RNC 'Committee on Challenges' ignores the will of Massachusetts voters. MA Liberty Caucus Objects!

Sooooo you're telling us about your field trip on August 26th? (5.00 / 1)

Molon Labe

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 13:00:43 PM UTC

Next Time (5.00 / 2)

The MassGOP needs to either:

A. Get rid of the caucuses

B. Mandate that delegate candidates register in advance of the primary with their candidate of choice (and delegate elections are subsequently held among those delegate candidates that are solely of the candidates deserving delegates)

C. Switch to all caucus system whereby the average voter will actually show up to the caucuses, because they will no longer be confused as to which event actually determines the nomination of their candidates of choice

Romney took 72% in the primary. The caucuses were supposed to reflect that victory, and allow voters a chance to name the delegates  (rather than Romney) from the ranks of the supporters of the winning candidate. That's not what happened. Clearly, the Ron Paul people were vastly over-represented among caucus-goers, and they decided that they could send their own in place of actual Mitt Romney supporters. Hence, chaos ensues. The system needs to be cleaned up for next time, or this mess will happen all over again. Hell, Obama could have registered 100 Democrats as Republicans in each district and had Obama supporters as Mitt Romney delegates. Obviously, no one at the MassGOP had the brains to see the problems with the current delegate selection process.  

(R)- Outside 495

---

by: MerrimackMan @ Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 13:19:17 PM UTC

Absolutely Right (0.00 / 0)

I couldn't agree with you more. I've refrained from saying it to this point lest it come across as sour grapes, but we've seen the glaring flaws in the existing system that allow a tiny minority of devoted individuals to have disproportionate influence on the process and cause unnecessary chaos. It would behoove the MassGOP to make major changes before 2016. Personally, I'm inclined towards Option A; why risk saddling your nominee with convention delegates and a platform that advance a different agenda than his? Let each candidate submit a slate of delegates - when you vote for the candidate, you vote for those delegates - just like we do with presidential electors in the general election.

That said, support for prospective rules reforms doesn't necessarily mean what happened with the Liberty Caucus delegates in 2012 was fair. They saw a rules loophole and exploited it. I can't really fault them for that.

---

by: Tappan Wentworth @ Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 13:55:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Merrimack Man (0.00 / 0)

I wish you would come forward so we can properly compliment you on your analysis and ideas.

I agree 100%.

---

by: tomasek1000 @ Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 18:10:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Like he/they said. DITTO! (0.00 / 0)

Meanwhile the GOP sure looks bad, meanspirited and UN united!!

---

by: Term Limits @ Sun Aug 19, 2012 at 17:01:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

MassGOP Rules Committee 2015-2016 (0.00 / 0)

Those ideas are all legitimate concerns that should be addressed by the future MassGOP Rules Committee for the 2016 National Convention.  That group is likely to be appointed by whoever is the State Commitee Chairman in 2015.

There has been some talk of suggestions such as moving towards adopting New Hampshire's model.  I'm no expert in their system but I believe it would get rid of the caucuses and let each presidential campaign put forward a list of their delegates.  If the results of the Mass Presidential Primary were similar in 2016 as they were this year, then that year's "Romney" would get their entire slate of delegates.  If the results were split with two candidates getting at least 15%, as McCain & Romney did in 2008 then each candidate would get a mathematically proportional number of delegates.  Those delegates for each candidate being selected as the top number in sequential order.

At least that is my understanding of their system.

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sun Aug 19, 2012 at 20:23:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also! (5.00 / 1)

Word to the Ron Paul/Liberty crowd. If you want the RNC to play nice with you all (and they are full of establishment Republicans), next time you lose a primary to an establishment Republican, play nice with them and don't try and steal their delegates. Yes, you technically could elect Ron Paul supporters in place of actual Mitt Romney supporters at the caucus after a primary victory blow-out, but that's not exactly how you build working, trusting relationships.  

(R)- Outside 495

---

by: MerrimackMan @ Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 13:23:46 PM UTC

strongly disagree (5.00 / 1)

What they did was above board, open, transparent and within the rules.

Full Disclosure


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

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 13:52:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It was within the rules (0.00 / 0)

They found a loophole and they exploited it. I'll give you that much.

However, what they did was just as nice in my opinion as the process of removing them as delegates. Bending the rules such that instead of the actual purpose, they get their way and their delegates.

Next time, we should just have the right rules in play, so that people have to play nice, and we can build a party, instead of fighting with each other all of the time.


(R)- Outside 495

---

by: MerrimackMan @ Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 19:22:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We played by your rules (5.00 / 1)

We played by your own rules and won those delegate slots fairly. So then the rules are changed after the fact. You call this a fair system? You want us to play nice when you have no problem with your own party corrupting their own processes? You want to blame Ron Paul people because Romney supporters didn't show up? The truth is there is not a whole lot of support for Romney or his ideas. All Ron Paul supporters have ever wanted was a level field to play on. Is that too much to ask for?

---

by: frankmcs @ Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 13:55:22 PM UTC

Seems to me (0.00 / 0)

that you're speaking like you're a Republican.
"Your own rules...your own party..."
Why is it not YOUR party?  I'm not a Republican, but I won't go supporting my 3rd party candidate in a Republican race or support him in a Republican caucus after he loses a vote.  RPaul belongs in a Republican Presidential nomination as much as I belong in the Party...which is very little.  Hell, it's BECAUSE he ran as a Republican that I would not support him.

Evidently, there IS a lot of support for Mitt Romney and/or his ideas, despite the very grassroots active Paulites.  Those supporters simply don't care about the inner workings of the Party....the mechanisms by which the nominee if made official.  They think their vote did it.

"I acknowledge having racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority." -John Howard

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 15:55:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am a Republican (0.00 / 0)

I am a Republican, but I am not a blind Republican. The Republican Party did stand for most of what Ron Paul talks about. He didn't leave the Republican Party it left him. The reason so much corruption is allowed in politics is because party members won't point their fingers within the party and allow the breaking of the rules as long as it's their party that breaks the rules. It's easier to point your finger across the aisle and say "see what they're doing". Well guess what you didn't vote for the other party, they owe you nothing. It's our job to make sure our own party plays by the rules and hold them accountable.

---

by: frankmcs @ Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 16:57:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not (0.00 / 0)

quite sure "when" you think the Republicans stood for most of what RP touts....but it hasn't been in MY 23 years of paying attention and voting.  That makes them a whole generation removed from being anything like RPaul.

"I acknowledge having racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority." -John Howard

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 18:31:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mr Republican (0.00 / 0)

I guess you've never heard of Mr Republican Robert Taft. BTW-Why do you think Ron Paul got more donations from active duty military than ALL other candidates COMBINED?

---

by: frankmcs @ Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 19:10:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wow... (0.00 / 0)

All the way back to Taft??

Non sequitur alert!!  Go ahead...why did a majority of the relatively few military members that donate to candidates...donate to Ron Paul?  What's it have to do with anything other than a vague Paulite talking point that has no real meaning?

Wanna take a guess about how much Republican money was given to NON-Paul candidates vs. Paul?

"I acknowledge having racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority." -John Howard

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Sat Aug 18, 2012 at 15:59:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Correction... (0.00 / 0)

Seems to me that you're speaking like you're NOT a Republican....

"I acknowledge having racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority." -John Howard

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 15:57:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Another Take (0.00 / 0)

As someone who is a life-long Republican, I certainly understand your sentiment but I don't believe that it is really helpful.  There is plenty of room in the Republican Party, both nationally and here in the Commonwealth, for libertarian minded supporters of Ron Paul.  

I maintain that despite any differences that may be between us in policy that our ideologies - even taking into account the differences between conservatives (including social) and libertarians - we share far more then we have dividing us.  The common ties of small, limited government as well as fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets, an adherence to the Constitution and a legitimate scope of powers, and other principled policy matters we are strongly well within Reagan's 80% rule.

I understand how a single individual can inspire and motivate a political activist.  While I'm not a devotee of Dr. Paul I was a child of Ronald Reagan and my book collection would evidence my affinity for the Great Communicator akin to someone today who was called to action by Ron Paul.  Similarly, when I was in Middle, going into High, School I became energized by Rush Limbaugh.  Finally, I bet few people had a date scheduled for the Pat Buchanan rally up in Lexington during the Blizzard of 1996 (here too, my book collection would evidence my interest in a political leader).  Of course, when Buchanan left the party in 2000 I did not join him but today he is back with us in the Grand Old Party.

There is of course a danger of following any political prophet too closely as no one this side of Heaven is a canonized saint and even His Holiness is only infallible in the areas of faith & morals and not in public policy and politics.  While always tricky to use religious references as analogies, I'm always reminded of 1 Corinthians 1:11-15 -

For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe's people, that there are rivalries among you. I mean that each of you is saying, "I belong to* Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I give thanks [to God] that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,so that no one can say you were baptized in my name.

Good advice for those who support Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, or any of our recent presidential candidates or party leaders is to remember that we are united far more than by he charisma and agendas of those individuals.

However, put more positively, John 14:1-2 -

"Do not let your hearts be troubled. You have faith in God; have faith also in me. In my Father's house there are many dwelling places. If there were not, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you?

Granted, we're far from a political Heaven on Earth but I hope most of you will see my point.  There are plenty of dwelling places in the Republican Party so let us not be troubled by our brethren.

Let us not be divided but rather united in purpose to dethrone President Barack Obama and put forward an agenda we, as Republicans, can all agree upon.

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sun Aug 19, 2012 at 21:12:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]