Establishment Gives Middle Finger to Rank-and-File Republicans

[Torie]

Dude... the rules weren't changed.  They were just never finalized before.  The committee was simply voting on the final way the delegates would be divided up.

Of course, the rules were changed. Changing the rules is changing the rules, even if they were subject to revision for whatever reason. Only in banana republics are the rules changed after an election has taken place. In republics, the rules are "finalized" before election day, not after.

The question boils down to this: if Santorum had won, would the current rules had been "finalized?" I think that would have been the case. Romney win 2-0; Santorum win 1-1. That's how banana republics decide elections.

Except that it was "finalized" before the election rather than after, no?

[BigSkyBob]

I suppose BSB and co. will either ignore this or just deny it's authenticity. 

Well,  here it is from the horse's mouth:

"It is unfortunate if I did not explain this more clearly. When the RNC indicated it would penalize our total delegates and award us only 30 delegates, the credentials committee met on Feb. 4 and interpreted the penalty by voting unanimously to send Michigan’s full delegation. Within congressional districts, designate two out of the three delegates as the RNC recognized delegates and two out of the 14 at-large as RNC recognized delegates.

"The at-large delegates are still awarded proportionally to candidates that achieve the 15 percent threshold, the two RNC recognized delegates are assigned to the candidate that wins the most votes. Michigan’s results, without the RNC penalty, 28-Romney/28-Santorum. If the RNC upholds its penalty, 16-Romney, 14-Santorum."


Using the same logic, it could have read:

"It is unfortunate if I did not explain this more clearly. When the RNC indicated it would penalize our total delegates and award us only 30 delegates, the credentials committee met on Feb. 4 and interpreted the penalty by voting unanimously to send Michigan’s full delegation. Within congressional districts, designate two out of the three delegates as the RNC recognized delegates and two out of the 14 at-large as RNC recognized delegates.

"The at-large delegates are still awarded proportionally to candidates that achieve the 15 percent threshold, the two RNC recognized delegates are assigned to the candidate that wins the most votes. Michigan’s results, without the RNC penalty, 28-Romney/28-Santorum. If the RNC upholds its penalty, 16-Romney, 14-Santorum. If the RNC reduces the penalty in half, 21-Romney, 14-Santorum."


In the rest of flyover country, if you asked, "If you have seven Santorum delegates, and seven Romney delegates, but, only two are to be 'recognized' at the convention, what it is the appropriate split?," I would hazard to guess that 99 out of 100 people would answer, "Recognize one Santorum delegate and one Romney delegate." At least this is one issue I can stand with the 99% against the 1%!

[Tidewater_Wave]

I don't think we live in a country that would settle for 8.5% unemployment and $3.00/gallon won't happen. Anything above 7% won't be acceptable. Romney will constantly be able to remind us how much more gas is compared to 2008 and play Obama whining about prices then but basically quoting George W. Bush in 2012. Hmm now what about Obama is different in 2012 than in 2008? Gee I can't figure this out. Why would a president excuse gas prices as an incumbent but whine about them as a new candidate. Can anyone tell me why? Look it's politics and Obama looks like a politician in this mess. There are a number of other points Romney can poke at with Obama. This is not an election where Bush is in office with a 25% approval rating.

It isn't about settling, it is about trend.

Reagan won with 7.2% unemployment, which is still high. But the fact that it was improving is what matters, same thing for Obama.

It's supposed to be 9.2% by the end of the year and the prices of gas won't help.

[BigSkyBob]

Romney is personally calling rank-and-file Republicans on Election Days. I would advise the Santorum campaign to move on from Michigan...

I'm sure that, like cockroaches, Romney and his minions want to do their dirty work in the dark.

I'm going to cast some sunlight. I wonder how long it will before the cockroaches restore Santorum's delegate, and scurry back into the shadows.

I can assure you the Romney campaign is not getting phone lists of Michigan Democrats from unions. And the Romney campaign is most certainly not robocalling Democrats. All Romney has done is pursue rank-and-file Republicans, and he's won 7 of 12 contests thus far. It has been a long road, and there is a lot of distance left to cover, but even Rambo struggled from time to time.

Romney is not going to owe anything to any unions, or anybody for that matter. Who knows what Santorum owes, and to whom, in Washington, DC. We don't even know who was funneling those hundreds of thousands of dollars into Santorum's Super PAC back in December when he was polling in single digits in Iowa...

Pray tell, Politico, who are those unnamed donors pouring millions of dollars into Romney's superpac? Do you seriously believe Romney can send former staffers with a wink and a nod to raise tens of million of dollars on Romney's behalf and not be indebted to those donors? We are looking at a man whom is going to be a 9-figure whore--trying to win the rights to run against a man aiming to be history's first 10-figure whore--and you are trying to posture as if he has maintained his virginity!

Is this an auction or an election?

Apologies to any sex-workers whom may be reading this.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If the rank and file don't like the elites taking all of the power for themselves, maybe they shouldn't be Republicans?

[BigSkyBob]

If the rank and file don't like the elites taking all of the power for themselves, maybe they shouldn't be Republicans?

That's being debated.

[King]

I don't think we live in a country that would settle for 8.5% unemployment and $3.00/gallon won't happen. Anything above 7% won't be acceptable. Romney will constantly be able to remind us how much more gas is compared to 2008 and play Obama whining about prices then but basically quoting George W. Bush in 2012. Hmm now what about Obama is different in 2012 than in 2008? Gee I can't figure this out. Why would a president excuse gas prices as an incumbent but whine about them as a new candidate. Can anyone tell me why? Look it's politics and Obama looks like a politician in this mess. There are a number of other points Romney can poke at with Obama. This is not an election where Bush is in office with a 25% approval rating.

It isn't about settling, it is about trend.

Reagan won with 7.2% unemployment, which is still high. But the fact that it was improving is what matters, same thing for Obama.

It's supposed to be 9.2% by the end of the year and the prices of gas won't help.

Supposed to be? Says who?  The CBO?  Well, they also say Obamacare will reduce the deficit and be beneficial, so apparently they shouldn't be taken seriously.

[BigSkyBob]

Romney is personally calling rank-and-file Republicans on Election Days. I would advise the Santorum campaign to move on from Michigan...

I'm sure that, like cockroaches, Romney and his minions want to do their dirty work in the dark.

I'm going to cast some sunlight. I wonder how long it will before the cockroaches restore Santorum's delegate, and scurry back into the shadows.

I can assure you the Romney campaign is not getting phone lists of Michigan Democrats from unions. And the Romney campaign is most certainly not robocalling Democrats. All Romney has done is pursue rank-and-file Republicans, and he's won 7 of 12 contests thus far. It has been a long road, and there is a lot of distance left to cover, but even Rambo struggled from time to time.

Romney is not going to owe anything to any unions, or anybody for that matter. Who knows what Santorum owes, and to whom, in Washington, DC. We don't even know who was funneling those hundreds of thousands of dollars into Santorum's Super PAC back in December when he was polling in single digits in Iowa...

Pray tell, Politico, who are those unnamed donors pouring millions of dollars into Romney's superpac? Do you seriously believe Romney can send former staffers with a wink and a nod to raise tens of million of dollars on Romney's behalf and not be indebted to those donors? We are looking at a man whom is going to be a 9-figure whore--trying to win the rights to run against a man aiming to be history's first 10-figure whore--and you are trying to posture as if he has maintained his virginity!

Is this an auction or an election?

Apologies to any sex-workers whom may be reading this.

Newt had an interesting comment on Romney's fundraising:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Romney somehow wins the nomination and the general, do you really think he is in a position to say "No!" to a bailout for the people whom bought him the Presidency?

[King]

The Republican Party is in need of some serious internal reforms and does not deserve to win an election until they get their act together.

[BigSkyBob]

The Republican Party is in need of some serious internal reforms and does not deserve to win an election until they get their act together.

The problem with that is the Democrats, also, don't deserve to win any elections.

[Tidewater_Wave]

I don't think we live in a country that would settle for 8.5% unemployment and $3.00/gallon won't happen. Anything above 7% won't be acceptable. Romney will constantly be able to remind us how much more gas is compared to 2008 and play Obama whining about prices then but basically quoting George W. Bush in 2012. Hmm now what about Obama is different in 2012 than in 2008? Gee I can't figure this out. Why would a president excuse gas prices as an incumbent but whine about them as a new candidate. Can anyone tell me why? Look it's politics and Obama looks like a politician in this mess. There are a number of other points Romney can poke at with Obama. This is not an election where Bush is in office with a 25% approval rating.

It isn't about settling, it is about trend.

Reagan won with 7.2% unemployment, which is still high. But the fact that it was improving is what matters, same thing for Obama.

It's supposed to be 9.2% by the end of the year and the prices of gas won't help.

Supposed to be? Says who?  The CBO?  Well, they also say Obamacare will reduce the deficit and be beneficial, so apparently they shouldn't be taken seriously.

No not the CBO. Yes I know all about their antics lol.

[King]

The Republican Party is in need of some serious internal reforms and does not deserve to win an election until they get their act together.

The problem with that is the Democrats, also, don't deserve to win any elections.

Yes, but the Democrats are closer to the surface at the moment.  GOP is drowning in some deep ocean.

[Yank2133]

I don't think we live in a country that would settle for 8.5% unemployment and $3.00/gallon won't happen. Anything above 7% won't be acceptable. Romney will constantly be able to remind us how much more gas is compared to 2008 and play Obama whining about prices then but basically quoting George W. Bush in 2012. Hmm now what about Obama is different in 2012 than in 2008? Gee I can't figure this out. Why would a president excuse gas prices as an incumbent but whine about them as a new candidate. Can anyone tell me why? Look it's politics and Obama looks like a politician in this mess. There are a number of other points Romney can poke at with Obama. This is not an election where Bush is in office with a 25% approval rating.

It isn't about settling, it is about trend.

Reagan won with 7.2% unemployment, which is still high. But the fact that it was improving is what matters, same thing for Obama.

It's supposed to be 9.2% by the end of the year and the prices of gas won't help.

Are you just pulling numbers out of your ass?

CBO projections is 8.9% and that is if we do absolute nothing like extend the payroll tax extension. The Fed which is pessimistic sees unemployment at 8.3% by the ending of the year. Even the Obama admin revised their originally predictions.

[argentarius]

I don't think we live in a country that would settle for 8.5% unemployment and $3.00/gallon won't happen. Anything above 7% won't be acceptable. Romney will constantly be able to remind us how much more gas is compared to 2008 and play Obama whining about prices then but basically quoting George W. Bush in 2012. Hmm now what about Obama is different in 2012 than in 2008? Gee I can't figure this out. Why would a president excuse gas prices as an incumbent but whine about them as a new candidate. Can anyone tell me why? Look it's politics and Obama looks like a politician in this mess. There are a number of other points Romney can poke at with Obama. This is not an election where Bush is in office with a 25% approval rating.

It isn't about settling, it is about trend.

Reagan won with 7.2% unemployment, which is still high. But the fact that it was improving is what matters, same thing for Obama.

It's supposed to be 9.2% by the end of the year and the prices of gas won't help.

Are you just pulling numbers out of your ass?

CBO projections is 8.9% and that is if we do absolute nothing like extend the payroll tax extension. The Fed which is pessimistic sees unemployment at 8.3% by the ending of the year. Even the Obama admin revised their originally predictions.

The truth is we have no idea. There's an absolute ton of events that could effect the US economy.

[Yank2133]

I don't think we live in a country that would settle for 8.5% unemployment and $3.00/gallon won't happen. Anything above 7% won't be acceptable. Romney will constantly be able to remind us how much more gas is compared to 2008 and play Obama whining about prices then but basically quoting George W. Bush in 2012. Hmm now what about Obama is different in 2012 than in 2008? Gee I can't figure this out. Why would a president excuse gas prices as an incumbent but whine about them as a new candidate. Can anyone tell me why? Look it's politics and Obama looks like a politician in this mess. There are a number of other points Romney can poke at with Obama. This is not an election where Bush is in office with a 25% approval rating.

It isn't about settling, it is about trend.

Reagan won with 7.2% unemployment, which is still high. But the fact that it was improving is what matters, same thing for Obama.

It's supposed to be 9.2% by the end of the year and the prices of gas won't help.

Are you just pulling numbers out of your ass?

CBO projections is 8.9% and that is if we do absolute nothing like extend the payroll tax extension. The Fed which is pessimistic sees unemployment at 8.3% by the ending of the year. Even the Obama admin revised their originally predictions.

The truth is we have no idea. There's an absolute ton of events that could effect the US economy.

Oh, I agree

Europe can go in smokes tomorrow for all we know. My point is the 9.2% prediction isn't in line with an credible economist.

[Wisconsin+17]

"CBO projections is 8.9% and that is if we do absolute nothing like extend the payroll tax extension. The Fed which is pessimistic sees unemployment at 8.3% by the ending of the year. Even the Obama admin revised their originally predictions."

Are these the same folks who said that the stimulus would reduce rather than increase unemployment?

[Tidewater_Wave]

I don't think we live in a country that would settle for 8.5% unemployment and $3.00/gallon won't happen. Anything above 7% won't be acceptable. Romney will constantly be able to remind us how much more gas is compared to 2008 and play Obama whining about prices then but basically quoting George W. Bush in 2012. Hmm now what about Obama is different in 2012 than in 2008? Gee I can't figure this out. Why would a president excuse gas prices as an incumbent but whine about them as a new candidate. Can anyone tell me why? Look it's politics and Obama looks like a politician in this mess. There are a number of other points Romney can poke at with Obama. This is not an election where Bush is in office with a 25% approval rating.

It isn't about settling, it is about trend.

Reagan won with 7.2% unemployment, which is still high. But the fact that it was improving is what matters, same thing for Obama.

It's supposed to be 9.2% by the end of the year and the prices of gas won't help.

Are you just pulling numbers out of your ass?

CBO projections is 8.9% and that is if we do absolute nothing like extend the payroll tax extension. The Fed which is pessimistic sees unemployment at 8.3% by the ending of the year. Even the Obama admin revised their originally predictions.

The CBO estimated a neutral cost that would be offset with Obamacare and then it was found to cost 14 trillion. If only I could cost my company that much and keep my job. So much for transparency and being held accountable at the top level in government.