Unofficial Massachusetts RNC Delegate Results

Bruce Tarr (0.00 / 0)

I thought he was an Official Romney delegate based on what I saw from MassGOP.

Am I wrong?

Richard A. Jolitz

Once, and future, candidate


 

---

by: NorthShoreRich @ Sat May 05, 2012 at 23:32:50 PM UTC

Yes (0.00 / 0)

That was a typo.  I fixed it.

Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Sat May 05, 2012 at 23:39:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Close Vote Provisional Ballots will Decide the winners (0.00 / 0)

There were seven provisional ballots that will have to be opened and counted because the vote was so close.  I would say that the provisional ballots have a high probability of being in favor of the Liberty slate.  So, if counted you may drop to fourth place.  

I was there and did the official ballot counting.

---

by: Kestrel @ Sat May 05, 2012 at 23:45:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bob Tarr (0.00 / 0)

Bob did not run on the Liberty Slate.  It was my understanding that he was an Official Romney Delegate candidate.  But, with so many provisional ballots and the vote so close -- who knows who really won.

---

by: Kestrel @ Sat May 05, 2012 at 23:48:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What difference does it make? (0.00 / 0)

MassGOP is just cheating and putting in the delegates they want anyway. "We didn't win, so now we're changing the rules so that we do win."

How can MassGOP be working with a particular campaign? The people of Massachusetts went to the caucus and voted for who they wanted to vote for. Obama is going to have a field day with this. "You had to cheat just to get the delegates you wanted in your own state!"

Does MassGOP really want Obama to win? Stop disenfranchising Massachusetts Republicans. 9 out of 10 registered voters aren't registered Republicans, and it's antics like this that drives people away.

---

by: Anthony Ellis @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 00:42:04 AM UTC

That's just it, they're not "changing the rules". (0.00 / 0)

Rule 5.2 has been in place all along.  I spoke to several Liberty slate individuals who were aware that they might be booted.  It comes as a shock to the 1200 folks who were turned out, but not the folks who got them out.

If they didn't read the RULE BOOK then whose fault is that?

Follow me on Twitter?  Sure, why not.  www.twitter.com/paulferro

---

by: Paul R. Ferro @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 03:43:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Abusing the rules. (5.00 / 1)

The way they'd like to use "just cause" is a joke.  There are delegates on this list who were delegates in 2008.  They didn't do anything funny in 2008, so what would the "just cause" be to bounce them now?  Prefering to install a slate of delegates rather than certify the elected delegates is not a "just cause."  That the Romney campaign brazenly admitted this in the emails that they sent out destroys the argument for not certifying the elected delegates.

Emails have been sent to Romney Slate Delegates, many of whom finished in 4th, 5th, and 6th place for one of three delegate slots, informing them that the Romney Campaign would challenge Liberty Slate Delegates, and to be prepared to serve as Delegates in their stead.

---
"That it ceased to exist, I'll grant you, but whether or not it failed cannot be definitively said." - Metropolitan (1990)

---

by: Patrick @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 04:11:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Then why even have the caucus? (2.50 / 2)

Seriously, what's the point? If I'm Obama, I'm loving this. "Mitt, you had to use an obscure rule just to disenfranchise the voters and hand-pick your preferred delegates in your own state."

And MassGOP wonders why 89% of Massachusetts voters want nothing to do with them...and the idea that the Liberty slate would do anything funny on the convention floor is a bunch of hogwash.

---

by: Anthony Ellis @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 04:32:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Then why even have the caucus?" (4.00 / 2)

To allow average folks who Support MITT ROMNEY a chance at being a delegate.

The issue isn't that Liberty Slate folks where elected.  It's that they're not only not supporters of Romney, but that they are supporters of Ron Paul.

Rule 5.2 exists for the express purpose of stopping supporters of another candidate winning at caucuses what they couldn't win a the ballot box.  Romney out-polled Paul 7-1.  

Do we need Caucuses?  No.  I'm perfectly alright with the State Campaign Committee of each respective qualifying candidate to simply submitt to the MRSC a list of folks who will serve as delegates for their candidate.

Political Parties are NOT democratic (small 'd') entities.  They don't have to be, they just try to be from time-to-time.


Follow me on Twitter?  Sure, why not.  www.twitter.com/paulferro

---

by: Paul R. Ferro @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 06:42:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

When are you going to be satisfied? (0.00 / 0)

The rule says it's run by a parliamentarian and Roberts Rules of Order to be followed.  It implies that it's a democratic process.

All that was needed is for Romney supporters to show up if the popular vote has any meaning.  They didn't turn out to caucus so it means the popular vote didn't carry any water.
I think they voted the media wanted them to.  The media even called a win with just 1% of votes tallied but let's not going through everything right now.

The establishment had a huge problem getting people to caucus and so did we.  We braved the rain to chase down and dragged our people to the caucuses.  You prefer to let the tube doing the motivation and that didn't work despite having a 7 to 1 advantage.

What kind of conservatism when people couldn't be bothered?  We feel bothered to do something about it because we know too many things and among them is the obedient and lazy masses being led to slaughter.

If you say party politics is not a democratic process so doesn't that imply the popular vote is meaningless?  How deep of a hole are we going to go with all these rules?

---

by: Chan McCao @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 07:11:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

First of all... (4.00 / 1)

....your statement above is exactly why rule 5.2 exists.  You don't care what the Primary results were, and even though you lost 7 to 1, you somehow think it's ok to completely overturn the choices of 265,000 people in favor of the choices of 1,200 because you insultingly say that the 265,000 somehow didn't choose to vote for Romney, but did it because the "tube' told them too.

Nonsense!

The person above asked why we have Caucuses.  The simple answer is there is no need for Caucuses in this state at this time, with Mass General Laws written as they are.  We're required to have a primary by the Government.  That's it.  Everything else is up to the Party.  Party write the rules, and in this case they're invoking one that is not beneficial to some people who won on April 28th.

Sending Ron Paul Supporters to the convention isn't an expression in Democracy.  It's the exact opposite.  It's a small number of people trying to thwart the will of the people as expressed on March 6th.  Now you're complaining because an even smaller group of people are trying to stop you, and actually have the mandate of 265,000 voters on their side.


Follow me on Twitter?  Sure, why not.  www.twitter.com/paulferro

---

by: Paul R. Ferro @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 08:51:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stop shilling for Romney (0.00 / 0)

Okay, your argument has a number of holes in it. For one thing, it was not a closed primary. Independents can also vote in the primary, but only Republicans can vote in the caucus. Therefore, the will of Massachusetts Republicans is not clear. Secondly, as many people on here have said, they support Romney for President, but did not like the Romney slate of delegates. They know that the delegates are bound to Romney anyway, and that he's likely going to win the nomination on the first ballot anyway. That is why they voted for the Liberty slate. Finally, the Liberty slate does not work for any campaign. They are independent minded people.

I haven't seen one shred of evidence that the MassGOP intends to do this - only your article, which was intended to curb the optimism and enthusiasm among Ron Paul supporters. MassGOP is not going to do that. They know the backlash would be too great, and it wouldn't be worth it when Romney has all but locked up the nomination anyway. This is just what you WANT to happen. We don't have Russian elections, we just have Russian propaganda instead.

---

by: Anthony Ellis @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 12:49:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I personally read the email that the Romney camp sent out... (5.00 / 1)

...off of the recipients phone, as did one of the Liberty Slate delegates.  I'd print it here, but it be pretty obvious who my source was, (a Romney Slate candidate) and they asked not to be identified.

I'm not arguing with you vis-a-vie Primary vs. Caucuses.  I've written on this blog arguing for doing away with Binding Primaries, and instituting a Caucuses system for the nomination of our party candidates.  At the very least a Closed Primary.

You asked "why we have caucus" and I gave you "a" reason, not "the" reason.  if the MassGOP decided to select delegates to the RNC by throwing darts at a board with names on it, they could.

Instead, they came up with a semi-complex set of rules for the governance of the winning of Delegates, and then how they are actually chosen.  For example, one rule was that only candidates who got 15% of the vote on March 6th qualified for delegates.  Where was the outrage that the 35,000 people who voted for Ron Paul have been ignored?

I didn't hear any of the Paulites complaining about the rules that let them try to win delegate slots at Caucuses.  They thus can't complain when those same exact rules are invoked in a way they dislike.

You live by ALL the rules, not just the ones you like.

BTW, I voted for, and was a supporter of, Senator Santorum.  Which is why I didn't run for Delegate.  I actually read the rules and knew that as a "known" Santorum supporter, under Rule 5.2 I would be dismissed as a delegate if I have gotten 5 or 5,000 votes.

Follow me on Twitter?  Sure, why not.  www.twitter.com/paulferro

---

by: Paul R. Ferro @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 14:08:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Please post the contents of the email. (0.00 / 0)

Omit the To: line.

---
"That it ceased to exist, I'll grant you, but whether or not it failed cannot be definitively said." - Metropolitan (1990)

---

by: Patrick @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 14:29:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I thought of that... (0.00 / 0)

...but based on the one I read, it wasn't a form email.  It was written to each person, which makes sense.  After all, they only would have to write, what?  20 of them?


Follow me on Twitter?  Sure, why not.  www.twitter.com/paulferro

---

by: Paul R. Ferro @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 16:45:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Paul - this 'known associate' business is being cooked up for this. (5.00 / 1)

We had Romney supporters - elected as Romeny delegates - vote for McCain.

The ONLY primary candidate supporters being stigmatized like this are Paul supporters.  Heck, there are Gingrich supporters who were named to the Romney 'slate'!

The only requirements are that you are a registered Republican and vote for the candidate you are elected to represent.  You are looking to RETURN to the system that got elected delegates removed in 2000 by the Bush and McCain campaigns!

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 16:56:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Then Why Even Have The Caucus (0.00 / 0)

Since when??? Most on the Romney slate were not average folk -- they were party insiders and part of the political leadership structure.  This is about them -- not the average Romney supporters.

This is about a group of sociopaths that got royally put in there place.  If you really look at this objectively, you would see that the numbers of true activist supporting the primary candidates appear to be in the favor of Ron Paul.  The majority of the Republican voters do not really participate, other than vote (sometimes).  Essentially, they tend to vote for whomever the party leadership has selected.  So, effectively they are not part of any real equation.  This is about activist ... with the incumbent group holding the advantage of incumbency and the power that comes with it.  While the other group probably has the advantage of activist numbers -- which appears to be growing. (With this little stunt the MASSGOP is pulling those numbers may get a significant boost)

So I would say that you are reading the poll wrong. The average voter in either party is generally not part of any real equation.  So the real numbers are activist and how dedicated they are. The current crop running the MASSGOP will find that their positions and power are not that secure.

---

by: Kestrel @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 11:32:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If on Paul has so many great supporters... (0.00 / 0)

How come he came in 4th in the Primary?  Why is it that even after a year+ of planning they could only get 1200 folks out?  Why didn't they win ALL the slots?

BTW, your message above is exactly why 5.2 exists.  You're completely detached form reality.  

Your also a little late to the game in terms of "the crop running the MassGOP"  State Committee Elections where two months ago.

What I love and hate about Paul Supporters.  No matter the drubbing they take at the polls, they still think they're going to win.  Then get indignant when they try to steal an election, and are stopped.

Priceless!

Follow me on Twitter?  Sure, why not.  www.twitter.com/paulferro

---

by: Paul R. Ferro @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 14:13:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reality? (0.00 / 0)

I believe you are the one that has lost touch with reality.  
It is not that they think they will win -- It is that no matter how this election turns out they gave it their best and they are in it for the long haul -- because this approach they have taken is about influencing the Republican Platform and not totally about wining.  Whereas, most at the MassGOP have little or no philosophical ideology much less true Republican values -- they bend to the will of whoever is in power at the time like dutiful dogs begging for scraps from the table.  However, these Paul activists do have philosophical ideals the mean something to them.  They will, over time continue to grow, take positions at the city and local level and will replace the political hacks that make up the current MassGOP.  Your reality is short term, superficial, and arrogant.

---

by: Kestrel @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 16:25:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Then get indignant when they try to steal an election, and are stopped. " (5.00 / 1)

Think hard about who is described better by that phrase, Paul - the Romney slate or the caucus ATTENDEES.

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 16:51:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Peter, as I've said before... (5.00 / 1)

...they could have set the rules to have Delegates selected by throwing darts.

Someone, somewhere decided that Caucuses would be a quaint way to do it, but with the caveat that the person who the delegates where pledged to had to essentially "sign off" on them.

In 2000 Jean Inman tossed me, and 23 others for the simple reason she wanted to reward McCain supporters by making them delegates.  Heck. we appealed all the way to the RNC Credentials Committee!

People are hung up over the idea of Caucuses as the end all be all.  They're not, and have never been.  Gotta read the whole rule book.  Even the last two pages.

Me personally, as far as RNC Delegates go.  All at-large, and the Campaign submits a list to the SC.  Peter Porcupine and Paul Ferro are Santorum Delegates, Jefferson Nix is a Ron Paul Delegate (you can tell, he just adores the Congressman!) etc, etc.   Never have this problem again.

Yes,. we should have Caucuses to attract people, but not for this.

Follow me on Twitter?  Sure, why not.  www.twitter.com/paulferro

---

by: Paul R. Ferro @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 17:01:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A Club (0.00 / 0)

Your right -- they could have set the rules anyway they want.  But, where would they get their army of grass roots activist if they set up an overt system that is designed to marginalize activists and their participation within the party organization?  Both main stream parties would soon find that they are not so main stream anymore.  Activist will soon abandon the party - as, many have in recent years when they realize that they are to be seen but, not heard within the more covert system of the past.  That is why we have a move toward the Big Tent solution - it was to answer the problem of a Republican Party and Democratic Party becoming irrelevant and more and more people not participating in the political process.  The Tea Party is a good example - as many Republicans felt their voices were not being heard by their own party.  The Party leadership did not welcome them  - they were ostracized, demonized, laugh at, and fought every step of the way  --- that is until the party leadership set the stage to harness that activism through selective candidates reinventing themselves to take advantage of the Tea Party activist.  What you see now are two parties that have reverted to the age old technique of divide and conquer as each vie to balkanize our society and the activist into single issue voters over problems of their own making.  The game will go on but, when the majority of the people wake up, and they will as the system conducts itself in a more overt way - the game will be over.  The people will either tune out or you will see the Republican Party become a has-been party competing among dozens of other political parties.  

---

by: Kestrel @ Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 13:08:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The 1st Congressional District (5.00 / 1)

I'm sorry but regardless of the fact that Ron Crochetiere is a member of this Liberty Slate, he gave (by far) the best goddamned speech in the whole thing and it was probably the highlight of the entire event. I was proud to vote Ron as my first selection for Delegate (and in doing so, supporting the only Springfield delegate nominee to the convention) and I'm not the only non-liberty member to do it. It would be a shame if the state party took him off as a delegate.  

Alex S.
Chairman of the Springfield RCC
Mandate to Lead!!! lol

---

by: SpringfieldGOPSec @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 04:52:27 AM UTC

Please don't disqualify us (0.00 / 0)

We understand that the Founding Fathers didn't trust the common man for the task of maintaining The Republic so they set up the Electoral College.

They were right because the masses went to the poll and voted the way the media told them to.  If they knew a lot more than just voting they would have turned out to caucus.

Instead we were going up against our parents who couldn't make a half decent speech to save their lives.  Knowing what I know now, I think the proper course is for us to intervene and save our parents because I feel they were being taken advantage of.

We won't euthanize them because President Paul himself is old too and he said repeatedly that we will honor our commitments and they will have their entitlements, completed with non-depreciating dollars!

Please don't alienate us because this is not a receipt for winning and any experienced grownups should know that going through life focusing only on winning just makes it so much more difficult to win.

We have become a nation ruled by victim groups.  Just turn on the TV and think a little harder about the talking heads and their messages and see.  Obama is doing an expert job at uniting victim groups while we try to marginalize our people.

Perpetual rules by victim groups is going to destroy President Paul's Republic and that would displease the Founding Fathers more than anything.  And I think Romney is part of a victim group too because the mormons were considered a cult and persecuted and now he's out to exact revenge on America.

We had nothing to do with it and we'll pledge to treat everyone the same to lessen the chance of people being victims.

We put up a lot of hard work and we know there is no use in convincing people.  This means the democrats will not lose their iron grip on the women votes anytime (5 to 3 in favor of Obama over Romney) soon so we better work together if we have any hope of winning.  This is not to mention the African American votes (97% to 1% according to a Virginia poll).

Sincerely,

A Paulbot (we were paultards, then paulites, and now paulbots.  Sticks and stones but please don't let it go anything near decertifying!)

---

by: Chan McCao @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 06:10:38 AM UTC

It's statement like this... (0.00 / 0)

That will show people that if the GOP throws you out, they made the right decision.  

"Don't let me get away with it. Check me out. Don't be the sucker generation." -Ronald Reagan

www.inBrockton.com

---

by: BrocktonDave @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 11:49:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

wow (0.00 / 0)

Perpetual rules by victim groups is going to destroy President Paul's Republic and that would displease the Founding Fathers more than anything.

You're this guy right?

"Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others."
-Gabriel Gomez

---

by: Jefferson Nix @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 16:04:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Honorable Jeff Perry? Please. (0.00 / 0)

Never mind that he ignored the screams of a 14 year old girl who was being sexually assaulted just feet away from him, I figured his hack job in the Sheriff's department would make him persona non grata around here.  

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 08:02:40 AM UTC

that is his title (0.00 / 0)

As a former elected official

Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 10:47:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So... (0.00 / 0)

...you would refer to Jim Marzilli as the Honorable Jim Marzilli?

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 23:05:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It may not be a coincidence... (5.00 / 1)

...that the composition of the Romney 'slate' is coupled with the lowest caucus turnout, despite free food, bus trips, and grandstanding.

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 17:00:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Romney just dropped out and endorsed Ron Paul!!! (0.00 / 0)

Actually, no, he didn't, but see, Paul? I can make up lies and propaganda too. Rule 5.2 is NOT going to be invoked because MassGOP doesn't want to alienate their voters, no matter how much you want them to. It's that simple. They do not want to hand the election to Obama, and there's no doubt that the national news would pick up on that story and spin it to make Romney and MassGOP look like a bunch of vote-stealing thugs. With the fake delegate slates being passed out in Maine, Nevada, and elsewhere, designed to get Ron Paul supporters to vote for Romney delegates, among other dirty tricks, there is no way that MassGOP wants to blatantly do something like that. The more negative media coverage that the RNC gets for dirty tricks like that, the better it is for Obama. While it's plausible that the people in Maine and Nevada who were passing out those fake delegate slates were just overzealous Romney supporters, there would be no doubt about who would be behind any invocation of Rule 5.2. They aren't going to do it. Give it a rest.

---

by: Anthony Ellis @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 17:20:25 PM UTC

Anthony, you're confused... (0.00 / 0)

...I posted my original story because I was shown an email by a very credible source, who also showed it that same time to a Liberty Slate member.  That doesn't mean I hope it's done, because I was tossed out in 2000 under similar circumstances, and I know the feeling.

Of course, the discussion on here hasn't done a lot to dissuade many of us who view the Paulites as the Larouche's of the Right, but I digress...

Now, as far as "bad press" for Romney, as opposed to what?  The last week of press clippings ballyhooing the fact that Romney's slate lost in SOME places?  Ronulans win 17 of 41 delegate slots and it's already been news.

So what if the Romney Camp doesn't invoke rule 5.2?  Could we end up like Nevada, whom the RNC has threatened with not seating their entire delegation if Ron Paul Supporters take over.  Wouldn't that be great, having our delegation not seated.

So, let me think.  Who to believe?  Some random RMG user whose been on here since yesterday or my very credible cough elected official cough source for my original diary?

hhhhmmm...let me think this one over...

Follow me on Twitter?  Sure, why not.  www.twitter.com/paulferro

---

by: Paul R. Ferro @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 18:32:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nope. (0.00 / 0)

I'm not confused at all. You are trying to win a pot with a pair of deuces. MassGOP hasn't indicated anything, and they will not invoke Rule 5.2 in the end, just like they did not in 2008. Stop kidding yourself.

---

by: Anthony Ellis @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 18:58:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It wouldn't be the MassGOP... (0.00 / 0)

...it would be the Romney Campaign Committee, or just his (meaning Romney's) representative on the Allocation Committee.

For the love of pete, Tony, I posted the darn rule!  READ IT!!!

Follow me on Twitter?  Sure, why not.  www.twitter.com/paulferro

---

by: Paul R. Ferro @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 19:47:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Another thing... (0.00 / 0)

If the RNC was so confident that Romney has the support to win the necessary 1,144 delegates without underhanded tactics, thuggish vote-stealing and disenfranchisement, why would they resort to doing this? Romney's cooked, and they know it, but they have too much money invested in him at this point, and don't want to be left with egg on their face. It's going to come back to haunt them if they keep it up and enough Republicans in MA and across the nation become frustrated and Republicans take a beating in November. If I were Scott Brown, I would not be happy about this. It is not making the Republican party look good at all. They're throwing the election to President Obama and Professor Warren.

---

by: Anthony Ellis @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 19:02:47 PM UTC

There are very few swing voters... (0.00 / 0)

...who think beating back a supporters of an anti-Semitic, Racist fringe candidate as a bad thing.

Let's be honest here.  The only people Ron Paul Supporters WANT to vote for is Ron Paul.  Of the 2 Million or so, 500,000 will vote for Gary Johnson, 200,000 will vote for the Constitution Party candidate, and the rest will vote for the GOP Nominee.  Just like in 2000, 2004, and 2008.

LEt me put it another way.  Ron Paul Supporters want to threaten to leave the GOP?

I Call....

Follow me on Twitter?  Sure, why not.  www.twitter.com/paulferro

---

by: Paul R. Ferro @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 19:50:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Paul Ferro is a communist. (0.00 / 2)

Paul,

You are wrong. Most people do not like fixed elections. They like the will of the people to decide. You asked why Paul supporters didn't complain about the results of the Primary - that is because the voters spoke. In the caucus to decide the delegates, the voters also spoke. All the delegates from MA going to the RNC will be voting for Mitt Romney on the first ballot, as they are required to do. As a number of people on here said, the Romney slate was not palatable to many people because it contained so many RINO lawmakers. They decided to vote for the Liberty slate instead. That is the way the election went, and now you are advocating that they just throw out those results because they don't like them. That is what Joseph Stalin would do, not someone who claims to be a Republican. The voters aren't stupid. Tactics like this are going to kill Romney and every other Republican in November - not because of Paul supporters, but because of undecided voters who see the kind of stuff Romney had to do just to get the nomination. No one wants a leader who is willing to stoop to the levels of Stalin just to ensure his nomination, and no Republican wants to accept these tactics OR accept bloggers who advocate them.

---

by: Anthony Ellis @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 20:16:33 PM UTC

A bit dramatic but I agree, (0.00 / 0)

Not that Mr. Ferro is a communist, but that if what he is saying is true, and the Allocation Committee decertifies all the Liberty Slate delegates en masse, it essentially invalidates the input of probably over 1,000 registered republicans.

As a 6th District voter and delegate for the State Convention in 2010, last week I was extremely impressed with two of Liberty Slate candidates in particular, Ed Rombach and Jonathan Berecz.  Both of these individuals in their speeches pledged their support for Romney and did an excellent job defining the issues that should be taken up as the party's platform, far better than the other nominees. This is why I voted for them to represent the GOP at the Convention.

If I'm to understand Mr. Ferro that Rommey's committee is invoking the definitional clause 5.2 on the notion that Rombach and Berecz (along with other Liberty Slate delegates) are "not acceptable delegates", I would hope that there would have to be a more significant element of just cause for this than some fringe Ron Paul supporters on some message boards calling for delegates to abstain from voting at the convention.

No good can come of this.  The delegates on the Romney slate who lost may end up being certified, but consider the optics of this course of action: 1) voters see a lack of effort on the part the establishment republicans and entitlement in regard to the caucuses and 2) voters see the establishment republicans use what amounts to a possibly valid techically, but functionally un-democratic clause to win.  

Think anybody new to the party is going to stick around?  

Think an independent voter is going to register Republican after this?

Instead of referring Liberty Slate folks as "subverters"  I encourage people to read Rob Eno's post "A Great Day for the Republican Party" again.  His take on this is spot on!

http://www.redmassgroup.com/di...

Our party could be so much more effective as an amalgam of tea party activists, liberty minded constitutionalists and moderate conservatives!

---

by: DM Gregor @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 21:46:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

DM, I'm basing my assumption on there "just Cause" (5.00 / 1)

Based on the Author of the 'Just Cause" provision example of what HE would consider 'just cause' that being a person was an "identifiable partisan for another candidate".  That was the specific example he gave at the State Committee meeting where the rule was debated, and passed, and WAS passed because the "just cause' was an improvement on the old rule (under which I was tossed in 2000, aka the sardonically called  "just because" rule) and considered a very narrow exemption.

Now, does the fact that the Ron Paul Campaign has clearly been launching a coordinated effort to rack up un-earned (at least at the ballot box) delegates in a number of states, such as Nevada, Minnesota, Maine, etc, causing the Romney Camp to be just a tad more wary than if these had been Newt or Santorum backers?  Probably.  The fact that some yahoos on Ron Paul's comment Board are talking this up as a Master Plan to Nominate Ron Paul for President in Tampa (cue sinister laugh) adding to their Paranoia?  Absolutely.

And No, I'm not a Communist.  I'm just a bearer of news you're not liking.

As a said to Brad Wyatt (yes, I'm friends with Brad!  Mike Rossettie too!  Been so since College!) this is like the fourth time this has happened, and each time people freak out.  And by  after the Convention, no one cares.  Lather.  Rinse: Repeat in four years.

Follow me on Twitter?  Sure, why not.  www.twitter.com/paulferro

---

by: Paul R. Ferro @ Mon May 07, 2012 at 02:17:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

threw you out? (0.00 / 0)

They Feared super-paul back then? Who did you support in 2000?

Alex S.
Chairman of the Springfield RCC
Mandate to Lead!!! lol

---

by: SpringfieldGOPSec @ Mon May 07, 2012 at 02:53:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No (5.00 / 2)

They were worried they would run out of tables from Paul putting his fist through them.

"Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others."
-Gabriel Gomez

---

by: Jefferson Nix @ Mon May 07, 2012 at 11:19:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let me put it this way (4.00 / 1)

The games will be played -- and at least 5% of the voters that would have voted for Romney will not vote or will vote for another candidate.  Even though things are looking pretty positive right now for Romney -- things can change to Obama's favor overnight.  

No candidate can afford to throw away 5% of the vote, an army of dedicated activist, and expect to win.

It is going to be an interesting convention and an even more interesting election.  Many things can happen between now and Nov.  

If this is only about wining and not about ideology then what is the purpose? Is it just to say your team won - like some high school football team?  We have been living that dream for the last few decades and look where it has gotten us.  Is it all about saying our set of sociopaths and psychotics selected for us by the party leadership get to run things for the next 4 years?  

Our nation is on the verge of war, economic collapse, and burden by a system overcome with corruption at every level from local government to Federal.  Frankly, I see much of this election process as useless and a waste of time and resources, as it is plain to many people that the primary process and for that matter our election process has become little more than a sham and a spectacle for public consumption.  It is designed to give the impression to the masses that they actually have a democratically elected government.  When in fact, the choices are made for them -- they just get to choose which sock puppet will sit in the white house.  

---

by: Kestrel @ Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 14:04:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Romney's people actually do NOT want to cheat... (5.00 / 1)

Here's proof:

This is an e-mail from Massachusetts State Representative Paul Frost (and also Romney Delegate) to Brad Wyatt

Dear Brad:

I wanted to follow up with you regarding our previous conversations regarding the Romney delegates elected at the caucus back on April 28 in Sutton.  As you know I was disappointed as a long-time Romney supporter (the first GOP legislator to endorse and call for Romney to run for Governor while he was still in Utah running the Winter Olympic Games in 2002) that I was not picked as a Romney delegate. I was also disappointed that folks that were elected were strong supporters of other candidates mainly Ron Paul.  However, I want to make it clear to you and your friends, that I accept the loss and fully respect that you folks and your slate won the caucus fair and square.

Should the 2nd Congressional District Delegates and or Alternates be challenged for no valid reason, I will not support it and I won't accept a possible delegate spot if it comes from this challenge.  I will decline it even though I really do wish to go as a delegate for Romney.

I cannot comment on what happened in other caucus locations but from what I saw at our caucus in Sutton, your slate won fair and square and within the rules.  You all swore to support Mitt Romney in the convention and so long as your slate sticks to that I can see no valid reason it should be challenged.  If someone from the day of the caucus until presently has given reason or cause of concern that they won't keep to their oath, well, I suppose that could result in a valid reason to seek a challenge.

I will make one last attempt to go as an at-large delegate as one of the 11 the Mass GOP State Committee will select in June.  That will be my last and only chance of going as a Romney delegate.

As I said, I am not aware of any reason to challenge your slate and I certainly won't call for a challenge and I won't support one just because some folks wanted different results. Feel free to forward this on to anyone you feel who is hearing otherwise.

Take Care and Congrats once Again!

-Paul

Paul K. Frost
State Representative
7th Worcester District

---

by: Anthony Ellis @ Sun May 06, 2012 at 23:54:45 PM UTC

And? (0.00 / 0)

So that's one persons opinion.  It's nice.  Frost isn't on the Allocation Committee, far as I can tell (can't see how he would be, the membership is pretty specifically laid out in those pesky rules).

So one guy, who knows Brad well, and you know, probably wants Brad on his good side, since he lives like 100 feet (metaphorically) away, says he'll have his back, all the way man!

So.  What.


Follow me on Twitter?  Sure, why not.  www.twitter.com/paulferro

---

by: Paul R. Ferro @ Mon May 07, 2012 at 02:05:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wow... (0.00 / 0)

Keep explaining it away. You're going to find out that you just aren't as well liked as the Ronald Reagan Liberty Slate, since you were denied your delegate slot and they won't be.

---

by: Anthony Ellis @ Mon May 07, 2012 at 02:22:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If Romney and the GOP establishment... (0.00 / 0)

If they can't get 150 people to a delegate caucus, including the caucus for Mitt's own congressional district (the new MA05), they don't deserve the delegates.

---

by: pablo @ Mon May 07, 2012 at 23:28:34 PM UTC