Posted on 02/02/2012 4:00:03 PM PST by Southnsoul
From my FNC colleague Carl Cameron:
Newt 2012 Statement on Florida Delegate Allocation
Atlanta, GA - Newt 2012 Florida State Chair and former Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum released this statement today about the campaign’s plans regarding the Florida GOP delegate allocation:
The Gingrich campaign is confirming that the Republican Party of Florida is to abide by RNC Rule 15(b)(2) and instruction from Chairman Reince Priebus in his letter of December 21, 2011. As noted by Chariman Priebus, “winner-take-all” states cannot hold a primary or caucus before April 1, 2012. Clearly the rules require that Florida’s delegates be allocated proportionately. In the unlikely event that the State Party will not be following its rules, the campaign will take appropriate action.
(Excerpt) Read more at gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com ...
Newt might as well fight. The fix is in, so the RNC may not abide by the rule.
This is a statement from the Republican Party of Florida:“Florida was winner take all before Election Day, we were winner take all on Election Day, we will remain winner take all. As Bill McCollum confirmed to Fox News today, had the outcome been different on Tuesday he would not be seeking publicity for a challenge to the rules adopted by Florida’s Republicans. It is a shame when the loser of a contest agrees to the rules before, then cries foul after losing.”
Mitt = 9
Newt = 6
Rick = 3
or
46.4%
31.9
13.3
PRECISELY WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY. No longer a nation of laws. We are a nation of whatever the elite deign to be appropriate at any given time. Beginning to loathe aspects of this country. I believe it is becoming rotten at the core!
But if he protests before the election the ruling will be no one has been harmed (yet) therefore you don’t have standing.
Can’t win either way under these rules.
The two statements seem irreconcilable. Looks like a legal fight coming.
To the Florida GOP’s point however, if Newt had won, I do not believe he would have offered to give Romney or the other candidates any of the delegates or looked to have them proportionally allocated.
It wouldn’t be Newt’s to offer up. It would be up to Romney to protest and you know the party would have handed them over without question.
But then Newt would be making the counter argument. Either way it’s a mess and he does have a case. GOP might as well get rid of that rule of no winner takes all primaries if they can’t enforce it.
I wonder how they’d feel if Texas ruled they’d go to winner take all today?
Romney is the loser. The republicans are the losers. They are losing many many traditional conservatives who will change to Indipendant. Like me!
That burden is on Romney, or the other candidates. Not on Newt.
Next time you get a phone call from the RNC asking for money......tell them NO and why!
Also, the FL GOP was docked 50% of their delegates by the RNC so who's to say this is FL GOP decision - and not a national GOP decision - to make?
Also, this FL GOP azz has shown obvious bias against Newt with his "opinion" about the "loser". Romeny would have done the exact same thing!
It's beem forever that it's been said 'the Independents are the ones who decide the elections'.
Soooooo!! LET'S DO IT!!
I thought I spelled that wrong thanks. And I agree. The RNC is no better then the DNC this election cycle.. Screw em all.
You remember, this was after Newt just had a great win in South Carolina. He hoped the momentum would give him a bigger win in Florida. Why would he say anything about the rules when he expected a bigger win? The fact is, in the RNC memo from Priebus, he even says that he expects that someone will bring this up because it says right there in the rules that no state can have a winner-take-all primary or caucus before April 1. The rules exist for the fairness of it.
It would certainly send the RINOs a loud & clear message if we all would change from Republican to Independent!! Might be better than just sitting here doing nothing. They surely are playing dirty pool & are thinking - "so what are they going to do about it."
Wonder what would happen.
Onward, over the cliff............Just translating again.
“It wouldn’t be Newt’s to offer up. It would be up to Romney to protest and you know the party would have handed them over without question”
That is exactly right.
No, it’s 50 delegates, and assuming that it is swapped to a proportional system, the result would be-
Romney: 23
Gingrich: 16
Santorum: 7
Paul: 4
Former Fetus, Your logic is screwy.
You wrote “It is a shame when the loser of a contest agrees to the rules before, then cries foul after losing.”
Newt agreed to the rules before? Ok, so then let’s say he did. And were not those rules plain that there would be NO winner-take-all?
Ok so if Newt agreed that in Florida there would be NO winner-take-all, then what has changed?
It seems that the Romney people changed the rules after the election. So Newt is crying foul over Romney changing the rules from what they were previously. I don’t see a problem with that. Why shouldn’t Newt cry foul? Why is it as you wrote a “shame” that he cries foul?
The only way your logic can be reasonably valid is if Newt agreed that the rules would be changed before to reflect winner-take-all, but there is zero evidence of that from what I have seen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.