[pissant]

How is that cheating?

[pgkdan]

How is that cheating?

It's not cheating but it's dirty backroom politics. Exactly what you'd expect from the Rino establishment.

[map]

How is that cheating?

“McCain’s goal in throwing support to Huckabee is designed to deprive Romney of a win early in the day.”

Collusion, plain and simple.

[TCats]

“How id that cheating?”

Well, let’s just take a case of a straightforward, simple footrace where there are three competitors. At the halfway mark, Competitor A is ahead so Competitors B and C decide to conspire to use their combined strength to defeat A. At the finish, Competitor C gets behind Competitor B and gives him a big push to nose out Competitor A.

In this case would you say B won, would you disqualify B and name A as the winner or would you void the entire race?

BTW A - Romney, B - Huckabee and C - McCain.

[E-Mat]

This is not unusual in any primary race going three or more ways. Only a loser wouldn’t apply the rules to his advantage whenever possible. If Romney wouldn’t have done the same with the same opportunity, I’d seriously doubt his abilities to play President.

Notice also how the obvious completely eludes the conspiricist:

1. McCain wants to win.
2. Huckabee wants to win.
3. Transferring delegates from McCain to Huckabee increases the chances of either winning.

No horns and pitchforks necessary for that one, and the simplified equation doesn’t even need to count Romney.

Here’s another simple one:

A. Some columnists and political commentators want to increase their audiences.
B. Some columnists and political commentators have a personal interest in Romney or a (justified) vendetta against McCain.
C. Promoting conspiracies over the obvious satisfies both 1 & 2.