Posted on 06/17/2012 7:16:09 PM PDT by GodAndCountryFirst
In a revolt against Romney, at least 40 more national convention delegates asked to join 123 previous plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Republican National Committee, and their attorney said hundreds more may soon follow suit.
The first 123 delegates, all from the 9th Circuit, sued the RNC, its Chairman Rince Priebus, and every state party chairman in the 9th Circuit in Federal Court on Monday, demanding the right to vote for the candidate of their choice on every ballot at the Republican National Convention, including the first.
The delegates claim the party violated federal law by forcing them to sign loyalty affidavits, under threat of perjury, to vote for Mitt Romney, though he is not yet the official nominee.
(Excerpt) Read more at courthousenews.com ...
I supported Newt but have come to the conclusion he could not win, especially with a cheesy move like this.
Get real
I supported Newt but have come to the conclusion he could not win, especially with a cheesy move like this.
Get real
Newt couldn’t pull away enough delegates anyhow.
I don’t know if he wants to be considered as a veep, but considering that the veep is normally the heir apparent to the party nomination, an old veep is a liability. Santorum I could see. Newt, no.
Somebody here gets it.
Santorum won the vote in January.
This lawsuit probably won’t extend to Iowa.
After casting their votes for Santorum, quite a few precinct participants then chose Romney and Paul delegates to send to their County Conventions. In effect they actually voted for Paul and Romney, whether they knew it or not, since those delegates sent Paulers to the State, for the most part, resulting in 23 of 28 delegates aligned with Paul.
That’s the rules in Iowa and it’s the responsibility of the voters to know. I heard them explained to the precinct caucus that I attended for Perry.
I will bet you $5000 Romney that will be the Republican nominee, If he is not all you you have to do is give me Ten dollars.
Bet On?
This Thread is a waste of time.
Your caps must stick a lot.
The loyalty should be to promises made, rules in existence when the votes were cast and the voters who cast them.
Your caps must stick a lot.
The loyalty should be to promises made, rules in existence when the votes were cast and the voters who cast them.
“Obama is thrilled!”
Why? What don’t you understand?
If they get their way they get a brokered convention.
Anybody could win and damn near anybody would be better at beating Obama than Romney.
So tell me - why would Obama be thrilled?
Think about this, hocndoc. Politicians DO make contracts, Remember the Contract with America? That is far more a real binding “Contract” than any agreement by a delegate to vote a certain way before he goes to a convention to vote his concience. Want to know why? Because the Contract with America involved consideration to the politician, the delegate vote at the convention does not.
The rest of your post is pretty much naivete. A slavish devotion to the “rules” made by the party insiders and the politicians (who really run the party) and the hired “counsel” of the parties, and the federal judiciary is what has taken the rule of the party away from the elected delegates. This seizure of control from the delegates is precisely what eventually enabled the completely out-of-control politicians and government to bring the nation to the crisis I bet we both agree America is now in.
These turkeys are going to re-elect Obumblenutz if they are not careful.
These turkeys are going to re-elect Obumblenutz if they are not careful.
“Circle up the firing squad, boys!”
This thread has a lot of double post hiccups.
This thread has a lot of double post hiccups.
Sounds like Ron Paul shenanigans to me - not good news.
People should not sign up to be delegates and then not abide by the rules. If the primary voters voted to select delegates to vote for a certain candiate, those should be the delegates who go to the convention. If they don’t want to do that, step aside - that’s the only honest thing to do. You can bet your bottom dollar if “the candidate of their choice” had been the one who won the delegates in the vote, they would sure as heck not be supporting another candiates’ supporters efforts to get them out of it.
You sound like you know something about this and I’m confused. I thought each state held a primary, caucus, whatever to determine which candidate they preferred as their nominee for the GOP.
Are the guys who are suing the RNC trying to say they don’t want to vote the way their state did in the primary? They want the freedom to vote contrary to the way the people in the GOP in their state voted?
I’m asking because I don’t get what these guys are suing about.
When you find out ping me, please.
I always thought there were people who were dedicated to the candidate and some were not (sort of like at large).
Very confusing.
You may not like the delivery of D, however what about the statement is inaccurate?
re: “When you find out ping me, please.”
Will do.
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.