Republican Delegate Count ~ Clustersuck

[Snipe]

RCP NYT CNN CBS WSJ
Romney 87 91 86 86 107
Gingrich 35 29 35 29 32
Santorum 32 44 22 38 45
Paul 13 8 20 8 9
Huntsman 2 2 2
167 174 163 163 195

My data table up top is not so great, but I just wanted you to get a general idea.

When looking for delegate counts, I looked at five sites:

Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html)
The New York Times (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates)
CNN (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2012/calculator/)
CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/primary-election-results-2012/scorecard.shtml?party=R)
The Wall Street Journal (http://projects.wsj.com/campaign2012/delegates)

All five sites have different delegate counts. It is hard to beleive that all five news sites are totally incompetent. This has to be a confusing process. I looked into the process once and it is complicated.

Many delegates are uncommitted. The total number of delegates allocated to the states that have voted are 219 so far. So for example, Real Clear Politics has awarded 167 delegates, leaving 52 delegates uncommitted to any candidate.

The rub with uncommitted candidates is that they add to the total needed to win the nomination. Mitt Romney according to Real Clear Politics has won 52% of the committed delegates. But if you factor in the uncommitted delegates he has only captured 39.7% of the total delegates. A candidate needs to win over 50% of the total delegates to win the nomination before the convention. Romney is not on a path to win the nomination.

If no candidate gets over 50% of the delegates before the convention, you have what is called a "brokered convention", where the delegates all show up and vote. The first vote they are supposed to vote for who they are committed for (if they are committed). If they don't have one candidate win 50%, all the committed delegates are released and they all become free agents.

Free agents means that they can vote for anyone, including a candidate that didn't even run in the primary (I am not sure George W. Bush is eligible (Miss me yet?))

That looks like it would be crazy. Furthermore, I am not sure anyone knows the rules. I think it has been so long since the Republican Party had a brokered convention, I don't think any person alive would know how it works. The rules are going to be determined by lawyers who have never have gone through such things.

We don't even have agreement on how many delegates each candidate has. Romney has anywhere from 86 to 107 delegates. The Wall Street Journal has Romney with 25% more delegates than CBS and CNN have for Romney. RCP & CNN have Gingrich in second place, The New York Times and the others have Santorum in second. We don't even know who is in second. Does Ron Paul have 8 delegates as CBS tells us, or does he have 150% more delegates (20) as CNN says?

Are you confused yet? Is this a way to run a railroad? But it gets better, much better than this.

From the Washington Examiner (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/rnc-official-delegate-count-has-romney-73-29/361131):

The Republican National Committee wants everyone to know that no matter what happens tomorrow in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri, none of it really matters. RNC Communications Director Sean Spicer emails:


For those of you covering the race for the GOP presidential nomination and writing about the current delegate count, please keep in mind the no delegates will be awarded tomorrow.


Colorado is a non-binding precinct caucus. Their 36 delegates will be chosen at district conventions held between March 31 – April 13, 2012, and at the state convention on April 14, 2012. .

Minnesota is a non-binding precinct caucus. Their 40 delegates will be chosen at district conventions held between April 14 – 21, 2012, and at a state convention on May 5, 2012. Delegates are not bound unless the state convention passes a resolution to bind the delegates.

Missouri will hold a primary tomorrow that is not recognized as being a part of any delegate allocation or selection process . A precinct caucus will be held on 3/17/2012 to begin the process of choosing their 52 delegates which will be chosen at district conventions on April 21, 2012, and a state convention on June 2, 2012. Candidates for delegate must state a presidential preference at the time of nomination and will be bound to support that candidate for one ballot at the national convention.

So we just had three states go to one Candidate, and technically no delegates were awarded anywhere, despite the fact that our news organizations are awarding delegates (albeit all with different delegate counts themselves).

All of yesterday was for nothing. Really, why even waste the government money to open up the polling places and let people vote? Is it to let the voters get the feeling that they have a choice? And who is going to be doing the choosing? Who put this system in place?

This is the "official" delegate count of the Republican National Committee (The RNC) per the Washington Examiner:

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/sites/default/files/styles/blog_listing_full/public/Screen%20shot%202012-02-06%20at%203.17.18%20PM.png

Notice they don't have any Iowa delegates awarded. What was the point of that whole Iowa Caucus thing? It is beyond wierd the way they do these things.

And see how the RNC awarded 50 delegates to Romney in Florida, a "Winner take all" state? That goes against their own rules.

Gingrich Seeks to Challenge Fla. Delegate Count (http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Gingrich/2012/02/02/id/428370)

The RNC has a written rule that no state can have a winner take all primary prior to April 1st, 2012. This was put in place to keep states from moving up their primaries. Florida violated that rule. I saw Michael Steele, former Chairman of the Republican Party discuss this on television. He said he was Chairman when they put in the rule, the rule still exists and that it applies to Florida. I don't know how you can have a rule like that in place and then just disregard it after the fact.

What a cluster! Who is running this show?

So what is the take away from all this. Here are some options:

1) This is a poorly designed system for a close race, possibly because it was designed by idiots. Never attribute to conspiracy what you can first attribute to incompetence. They aren't all that bright.

2) This is a well designed system by power brokers who want to have as much power as they can in determining the nominee (and the least amount of power for voters). They want you to think that you are in fact voting, when your not. They are deciding as much as they can. (They can only use this power in close elections).

3) They are both idiots and power hungry zealots who want to determine the nominee themselves (why not both?)

You can feel free to add your own option.

It is confusing to look at this stuff. That is why all the major news organizations have different delegate counts. Nobody seems to know what is really going on, and the RNC doesn't enforce it's own rules. It is mayhem, and if this election stays close all hell could break lose in the fight for power. This could be a meltdown of biblical proportions.

I for one would like to see a brokered convention just for the entertainment value. Nobody knows what would happen then, and anyone that tells you that they do is lying. I am not a Republican, and I have never voted in a Republican primary. That won't stop me from voting in my first in the Ohio primary when I cast my vote for Ron Paul. Ohio has an open primary, and I urge everyone to get in on the fun. A vote for Paul fragments the vote and makes it more likely of a brokered convention. It also sends a message to end these wars and start some fiscal responsibility. If Democrats want to have some fun with this, they should show up and grab that Republican ballot and cast a vote for Paul.

[paulxu]

What a cluster! Who is running this show?

I'm assuming that's rhetorical.

[boozehound]

It is confusing to look at this stuff. That is why all the major news organizations have different delegate counts. Nobody seems to know what is really going on, and the RNC doesn't enforce it's own rules. It is mayhem, and if this election stays close all hell could break lose in the fight for power. This could be a meltdown of biblical proportions.

I for one would like to see a brokered convention just for the entertainment value. Nobody knows what would happen then, and anyone that tells you that they do is lying. I am not a Republican, and I have never voted in a Republican primary. That won't stop me from voting in my first in the Ohio primary when I cast my vote for Ron Paul. Ohio has an open primary, and I urge everyone to get in on the fun. A vote for Paul fragments the vote and makes it more likely of a brokered convention. It also sends a message to end these wars and start some fiscal responsibility. If Democrats want to have some fun with this, they should show up and grab that Republican ballot and cast a vote for Paul.

Ideologically I agree with a lot of this, however in reality I think that this whole thing could contribute to 4 more years of Obama. I think that the worst thing that can happen for republicans (and all non-Obama fans, really) is a drawn out nomination process. It still looks highly unlikely to me that anybody besides Romney is going to win the nomination.
Things are already getting self destructive, IMHO, with Gingrich asking to see Romney's taxes and trying to portray him as a "one percenter" (although to be fair, he is). I'm not sure why the republican party would want to call any attention to that. Romney has an ungodly amount of money because he was very, very good at what he did in the private sector. Good for him. I think that makes him a better presidential candidate, not a worse one.

While the republicans are fighting each other tooth and nail for the nomination Obama is already campaigning for the general election. They would be more able to afford a drawn out nomination process if this was a situation like the 2008 election in which both parties had to go through the whole primary / nomination process. I really wish that the republicans would decide swiftly who the nominee will be and fall in line behind them.

Regarding Ron Paul: I like Paul. I think he has been the most consistent candidate ideologically and I agree with many of his views. I don't know how well he would work with congress and the established framework of Washington (which I despise) due to his fairly radical ideas. He is the only guy out there talking about real sweeping change, which I think is what we need. Having said that, I hope Ron Paul doesn't decide to run as an independant because I think that could very well cost the republicans the election. I don't think that Paul is going to steal many (if any) votes from Obama, but he could make a larget dent in the republican voter base. It's kind of interesting to me, because the candidate that I probably like the best is the one that I don't want to see run.

[Snipe]

Ron Paul won't run as an independent. He is running to start a movement. He is gaining momentum. I believe that he will hand the torch to his son Rand. Rand is younger, better looking at with some work will become a better public speaker and more polished candidate down the road. I think that Ron Paul's supports want that too.

I think Paul wants to work within the party to change the party. I think that he will command a prime time appearance at the convention to lay out his views on liberty and fight for the future of the party. He also wants to be able to put amendments to the party platform on the ballot and have them voted on at the convention.

I like his chances on a lot of this. Some of it is simple, like just going by the Constitution. Ron Paul thinks that Congress should declare war, not the President. He thinks the Constitution backs him up on that, and I do too. He will probably want to make that part of the party platform, no young men in harms way without a formal declaration of war from Congress. It is not supposed to be "George Bush's War" or "Barack Obama's War". That is not the way the system is designed. I like his chances of passing something like that.

I also like his chances of getting something for fiscal conservatism on the platform, possibly a modified balanced budget amendment.

If Paul gets what he wants he will get access to making amendments (or at least putting them up for a vote) at the Primary, and he would also get prime speaking times for both himself and his son Rand.

Will Paul get what he wants? The closer this race gets the more his delegates mean to the winner. Ron Paul delegates are probably more loyal than anyone elses in this contest. If he pledges his delegates to Romney in order for some serious concessions, he would likely get anything he wanted if Romney needs those delegates. And to be honest, this is speculation and nobody knows exactly how this works out in real life. I think Ron Paul can urge his delegates to go for Romney if he wanted, and they probably would. I am not sure they would have to, but that is why I brought up the loyalty factor. Ron Paulers are outsiders that want in. They want to change the Republican Party from the inside, and Ron Paul wants access to the party platform.

Ron Paul likes Romney too. I would not be surprised if they cut a deal in the end. And the Republican Party can't afford to piss off Ron Paul's fans. He is getting up to a quarter of the vote in some of these primaries. That isn't anything that can make him the nominee, but it isn't chump change either. He could win Virginia and I hope that he does. His supporters are some of the most vibrant and dynamic in the entire party, and many of them are Tea Party proud.

One thing I can say is that the way things are going it sure is interesting.

As far as Obama getting reelected, I am not sure that will happen. He is a lousy President. I am also skeptical of how bad it would be if he were reelected if Republicans kept the house and took back the Senate. One party rule is usually horrible for America, our Constitutional Rights, and our National Debt. We don't need a new George Bush to prove that. Plus a brokered convention could allow a new candidate anyway, like Chris Christie. Now that would be something. The White Knight sweeping in at the last moment.

Nobody knows what is going to happen, and I find the politics of it all more entertaining than ever. It would be better if we weren't on the edge of a fiscal cliff and it was all for shyts and grins. I don't think that any of the candidates outside of Ron Paul and Paul Ryan is honest about where this country really is right now and how dire the situation is with the budget and the dollar. If people think that Greece can never happen here they are wrong. I think a few years from now many people will be lamenting that Ron Paul was right all along.

[MADXSTER]

"Change"

Obama won on this ideology.

"Congress and the established framework of Washington"

Democrats, Republicans and swing voters all embrace "Change" from the current system, that being the established framework of Washington. I really don't think the Obama camp realized what they touched on initially. I think they were talking about change in politics and political thinking. IMO the american people are looking for "Change" in the established framework of Washington.

IMO if anyone runs on "Change" and "Congress and the established framework of Washington" would win handily.

[MADXSTER]

"no young men in harms way without a formal declaration of war from Congress"

What about covert affairs? Though I agree with this in principle, I don't necessarily think it would work in the real world so to speak.

[Snipe]

Not sure if it even means anything Madxster. The Constitution already says that it is up to Congress to declare war, but Congress likes to give that power to the President and then shirk responsibility. I am not sure how Paul would phrase an amendment, how it would be phrased, or how it would be practically applied. I do know that one of the things people say he wants to do is change the Republican Party Platform, and I was doing my best to guess what that would entail.

I can't tell you how this all ends, it is just my best guess. Ron Paul and his supporters were shut out of the Republican Convention last time around, and they are going to do their best to crash the party this year and make their voice heard. They are no longer satisfied being outsiders. They want power and they want their voice heard. If they are not thrown a bone they will not go quietly.

Ever since W there has been a battle for the soul of the Republican Party. Ron Paul is part of that. The Tea Party is part of that. Many of Ron Paul's votes come from the Tea Party, but the Tea Party portion of the republican electorate is heavily divided among all four candidates. In some states Romney wins their vote, some Gingrich, and some Paul. I bet Santorum carried the Tea Party in at least one if not all of the three states last night. Safe to say they have yet to coalesce around one candidate.

In a brokered convention though, it may well come down to the Republican Elites of “The Establishment” vs. the Tea Party though, especially if another candidate is brought in to seek the nomination. I don’t know if anyone can just nominate Chris Christie and then take a vote or if he would have to throw his hat in the ring officially. I don’t think that many people if anyone knows exactly how a brokered convention works anymore. But it could get bloody and interesting.

[xu95]

Ideologically I agree with a lot of this, however in reality I think that this whole thing could contribute to 4 more years of Obama.

I disagree. Obama/Clinton ran well into the summer. That didn't seem to affect them. Romney will win it and he will probably pick a pretty right wing VP and that will lock up both the right wing and the independents. Heck, Obama can't seem to hold on to his own party right now.

xu95

[gladdenguy]

They are all clowns.

[boozehound]

I disagree. Obama/Clinton ran well into the summer. That didn't seem to affect them. Romney will win it and he will probably pick a pretty right wing VP and that will lock up both the right wing and the independents. Heck, Obama can't seem to hold on to his own party right now.

xu95

Yeah, but Obama wasn't running against an established encumbant president. That may make it a little different.


They are all clowns.

I agree 1000%.

[Snipe]

Anybody have any thoughts about the delegate count or the process? I know I have hijacked my own post and taken it off course, but just the way this whole thing is set up is whack.

Every candidate has every incentive to stay in the race, and right now it looks like a distinctive possiblity that no single candidate will get a majority of the delegates before the convention. Romney is in the lead and he has less than 40% of the delegates.

It may all work itself out well before the convention, but if it doesn't I can't imagine what is going to happen. Should be interesting.

[Snipe]

I disagree. Obama/Clinton ran well into the summer. That didn't seem to affect them. Romney will win it and he will probably pick a pretty right wing VP and that will lock up both the right wing and the independents. Heck, Obama can't seem to hold on to his own party right now.

xu95

It is all how the media spins it I guess. When it was Democrats it just proved how strong they were and how energized the electorate was. When it is Republicans it is all about how lousy the Republican field is.

Clinton won more votes than Obama but didn't get the nomination. Obama nominated the caucus states. The man is a master at running a political operation, or at least his people are. The thing that hurts him though is that he is a lousy President.

[Snipe]

Brokered convention not in the cards for GOP (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-215_162-57373439/brokered-convention-not-in-the-cards-for-gop/)


As still another TNR regular, Jonathan Bernstein, has noted, a "brokered convention" depends on "brokers." Party leaders have a lot of ways to influence the selection of delegates in the primaries, but beyond that, their powers are limited. In the extremely unlikely event no winner heads to Tampa with a majority of delegates, we are looking not at a "brokered" convention, but a "deadlock" where the actual delegates, once their legal and moral commitments are discharged, can do what they want. "Brokering" is much too tame a metaphor for what would take place in that scenario. It would be a lot more like herding feral cats. Fortunately, it probably won' t-- no, it definitely won't -- come to that.

Bring on the brokered convention – it could be just what the Republicans need (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100135092/bring-on-the-brokered-convention-it-could-be-just-what-the-republicans-need/)


It used to be the rule that people went to the conventions without a prior idea of who the winner was going to be; primary wins were leverage, not a guarantee of victory. In 1948, Republican contender Thomas Dewey took just two primaries and 11.5 percent of the overall vote. Yet he won the nomination at his party’s convention on the third ballot.

These Old Rite conventions were a source of drama and comedy. It wasn’t unusual for them to run on for weeks at a time, with at least six people dying in the process (including a couple of aged nominees). Spontaneous demonstrations were ubiquitous and fistfights common. Garland Tucker’s excellent book The High Tide of American Conservatism tells the story of the 1924 Democratic convention, which lasted 17 days and 103 ballots.

Bring on the bloodletting! Rivers of Blood!



In 2012, a brokered convention would be good for the Republicans for two reasons. First, it would help them win the TV war against Obama. The Democratic nomination is going to be a bore (“Hope you can believe it … Change is a-comin'! … Twelve jobs created last April … etc). Given how important the 24-hour rolling news cycle has been to the election so far, it’s not unreasonable to speculate that a bit of drama at the Republican convention could actually be good for the party’s standing in the polls. It would be the single biggest reality TV event in history.

Second, a competitive convention might end up nominating a better candidate than Mitt or Newt. If Gingrich has enough delegates to force a second ballot, he’s unlikely to win it. Nobody likes a spoiler and unless he’s leading big in national polls he’ll be regarded as a king killer rather than a winner. No, the beneficiaries from the chaos are people like Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels or Sarah Palin. Rick Santorum might even be able to plead that his momentum came late because of the mess in Iowa and that he has the necessary conservative support to win in November.

A brokered convention would let the Republicans keep their options open. In a season that has been high on drama but low on talent, that would be no bad thing.

Sarah Palin could get back into the mix. After watching Williard Mitt and Newt debate the finer points of Occupy Wall Street for a few months, I bet liberals art starting to miss the pitbull with lipstick. When I read Palin I just couldn't request quoting it for all her fans here.

[xu95]

Yeah, but Obama wasn't running against an established encumbant president. That may make it a little different.





Could be, but it seems like in most polls Obama is hated as much as Bush was at the end. I think most Dems wished their wasn't an incumbent right now.

Trust me, the Republicans will rally around whoever is picked and if it is Romney as it looks he will probably bring in a lot of the independents too. Romney is Obama's worst nightmare at this point. THat is why they are already campaigning against him and he hasn't won anything yet.

[xsteve1]

They are all clowns.

This.

[Porkopolis]

I think most Dems wished their wasn't an incumbent right now.

Place me firmly in that category of democrats. I dislike Obama, but I dislike all of the other candidates more. Is this really the best our country can do?

[GoMuskies]

I actually like Romney. I lived in Massachusetts during his run as governor and thought he did a fine job as governor. Also, I spent a lot of time in the Private Equity world up there, so I appreciate that aspect of his story. However, if he can't blow the doors off the likes or Rick Santorum, then he's got real problems.

[xu95]

I actually like Romney. I lived in Massachusetts during his run as governor and thought he did a fine job as governor. Also, I spent a lot of time in the Private Equity world up there, so I appreciate that aspect of his story. However, if he can't blow the doors off the likes or Rick Santorum, then he's got real problems.

The problem right now is that there are a bunch of factions within the Republican party and it seems like each candidate caters to a particular one of them so therefore they all seem to get votes. I would be surprised if the party as a whole doesn't rally around whoever wins. No one in the party wants four more years of what we have.

My favorite Obama line lately was that he "deserved" four more years.

xu95

[DC Muskie]

Election year at Xavierhoops.com. Oh how I have missed you!

[Juice]

Maybe some of our "older" posters can help me out here. As a person has voted Republican in every election I could vote in, I haven't been happy with many options but often have voted for who has pissed me off the least. Have the choices in past elections (pre-1990s) always been this bad or is it jsut being exaggerated more and more each year?

[LadyMuskie]

They are all clowns.


Without a doubt! Evidence of this can be found just about anywhere. You can look at Obama singing at The Apollo or Mitt treating us to all 100 verses of America the Beautiful.



Is this really the best our country can do?

Sadly, I think it is. The best and the brightest aren't going to run for president because they're too smart, and that isn't really what the majority of people want. Most people are so firmly entrenched in their own ideologies that they don't want intelligent, well-thought-out, honest debates. The most vocal Americans just want catch phrases and zingers, and this is true for both sides of the aisle. It explains the popularity of Sarah Palin, Chris Matthews, etc.

[Xman95]

They are all clowns.

Ding, ding, ding...we have a winner!

[Xman95]

Clinton won more votes than Obama but didn't get the nomination. Obama nominated the caucus states. The man is a master at running a political operation, or at least his people are. The thing that hurts him though is that he is a lousy President.

That's what was so funny about Obama's campaign. He talked about getting away from the same old Washington system. He ripped McCain for being part of the problem with all of his years in DC with nothing changing. Then he goes and adds Biden, someone with more time in DC than McCain, as his VP candidate.

Plus, while Obama painted himself as the anti-politician, he was really the perfect politician. I have often claimed Bill Clinton is the best politician I've ever seen. I didn't like him, didn't like a lot of what he stood for, but he was masterful at his craft. Obama is right there with him. A terrific politician.

[Snipe]

Maybe some of our "older" posters can help me out here. As a person has voted Republican in every election I could vote in, I haven't been happy with many options but often have voted for who has pissed me off the least. Have the choices in past elections (pre-1990s) always been this bad or is it jsut being exaggerated more and more each year?

Go through them and you have Reagan in 1980 & 1984. Most Republicans love Reagan.

Then you had Bush the Elder in 1988 and 1992. I would guess the consensus Republican opinion on Bush I was that he wasn't that bad. Then you had Dole in 1996. Not a big fan of Dole and nobody got excited about him. Should have run Colin Powell as our first black President. Then we had Bush the Younger in 2000 and 2004. Should have run Colin Powell again in 2000 as our first black President. Bush didn't turn out so great. So then we changed up things and went for suckjob Johnny McCain.

Republican Score Card
Reagan ~ A
Bush The Elder ~ Pass
Bob Dole ~ Fail
George W Bush ~ Fail
Suckjob Johnny McCain ~ Fail

Now some Republicans still like Bush the Younger. At least in theory. I don't know any, though Obama actually made me miss the man a little. Honestly, it is that bad.

So given the prism of history, I would actually think the front runner Willard Mitt Romney is a pretty damn good Republican candidate compared to the past, especially suckjob Johnny.

The problem with Willard is that he is kind of bland. He has never done anything but overachieve. I don't think that Mormon has ever had a drink. Obama by contrast was slinging crack. He says he gave up the cocaine, but he does look rather thin. America has come so much the lowest common denominator that people can identify far more with our crack smoking President than some Mormon that gave the valedictorian speech.

[Snipe]

Sadly, I think it is. The best and the brightest aren't going to run for president because they're too smart, and that isn't really what the majority of people want. Most people are so firmly entrenched in their own ideologies that they don't want intelligent, well-thought-out, honest debates. The most vocal Americans just want catch phrases and zingers, and this is true for both sides of the aisle. It explains the popularity of Sarah Palin, Chris Matthews, etc.

If you are going to put together the best and brightest set, Willard Mitty is part of that set. He graduated first in his class. He got through Harvard Law and Harvard Business school at the same time and graduated both in the top 5%. He did this while having his second son as a newborn. That's crazy.

He has made around a quarter of a billion dollars, he did that himself. He took over the Winter Olympics in Utah and made them a success. He has been a successful Governor. He is an extraordinary person who has succeeded at everything he has done, unless you count losing to suckjob Johnny. If you are looking for the best and the brightest you have to include Willard Mitty. No recent President has anything close to his resume of accomplishment. It isn't even close.

You may not like him or agree with him, but the proof is in the pudding. He is exceptionally bright, motivated and accomplished. The man was born to be President. To tell you the truth, I don’t like something about that. Not sure what it is either. It is like he is too perfect. His biggest flaw is that he has no flaw. As far as I know he has never had a drink or a hangover. I don’t even know if you thinks dirty thoughts or checks out girl’s asses from time to time. He might not actually be human.

[LadyMuskie]

I would contend that Romney's biggest flaw is that Romney always puts Romney first. He's calculating and lacks devotion, IMO, to the greater cause, which is the people of America. He'll say whatever he needs to say in order to be president, so he is no different than Obama, McCain, or any other politician. He'd deny his own mother right now if it meant he could secure the nomination. If you think that isn't true, then ask him to defend his policies as governor of Mass. He walks back on almost every decision he made while in the governor's mansion in order to be the GOP nominee. I can not agree with your decisions, but I can respect that you think you're right. Bush was not my favorite president, but I respected that he believed what he was doing was right and he stood behind his decisions claiming them as his own even in the fiercest adversity. Romney doesn't dare do that.

Perhaps Romney is the best and brightest this country has to offer, although I know of some wealthy people and some people who graduated from Ivy League schools who are worth less to this country than the homeless guy on 4th Street downtown. They're good at making money no matter who they have to destroy or hurt in the process, but that doesn't make them the best we have to offer. Bernie Madoff was very wealthy and very good at stealing from people. Was he the best this country has to offer? Natalie Portman went to Harvard. Does that mean she should be president? Wealth does not equal intelligence, and people who go to the Ivy Leagues aren't the only people with brains or good ideas. In fact, one could argue that since so many of our elected leaders are from the Ivy League schools, those schools can shoulder some of the blame for the state our country is in right now. Obama seems not so different to me than Bush. Same old ideas. Same old approaches to problems. Same problems. Same old boy networks. Everything is the same, and they all come from those Ivy League schools.

I don't want Forrest Gump in the Oval Office, but I haven't seen anything from the Ivy League grads to tell me that they've been much better.

[Snipe]

I am not a big fan of our elites either LadyMuskie, and in many ways they have collectively failed the nation in my opinion.

As far as Romney's record in Massachusetts goes I can't speak to that on much authority. He seemed to be well respected in the State at the time. He does indeed defend his record as Governor, and even touts it on his website.

If you are speaking of him flip flopping on social issues as many contend, I can't speak to that either. I don't pay too much attention to social issues. I don't care if he once supported gay marriage of if he now really believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman. We have bigger fish to fry. I am a fan of the Mitch Daniels' "truce" concept where social and fiscal conservatives shelve the culture war while they attend the economic problems associated with rampant overspending, corruption and waste. Do I think Willard Mittens could do that? Just dandy!

His experience in cutting costs and looking at the bottom line seemed to work in the private sector, at the Olympics and as Governor of Massachusetts. Do I think that "He is the one that we have been waiting for?" Heavens no. He certainly is qualified though, and probably as qualified to run for office as we have had in some time.

And I would agree that we have plenty of smart people that don't go to the Ivy League. That doesn't mean that Mittens isn't bright. He graduated first in his class at BYU before going to Harvard. Stupid people don't do that. I will also concede that money doesn't equal intelligence or moral integrity. He founded Bain Capital and made a quarter of a billion dollars. It appears that he didn't commit any crimes or is guilty of any sharp practices. He certainly is the dreaded 1%. He is not a crook or a Bernie Madoff.

You can call him greedy because he made a lot of money, or call him an elite because of his academic credentials. The fact is that he has been successful at everything he has ever done and his resume is impeccable. Put it up against anyone else past and present in the office.

Now if he is too elitist for you I would suggest you vote in the primary for Ron Paul. Ron Paul is no dummy either. He graduated from Duke Medical School and served in the United States Air Force as a Flight Surgeon during the Vietnam War. He came from humble beginnings and made himself quite a life. He still has his own private practice and he has delivered over 1,000 babies. If you like guys who say what they mean and mean what they say, Ron Paul is your man. He has dedicated his whole life to life and liberty. Is he among the best and brightest?

And Newt has been accused of many things, but not being bright isn't one of them. I personally think he is a genius. He does too, a little too much maybe. Is he one of the best? Not if you want to have a relationship perhaps, but he is the last guy to actually balance the budget. That is no small thing considering our dash to be Greece.

They all have their +/-s. I like things about all of them. If you don't like Republicans, you probably don't like any of them. That is fine too, but as Republican candidates go I don't think this field is bad. From the party that last gave you Suckjob Johnny McCain, George W. Bush and Bob Dole, I guess that isn't asking much.

Who do we want to be President? Bill Gates? Too rich and elite? Bob Costas? He would be fun with the fireside chats and when he greeted winning World Series teams. I can't think of anyone more qualified than Romney to run against Obama for President. And lets face it, Obama was never qualified. We got him because the Democrats didn't have anything better to offer than the junior Senator from Illinois that had never accomplished anything than winning an election. And Heaven forbid if Obama passed away Joe Biden would be President. It is just chilling. A heart beat away.

[Porkopolis]

A lot of our problem is having two "big tent" parties and several nationally irrelevant tiny ones. The nature of the Democratic and Republican parties is that fresh ideas generally get tossed by the wayside in favor of establishment ones during the primary process. The fringes of each party get ignored which is a real shame. A lot of people dislike them but we need the Ron Pauls and Dennis Kucinichs of the world making their party uncomfortable.

[Snipe]

"Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss" ~ The Who

I do think the Tea Party has made some headway into the Republican Party. People are ticked that the choice is between Big Government Republicans (Bush et al) and Big Government Pelosis. What kind of choice is that? Rubbish.

Too often the compact between the libertarian wing (fiscal conservatives) and values wing (social conservatives) ended up being that the fiscal conservatives supported the social conservatives and the social conservatives then just spent all the money like Bush. The Republican Party is still in an intense struggle over it's soul, and I think it would be best if it is a public and bloody affair. This country is headed for a fiscal disaster, and if Republicans don't save us nobody will. Paul Ryan may be our last best chance.

People want party unity. Unity doesn't mean anything if you don't stand for something. It is time for the social conservatives and values voters to suck one up for the team themselves. They have run the party for too long and it is time for them to take a back seat and let the adults drive.

[boozehound]

Go through them and you have Reagan in 1980 & 1984. Most Republicans love Reagan.

Then you had Bush the Elder in 1988 and 1992. I would guess the consensus Republican opinion on Bush I was that he wasn't that bad. Then you had Dole in 1996. Not a big fan of Dole and nobody got excited about him. Should have run Colin Powell as our first black President. Then we had Bush the Younger in 2000 and 2004. Should have run Colin Powell again in 2000 as our first black President. Bush didn't turn out so great. So then we changed up things and went for suckjob Johnny McCain.


I kind of forgot about Colin Powell. I was always a big fan of his. I could never really figure out why he never ran (at least not that I can recall). The only conclusion I can reach is that the republicans were nervous about a black candidate or that Powell just plain didn't want to be president.




Too often the compact between the libertarian wing (fiscal conservatives) and values wing (social conservatives) ended up being that the fiscal conservatives supported the social conservatives and the social conservatives then just spent all the money like Bush. The Republican Party is still in an intense struggle over it's soul, and I think it would be best if it is a public and bloody affair. This country is headed for a fiscal disaster, and if Republicans don't save us nobody will. Paul Ryan may be our last best chance.


Heck. I would just be happy with letting the fically conservative / socially liberal crowd have a crack at running the party. I don't think that's every happend. Most of the republicans that I know personally fit that bill anyways, although being in my 20's probably creates sampling bias.

[LadyMuskie]

I kind of forgot about Colin Powell. I was always a big fan of his. I could never really figure out why he never ran (at least not that I can recall). The only conclusion I can reach is that the republicans were nervous about a black candidate or that Powell just plain didn't want to be president.



.

I just finished reading Game Change about the 2008 election and in it Obama seeks out the opinion of Powell asking him why he chose not to run. Powell's response was (supposedly) that he was a general and not a politician. I don't know anyone (save Dick Cheney) who doesn't respect and like Colin Powell. He's just a classy, intelligent man with the best interests of the U.S. at heart - hence why he didn't want to run.

[waggy]

"Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss" ~ The Who

Duh.

The only thing that will change DC is if people die. Not American soldiers, legislators. Only bloodshed can fix this.

How greedy do you have to be, to fuck up America? Very.

[DC Muskie]

The only conclusion I can reach is that the republicans were nervous about a black candidate or that Powell just plain didn't want to be president

Powell never wanted to even come close to running for president.

By the way, Powell endorsed Obama. Just FYI.

[pizza delivery]

I don't think Romney's actually a Christian like he pretends, he's really a Mormon -------> http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/cain-bachmann-refuse-say-romney-christian

[Fred Garvin 2.0]

I suggest not going to Snipe for your Republican history. Colin Powell, talk about a Rhino. Hey, maybe we can let him speak at the convention again so he can lecture us on affirmative action. Only Snipe can rip McCain while praising Powell as some paragon of Republican virtues.

I wish we could have Christie vs Obama and decide what kind of country we want. It's the debate we should have had if Kennedy had lived to run against Goldwater.

BTW, people forget Bush 41 ran against Reagan as a pro-choice/pro ERA candidate. He only changed his tune when he wanted to be VP. And in '88 I don't know if he wins without dispelling the "wimp" label Newsweek and the rest of the media gave him. Of course it helped when he took down Dan Rather on live TV.

Between that incident and Dubya's national guard docs no liberal has done more for Republicans than Dan Rather.

[Snipe]

I kind of forgot about Colin Powell. I was always a big fan of his. I could never really figure out why he never ran (at least not that I can recall). The only conclusion I can reach is that the republicans were nervous about a black candidate

I bet those racist Republicans were nervous about a black candidate. Same thing happened when Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court. Racist Republicans gave him a high tech lynching. Same thing for guys like JC Watts and Alan Major, racist Republicans just can't stand a black man. It makes them nervous. Herman Cain was even leading in the primaries as the "Tea Party" candidate before someone leaked to the press that he was actually a black man. Then Republicans left him in droves. Surely Republicans were nervous about Colin Powell, you see the way they have treated Obama. It is racism. After all, what is not to like about Obama?

What an imbecilic point to make. You know who was nervous about Colin Powell running for Presdient? Democrats and Colin Powell. Democrats were nervous because they keep the black vote on the Democratic plantation by convincing American blacks that Republicans are racist. They didn't want the first Black President to be a Republican. If Democrats lost the black vote they couldn't compete. Colin Powell was nervous too. He saw how Democrats tore apart Clearance Thomas. By any means necessary brotherman. They would have torn him apart. He didn't want his family to go through that. They were calling Bill Clinton "the first Black President". It was Republicans who wanted Powell to run. Congrats for capturing the history completely ass backwards.

[Snipe]

I suggest not going to Snipe for your Republican history. Colin Powell, talk about a Rhino. Hey, maybe we can let him speak at the convention again so he can lecture us on affirmative action. Only Snipe can rip McCain while praising Powell as some paragon of Republican virtues.

I wish we could have Christie vs Obama and decide what kind of country we want. It's the debate we should have had if Kennedy had lived to run against Goldwater.

BTW, people forget Bush 41 ran against Reagan as a pro-choice/pro ERA candidate. He only changed his tune when he wanted to be VP. And in '88 I don't know if he wins without dispelling the "wimp" label Newsweek and the rest of the media gave him. Of course it helped when he took down Dan Rather on live TV.

Between that incident and Dubya's national guard docs no liberal has done more for Republicans than Dan Rather.

I am not saying that Colin Powell was a paragon of Republican virtue, I am saying that I would have rather of had Powell as a candidate than Bob Dole or George W. Bush. Maybe he will endorse a Republican this time around just to attempt to keep himself relevant if it looks like power is about to shift again. I am sure his Obama endorsement kept him on the invited list on the Beltway cocktail circut. As a high ranking member of the Bush administration and as someone who endorsed Obama I doubt that many Republicans would be climbing over each other to get in his good graces.

Still back in 1996 I think he would have been much better than Dole, and in 2000 he would have had more caution if elected in getting us in a prolonged military effort. Dispite his flaws he just would have been a better option. His time has passed.

[DC Muskie]

Colin Powell was nervous too. He saw how Democrats tore apart Clearance Thomas. By any means necessary brotherman. They would have torn him apart. He didn't want his family to go through that.

Did you hear this on the radio?

[DC Muskie]

I am sure his Obama endorsement kept him on the invited list on the Beltway cocktail circut. As a high ranking member of the Bush administration and as someone who endorsed Obama I doubt that many Republicans would be climbing over each other to get in his good graces.

Are we to believe that somehow you have any clue as to the invite lists of the Beltway cocktail circuit?

[Snipe]

Did you hear this on the radio?

No.


Are we to believe that somehow you have any clue as to the invite lists of the Beltway cocktail circuit?

Yes.

[DC Muskie]

Man Snipe knows the reasons why Powell did not run for president and he is an expert on the Beltway cocktail circuit.

Is there anything this man does not know?

Doubt it.

[Snipe]

Donna Brazile called Powell an Uncle Tom and said that he would rather “rather take pictures with black children than feed them.” And he didn't even run for President. Imagine the Democratic war machine had he run. His wife didn't want him to run, she talked about it at the time. He didn't run because of his family. That is what I believe given the evidence. I don't think any of it was boozehound's fear of some sort of Republican backlash. It was the Republicans who wanted him to run. I wanted him to run. I don't think Donna Brazile and the Democrats wanted him to run.

He is no longer considered an Uncle Tom though. He endorsed Obama.

[DC Muskie]

Donna Brazile called Powell an Uncle Tom and said that he would rather “rather take pictures with black children than feed them.” And he didn't even run for President. Imagine the Democratic war machine had he run. His wife didn't want him to run, she talked about it at the time. He didn't run because of his family. That is what I believe given the evidence. I don't think any of it was boozehound's fear of some sort of Republican backlash. It was the Republicans who wanted him to run. I wanted him to run. I don't think Donna Brazile and the Democrats wanted him to run.

He is no longer considered an Uncle Tom though. He endorsed Obama.

Sort of like when Kerry ran and people like you called him a traitor?

Hmm...seems Donna Brazille has an incredible amount of influence on Colin Powell. Do you think that Mitch Daniels did not want to run against that "Democratic war machine?"

Do you think it was just Democrats who wrote hateful letters to the Powells back in 1999?

I mean I know YOU wanted him to run. But do you think there were other people who were less than excited to see him run?

[Snipe]

Do you think it was just Democrats who wrote hateful letters to the Powells back in 1999?


If I were to guess, I would think the Democrats would be doing it. I never saw the letters, and they were never published. I doubt there were many, and yes I would guess Democrats. Why would Republicans write him hate mail in 1999?

In the press the racial issue was used against Powell by Democrats like Brazille and leftists like Harry Belafonte, who called him a House Negro. Every racial attack that I can remember in the main stream media came from the left. Had he run for President he could have expected more, that is what I am saying.

Why should I expect that it was really Republicans doing that? That is a bit silly, and it goes against all the evidence.

[DC Muskie]

If I were to guess, I would think the Democrats would be doing it. I never saw the letters, and they were never published. I doubt there were many, and yes I would guess Democrats. Why would Republicans write him hate mail in 1999?

In the press the racial issue was used against Powell by Democrats like Brazille and leftists like Harry Belafonte, who called him a House Negro. Every racial attack that I can remember in the main stream media came from the left. Had he run for President he could have expected more, that is what I am saying.

Why should I expect that it was really Republicans doing that? That is a bit silly, and it goes against all the evidence.

So how do you explain the hate mail that the current president recieves? Does racism only exist in the opposing party?

I would say your entire argument is a bit silly, and yet you seem to make these conclusions while admitting you never saw the letters.

[Snipe]

I think that the people that voted against Obama because of race were Democrats. DC. I don't think Republicans would have even cared. He is a lefty. That is enough. It was enough for them to hate Bill Clinton. Republicans would not have to use racism to vote against him. That is not saying that they aren't racists. I think we are all racists. If you are aware of your race and the race of others, you are a racist. Why is that not a good definition? We all tend to live amongst ourselves, have friends amongst ourselves, and marry amongst ourselves. We are all racists. That includes everyone. The world is full of racists. Republicans didn't like Obama in the way they didn't like Algore or Bill Clinton. Get a clue in on this, Republicans won't like the next nominee even though he may be white. They don't like the way that you think, and they have a fundamental disagreement with you.

So who was pissed about the thought of Colin Powell being the first black President? Republicans or Democrats? I gave you media evidence of a Bill Clinton's Campaign Manager, Donna Braziile. I gave you a lefty like Harry Belafonte. Where is your evidence for the right? Who on the right was pissed that Powell might be President? I gave specific incidences of attack, and I alleged that had he run for President that those attacks would increase. I think that thought line is entirely plausible. Where is your evidence? I gave you Clinton's campaign manager saying that stuff. Do you have any equal to retort? Is it just to be assumed that the Republicans are the real racists? I think this is another episode which proves which side the real racists are on, yet that won't get covered.

[Snipe]

And the point of this thread was to talk about delegate and the brokered convention, or at least the possibility of one. If anyone wants to chime in on that you can still go ahead, I am awaiting the first response on that topic.

[DC Muskie]

I think that the people that voted against Obama because of race were Democrats.

Really? Based on what?


I don't think Republicans would have even cared. He is a lefty. That is enough.

Really? What was the Birther movement then?


So who was pissed about the thought of Colin Powell being the first black President? Republicans or Democrats? I gave you media evidence of a Bill Clinton's Campaign Manager, Donna Braziile. I gave you a lefty like Harry Belafonte. Where is your evidence for the right? Who on the right was pissed that Powell might be President? I gave specific incidences of attack, and I alleged that had he run for President that those attacks would increase. I think that thought line is entirely plausible. Where is your evidence? I gave you Clinton's campaign manager saying that stuff. Do you have any equal to retort? Is it just to be assumed that the Republicans are the real racists? I think this is another episode which proves which side the real racists are on, yet that won't get covered.

Do I need a retort? Donna Brazille was not Clinton's Campaign manager, she was Al Gore's. Just FYI.

But what retort do you need? You said all of us are racist then rambled on about two people who didn't like Colin Powell for president. I know two other people that didn't like the idea of Colin Powell for president.

Colin and Alma Powell.

They must be racists.

[LadyMuskie]

But what retort do you need? You said all of us are racist then rambled on about two people who didn't like Colin Powell for president. I know two other people that didn't like the idea of Colin Powell for president.

Colin and Alma Powell.

They must be racists.

I can't rep you for this, but if I could I would!

[Snipe]

Really? Based on what?



Based upon polling data. A significant amount of Democrats said that they would vote based upon race in the 2008 primaries.




Really? What was the Birther movement then?



The Birther movement was originated by a Clinton Democrat during the primaries. That was where it started.




Do I need a retort? Donna Brazille was not Clinton's Campaign manager, she was Al Gore's. Just FYI.



You are correct. She was a Campaign Adviser to Clinton in both 92 and 96, and Algore's Campagin Manager in 2000. She had some choice comments on Colin Powell as well. I think we can establish from that she was a prominent Democrat and part of the mainstream of the Democratic elite.

[Snipe]

I can't rep you for this, but if I could I would!

Can we at least all agree that Colin Powell was racially attacked by Democrats? Haven't I proved that? At least by some Democrats (not all Democrats)? Haven't I proved that? Where is the proof that any Republican racially attacked Powell?

Shouldn't the actual facts and history mean something?

Maybe not.

[DC Muskie]

Based upon polling data. A significant amount of Democrats said that they would vote based upon race in the 2008 primaries.

Could you provide me where this polling data is. I have tried to look for it, but can't find it. It would be fascinating to look over. The party that nominated a black guy for president is the same party that said it would vote against a black guy for president.

Seriously, you are awesome that finding stuff like this. Please post.


The Birther movement was originated by a Clinton Democrat during the primaries. That was where it started.

This is what I like about anonymous e-mails. They are anonymous. Like the anonymous tip that Bush Jr, did blow.

I don't think you see any Clinton supporters, anonymous nor not, asking to see the President's birth certificate.


You are correct. She was a Campaign Adviser to Clinton in both 92 and 96, and Algore's Campagin Manager in 2000. She had some choice comments on Colin Powell as well. I think we can establish from that she was a prominent Democrat and part of the mainstream of the Democratic elite.

I just like the fact you used "mainstrem" and "elite" in the same sentence. Well done!

[Snipe]

Birtherism: Where it all began (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53563.html)


If you haven’t been trolling the fever swamps of online conspiracy sites or opening those emails from Uncle Larry, you may well wonder: Where did this idea come from? Who started it? And is there a grain of truth there?

The answer lies in Democratic, not Republican politics, and in the bitter, exhausting spring of 2008. At the time, the Democratic presidential primary was slipping away from Hillary Clinton and some of her most passionate supporters grasped for something, anything that would deal a final reversal to Barack Obama


But while the identity of the First Birther is lost to the mists of chain email, one of the first to put his name to the theory was Phil Berg, a former Pennsylvania deputy attorney general who had spent the previous years accusing President George W. Bush of complicity in the Sept. 11 attack.

Berg filed a complaint in federal District court on Aug. 21, 2008, that alleged, “Obama carries multiple citizenships and is ineligible to run for President of the United States. United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1.”

“All the efforts of supporters of legitimate citizens were for nothing because the Obama cheated his way into a fraudulent candidacy and cheated legitimately eligible natural born citizens from competing in a fair process and the supporters of their citizen choice for the nomination,” the suit claims.





The birth of the birther movement was even covered on this board:

http://www.xavierhoops.com/forums/showthread.php?p=61524&highlight=Phil+berg#post61524

http://www.xavierhoops.com/forums/showthread.php?p=64990&highlight=Phil+berg#post64990

Phil Berg is your man, and he is a Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton. The Birther movement was started by Democrats who supported Hillary Clinton. I think it would be hard to argue otherwise. This has always been the case. This is not breaking news.


Move along now, nothing to see here.

[DC Muskie]

Phil Berg is your man, and he is a Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton. The Birther movement was started by Democrats who supported Hillary Clinton. I think it would be hard to argue otherwise. This has always been the case. This is not breaking news.


Move along now, nothing to see here.

Aren't you a registered Democrat? This has always been the case. This is not breaking news.

So Phil is your guy. And then taken to another level by conservative groups.

I think it would be hard to argue otherwise.