take advice on how to build a winner from the Red Sox. They’re not morons. They just hate us.

To them the big argument between Republicans and Democrats isn’t a clash of worldviews with a civilization at stake. To them the big argument is whether the check from the taxpayer trough gets written out to Democrat special interests or theirs. This thing we call politics isn’t faith and ethics in action to these people, but rather a cynical battle of dueling self-interests. Therefore, it’s those of us who attempt to interject our faith and/or ethics into the political process that are the real threat to them—much more so than Democrats.

Democrats don’t threaten their way of life, but we do.

They’re fine arguing with Democrats about issues like job creation, because both of them wrongly believe that’s the government’s job. They fall apart when the conversation changes to what government shouldn’t do, or a culture’s moral responsibility. In other words, we’re often aligned with people who don’t share our value system. That is the recipe for a dysfunctional relationship.

And dysfunctional relationships often end in divorce.

They know the reason Mitt Romney lost in 2012 was the loss of the GOP base, not the Hispanic vote. They know Romney would’ve needed 72% of the Hispanic vote to win. They know these facts are readily available to all who care to research them for themselves. They know they’re lying to you, often using “conservative media” you frequent to do it. They know you’re alienated from the party.

They just don’t care.

See, this is all part of a greater plan, a plan to replace you with voters who want the same thing from government that they want. So they’re going to replace you with voters who believe in entitlement, bending the rules or outright breaking the law to get what they want, and don’t care about the Constitution or the “laws of nature and nature’s God” anymore than they do.

In the meantime they don’t mind losing a few elections if that’s what it takes to preserve their gravy train. Besides, many of these people have been there for decades anyway, so two or three crucial elections are barely a wrinkle in time for them. This explains why they don’t have the sense of urgency about America’s future that we do.

Once they’ve sufficiently watered down your influence within the Republican Party by flooding the electorate with more “government-Americans,” they’ll try and come back and make you part of the team again—but only on their terms, of course.

And their terms are stand for nothing meaningful, believe in nothing meaningful, but vote Republican just because we’re not Democrats. “After all,” they’ll say, “at least we still say ‘God bless America’ at our convention.”

The end game here is control. Always has been. They’re not ideologically driven one way or the other. They are purely agenda driven, and the agenda is control. Stand in the way of them being in control regardless of your ideology – either conservative or libertarian – and you’re a threat. This explains why these people go after us harder in primaries than they go after Democrats in general elections.

What for many years we have wrongly believed to be a battle between moderates and conservatives is really a battle for control. To believe these people have an ideology is giving them too much credit. Their only ideology is control. They want you involved—but on their terms. They want diversity in the party—but on their terms.

These people would rather lose elections than lose control, and that’s why they keep doing over and over again what has proven to be a loser every time it’s tried. That’s why they accept the liberal media’s talking points on the death of the Tea Party or social conservatives at face value. To admit defeat or to admit you’re relevant would be the same as admitting you have power and influence over the process, and the minute they admit that they lose control.

What we have viewed as “a battle for the soul of the Republican Party” is nothing of the sort. These people are soul-less. To them this is simply a clash of two factions within a board of directors for control of a corporation. They simply want control to pay off their investors/shareholders with dividends and/or coveted jobs/appointments. They don’t care what product the company sells or doesn’t sell, provided they’re in control.

The only way to beat these people is to realize this and beat them at their own game. The numbers have always been in our favor, but they have done a magnificent job of buying off several of our so-called leaders and champions, so we couldn’t sufficiently organize to overthrow them.

But that topic deserves its own book.

____________________________________________________________

You can friend “Steve Deace” on Facebook or follow him on Twitter @SteveDeaceShow.

GOP Establishment Keeps RNC Rules Rammed Through by Romney Campaign Last Year

Photo Credit: AP

In the GOP’s ongoing establishment vs. grassroots saga, chalk one up for the establishment.

Since Mitt Romney’s loss, the Rand Paul wing of the party has been on the ascendency. But libertarians hit a roadblock Friday as the Republican National Committee opted at its spring meeting to keep in place a host of rules rammed through by the Romney campaign at last year’s national convention.

The move represents at least a small setback to Rand Paul’s 2016 hopes, potentially making it more difficult for him or another candidate with strong grassroots support to pick up delegates. Had the rules been in effect last year — they were adopted after Mitt Romney secured the nomination — the former Massachusetts governor would likely have wrapped up the nomination much earlier and avoided the drawn-out warfare that weakened him heading into the general election against Barack Obama.

One plank that was maintained, for example, allows more states to award delegates on a winner-take-all basis, instead of proportionally. An attempt to overturn another rule that bounds a state delegation to support whoever won a statewide vote received only 49 votes; 107 committee members voted to keep it in place.

The vote followed a heated debate. Paul backers argued that the Romney rules favor big-money candidates at the expense of contenders with devoted followings among activists.

Read more from this story HERE.