Untangling the Republican Delegate Mess (sausage making the GOP doesn't want us to understand)

The American Thinker ^ | March 26, 2012 | Greg Lewis

[Cincinatus' Wife]

It is possible that MittRomney might not get the requisite number of delegates before the RepublicanNationalConvention is held in August, but that's looking more and more unlikely as the primary season grinds on. Because it could happen, though, here's a review of the "delegate math," as well as a look at how it might be skewed by the tangled web of rules spun by the RepublicanParty and the flouting of those rules by a couple of key states.

[SNIP]

The kicker in all this is that, as much fun as it would be to watch that perverse, self-inflicted three-ring circus unfold, it's not going to happen this way. Despite the indecipherable tangle of rules and procedures and impediments to a straightforward, clean, no-problems primaryelection -- one which actually allows voters to decide the candidates -- that the RNC has managed to put forth, MittRomney is the overwhelming favorite to capture the nomination.....

People following the primaries closely are going to look for their primary election results -- not to the RNC's morass of rules and rulings and numbers that simply don't -- can't -- add up, but to sources such as RealClearPolitics. If the RNC should suddenly pull a fast one on the eve of the convention and declare that Romney, with more than the 1,200-plus votes I'm confident he'll have accumulated by that time, is not the winner, all hell will break loose, and the Republicans would risk becoming the laughingstock of the political world, possibly throwing away their chances of even fielding a viable candidate by the time the November elections roll around.

Finally, though, the RNC and the influential conservative politicians and kingmakers in Washington,D.C. are coalescing behind Romney. He'll be the consensuscandidate before June 1, obviating the need for the RNC to defend the indefensible.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

They're worried. If we don't fall in line, Romney will "look" weak in the general election. Lewis' run-down also states that pressure on Santorum and Gingrich will "dramatically escalate" in the coming weeks (loyal elected party members will keep calling for their withdrawls in highly publicized interviews).

[Big must read SNIP of the "sausage making" GOP juggling circus act the Elites hope we won't know or understand -- that we'll just follow Real Clear Politics and dutifully accept those numbers]

His points: First, a contested convention in Tampa this August could happen, except that it can't because the fix is in but if and when (but it won't) the cayenne pepper hits the fan, it will only help the Dems. So sit back and listen to your elders who have brewed up this HUGE primary morass (smoke and mirrors par excellence), so that they control the outcome (at least they thought they had it locked up and all contingencies covered) and don't rock the boat.

[gleeaikin]

The only sure thing for Mitt is if Newt decides to withdraw which I doubt will happen.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

A timely look back at the Jan 20, 2010 article by Greg Lewis (a black conservative) The Obama Administration's Rampant Racism ......................"The racist bias of the current administration cuts both ways. The fact that our president accepted Reid's apology as if he (Obama) were the only one damaged by Reid's remarks speaks to two things: the president's own narcissism and the fact that he agrees with the underlying racist premise that speaking with a "Negro dialect" is negative. Obama was sending a subliminal message to tens of millions of African-Americans that they weren't damaged by the implication that they're inferior and not politically marketable as national leaders because they speak differently from white massas like Harry Reid. Reid's comments were insulting to every "Negro" in America, and Reid should have apologized to all of the country's African-Americans, not just to the president.

Obama's spineless and insensitive acceptance of Reid's apology was tendered without so much as a beer summit of the kind he convened to repair the damage (to himself) caused by his racially tinged remarks ("the police acted stupidly") about Cambridge, MA police sergeant James Crowley in the Henry Louis Gates incident. Obama never did apologize to Crowley, though he invited him to beer.

The president was one of the leaders of the lynch mob that eventually succeeded in getting talk show host Don Imus fired from his post for the sin of calling the Rutgers University women's basketball team "nappy-headed ho's." Then-candidate Obama declared that "[Imus] didn't just cross the line, he fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America." Thank God Harry Reid wasn't guilty of that.

By appointing a racist as his Attorney General, Obama effectively cemented history's judgment of his administration's racialist policies. Eric Holder, who called Americans "cowards" because they were unwilling to engage in a public debate about "race," has proven himself to be both a coward and a racist. When it's politically convenient for him to support blacks, he'll subvert the law to do so, as he did in dismissing the prosecution of members of the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation on election day 2008 in Philadelphia. The Justice Department had won the case by default when the defendants failed to respond to the charges, yet Holder dismissed the charges against all but one of the miscreants. The one against whom the charges remained was told not that voter intimidation was illegal, but that he had to wait until after 2012 before brandishing a nightstick at an election site again.

Holder is the Obama administration's "Bull" Connor. Where Connor called out firemen and policemen to prevent blacks from demonstrating in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963, Holder tacitly condoned behavior equivalent to that of Connor's brownshirts by dropping prosecution of members of the New Black Panther Party when they brandished weapons and shouted insults at white voters, intimidating them in a way similar to that of Connor's thugs 45 years earlier. The difference is not in the degree of the offenses committed, but in the fact that in this case, when committed against whites, the offense doesn't lead to punishment."......................

[hosepipe]

The republican party “officials” are starting to look as big a national security risk as the democrats are.. If Obama loses and “they” win.. its merely a different set of treasonous sons of bitches.. ultimately in charge..

They seem to be “getting” outted.. exposed.. “burned”..
Good entertainment to be sure.. but I’m not amused..
The republican and democrat parties seem to be “a MATRIX”..
Like in the movie “Matrix”..

The question... to remain a drone in the republican Hive.. -OR-
or something else.. What else?... I’m thinking..

[pgkdan]

The author is very biased for mitt. He referred to the other three candidates as the three stooges. No need to read any further.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

The question... to remain a drone in the republican Hive.. -OR- or something else.. What else?... I’m thinking..

The one thing that it always is, the voice of the people [2010] and a return of power to the states. But a building flame of the 10th Amendment as a campaign issue was swiftly pinched out by the Establishment.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

The author is very biased for mitt. He referred to the other three candidates as the three stooges. No need to read any further.

You make the point for why I posted this. There is EVERY REASON to read further!!!

[SatinDoll]

I read the whole article plus the comments. First comment, fellow said no way would he vote for Romney. Second comment, composed a short ditty about the three stooges. Third comment, basically laid out how campaigns are run, that conservatives are important, and only Santorum can win.

That last is surpirsing, being as Rick Santorum has been stuck in gaffematic the past week. What a doofus!

[Diogenesis]

“35 Romney endorsers received contributions first”

---

IT’S UNANIMOUS FOR RINO ROMNEY
From the Kennedy Seat in Massachusetts to the entire DNC

Mitt Romney wins much coveted Jimmy Carter endorsement

Gore Praises Romney's 'Climate Protection Plan'

Carville(D):
"It's a feel-good story, this Romney thing.
Romney is an ascendant guy."

Sen. John Kerry (D) to Don Imus on RomneyCARE:
"I like this health care bill".

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D) on RomneyCARE:
"To come up with a bipartisan plan in this polarized environment is commendable."

[NTHockey]

Ladies and Gentlemen, the fix is in. The BOHICA Party will nominate 0bambi on the left and Romneypablum on the right. Romneypablum will conduct a half-hearted campaign because it is not his turn to win. So, it will be a re-run of Dole & McCain.

He will pick Mitch Daniels for VP and Daniels will fumble through his debate with Old Joe, actually making Biden look good.

The TEA Party will expend lots of “Conservative” candidates for the Senate, electing a few, but not enough to gain a majority. The newly elected Senators will renounce the TEA Party with a willingness to “work together with their friends across the aisle”. 52-48 Democrats in the Senate.

Bread and circuses, my friends. Bread and circuses. And we all march into the sausage grinder.

[Truth29]

After the civil war, a lot of the losing side left and set up in other countries, never to return. That scenario could be coming again if the GOP throws this election and it becomes clear that there is really only one party in Washington.

[Happy Rain]

How do get that? Newt has done absolutely nothing since Georgia except drain enough conservative votes to help Romney just barely beat out Santorum in several states.

Free Republic has been had ever since a general ban on Mitt Romney promotions was enacted.
Mittbot FReepers pretended to be for any candidate except Mitt in order to smear those who most threatened Mitt.
First they said they were for Palin and then Perry and Cain all the while (except for a few token attempts to protect their disguises) bashing the other candidates EXCEPT Mitt.
Then when JR came out for Gingrich--meaning over zealous Newt critics risked the dreaded Zot-- they found their perfect cover—they let Mitt destroy Newt with his millions while they went after Rick—all the while claiming to be Newt people.
And now that no amount of Santorum bashing can help the hapless Newt the only real purpose the attacks are having is in helping Mitt...

...the freaking plan all along...Mitt Romney is one evil genius, I'll give him THAT much--oh, and a convention where Mitt does NOT come out the winner? You will see the Second Coming first.

[Redmen4ever]

I resemble that remark!

I guess I’m one of those people who was thinking Rick Perry or Herman Cain would make a good candidate. This was prior to Rick’s poor performance in the first several debates. He performed well in the last couple in which he was involved, but by then it was too late. And, we’ll leave unmentioned the indiscretions that caused Herman to withdraw.

I was also hopeful with regard to Gary Johnson, but his style was shown to be not dynamic enough for national office.

How Rick Santorum became “the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney,” is something of a mystery to me. But, if I may venture a possible reason: the line-up of the states is strange: First, the Iowa caucuses which have always been screwy; then, New Hampshire, where Mitt had a big advantage; then, S.C., where Newt had a big advantage. Plus, what about Newt’s performances, back-to-back, in the S.C. debates?

I don’t know if the order of these initial contests can or should be changed, but I think the process got started way too early, and Iowa and New Hampshire and the rest need to be moved back.

If the process doesn’t start so early, somebody who has the potential to form a national organization could compete with somebody who had been putting his organization into place since the prior election.

As it is, the conservative side wound up with a pipsqueek of a candidate.

[Joe the Pimpernel]

I want them to make their sausage on the convention floor.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

..................the freaking plan all along...

Do you drink that neat or on the rocks?

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Karl Rove warming up the convention wood chipper.

[NTHockey]

>>After the civil war, a lot of the losing side left and set up in other countries, never to return. That scenario could be coming again if the GOP throws this election and it becomes clear that there is really only one party in Washington.<<

But where would we go? Unless, we could find a sparsely populated island with plentiful resources, the battle is best fought free.

[hosepipe]

State Rights were snuffed out long ago.. they were lost in the Civil War..

The Civil War was entirely about State Rights..
The War of Northern Aggression is more accurate than the Civil War.. to describe the conflict..

Restoring the 10th Amendment is merely ONLY a start to “WHAT MUST HAPPEN”..
The federal givernment MUST BE GUTTED..

[Cincinatus' Wife]

“Back to the Future” (03-26-12) Thomas Sowell: “When a 1942 Supreme Court decision that most people never heard of makes the front page of the New York Times in 2012, you know that something unusual is going on.

What makes that 1942 case — Wickard v. Filburn — important today is that it stretched the federal government’s power so far that the Obama administration is using it as an argument to claim before today’s Supreme Court that it has the legal authority to impose ObamaCare mandates on individuals.

Roscoe Filburn was an Ohio farmer who grew some wheat to feed his family and some farm animals. But the U.S. Department of Agriculture fined him for growing more wheat than he was allowed to grow under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which was passed under Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce.

Filburn pointed out that his wheat wasn’t sold, so that it didn’t enter any commerce, interstate or otherwise. Therefore the federal government had no right to tell him how much wheat he grew on his own farm, and which never left his farm.

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution says that all powers not explicitly given to the federal government belong to the states or to the people. So you might think that Filburn was right.

But the Supreme Court said otherwise. Even though the wheat on Filburn’s farm never entered the market, just the fact that “it supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market” meant that it affected interstate commerce. So did the fact that the home-grown wheat could potentially enter the market.

The implications of this kind of reasoning reached far beyond farmers and wheat. Once it was established that the federal government could regulate not only interstate commerce itself, but anything with any potential effect on interstate commerce, the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on the powers of the federal government virtually disappeared.

Over the years, “interstate commerce” became magic words to justify almost any expansion of the federal government’s power, in defiance of the Tenth Amendment. That is what the Obama administration is depending on to get today’s Supreme Court to uphold its power to tell people that they have to buy the particular health insurance specified by the federal government.”....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2864014/posts

[Vigilanteman]

For starters, I'd like to know why does the District of Columbia get 19 delegates when it has less than 0% chance of delivering any electoral votes to the GOP in November?

Rhode Island gets the same 19 delegates when it has about a 5% chance of delivering 4 electoral votes and Delaware gets only 17 delegates when it has about a 15% chance of delivering 3 electoral votes to the GOP.

And don't get me started on California! Why should it get more delegates than Texas when it has about the same probability of delivering any electoral votes to the GOP as Delaware?

Who figures out this crap and why?