[Responsibility2nd]

Texas would have already voted for the GOP nominee if it weren’t for redistricting issues.

So. Now instaead of 03-06-12, we vote on 05/29/12.

IMO.... Romney will have wrapped it up before then.

[cripplecreek]

LOL Mittens getting outplayed would be awesome.

[cripplecreek]

Not like Mittens would have any room to complain. At least they want to change delegate allocation rules before the vote instead of after like Michigan.

The Michigan Republican Party (MRP) Credentials Committee voted 4-2 last night to give Mitt Romney both of the state's at-large delegates, State Policy Committee Chair Mike Cox told MIRS today.

Cox was one of two "no" votes on the committee which met via telephone, along with attorney Eric Doster The "yes" votes included GOP National Committeeman Saul Anuzis, a Romney supporter, and MRP Chair Bobby Schostak.

That would put the delegate split at 16 for Romney and 14 for Rick Santorum, after each candidate won 14 delegates apiece in those divided by Michigan's 14 congressional districts.

As MIRS first reported on Wednesday, the MRP was delaying a final decision on the delegate split until after consulting with attorneys.

Cox said that according to the MRP rules, Santorum and Romney should each get one of Michigan's two at-large delegates based on their take of the popular vote.

"I supported Mitt, but the vote was clearly wrong," Cox said of the Credentials Committee. "It's kind of like Third World voting. We published rules and then we voted to change the rules."

Because The Narrative Cannot Survive A Rewrite

[bgill]

Oh, to be a fly on Leticia’s and Sheila’s walls today.

[davidbellow]

you beat me to the punch. I was just about to post this article that I wrote! haha

this is really going to shake things up.... hehe

[mosesdapoet]

There is no reason to allow a candidate the winner take all rule if that candidate can not clear the 50% +1 hurdle of the total vote cast.

Thus far Romney hasn’t even come close to doing that.

[RitaOK]

Awesome post! Thanks!

Texas SREC have their thinking caps on at least.

I did post a comment to the blog report, rather in favor of the proportional arrangement.

I get it that Texas needs to make a difference at the national level to be a force, but with demographics changing rapidly and some risk of a future SREC run by liberals one day, I think I would appreciate having a protest block of delegates in the mix.

How else do we stop the GOP-E from ignoring conservatives and throwing RINOs at us, complete with jillions of dollars and DC support.

The little guy would have less of a chance, it seems to me.

[Jim Noble]

Primaries are ridiculous and should be abolished.

If they MUST continue, I’m OK with winner take all, as long as “winner” is defined as >67% of the vote.

The idea that you can be a “winner” when 65% of the voters vote against you is so absurd, it doesn’t even bear discussion, except to point out - again - how stupid the stupid party really is.

[Vendome]

Not giving your blog a hit

[humblegunner]

It sure looks to me like we’ve got one person with two
user names pimping the same blog crap with excerpts:

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:texasconservativerep/index?tab=articles

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:davidbellow/index?tab=articles

Isn’t that curious?

Does anyone care to explain that? The pimping, the scumminess, the filth?

[Yashcheritsiy]

They must think ORomney has a good shot of winning Texas now, so it’s safe to go back to winner-take-all, now that he’ll win it.

[sockmonkey]

I am in favor of the proportional arrangement. I would even give some thoughtful consideration to changing to winner take all, but not when the “let’s change the rules” comes up during a presidential election year..

If it came up in 2011, or 2009, I wouldn’t have a problem with having a discussion about it, but not this close to the primary.

Next thing you know someone will suggest we have Super Delegates, and a Texas Two Step like the Dem’s had in the 2008 Texas Primary.

[Elvina]

Good news. I hope all this nonsense with the bullies trying to get everyone else to drop out before Romney has reached 1144 delegates will get conservatives even more fired up than we already were. Obviously they are very scared that their ObamaClone Romney won’t be able to get to the magic number.

[smokingfrog]

Works for me.

[Sola Veritas]

The only “hope” for the GOP, is for an open convention to occurr (I have been told “brokered” is not the correct term). IF the delegates can vote with their heads then hopefully someone other than Romney will be the nominee. I WILL NOT vote for Romney in a general election...So, IMO, getting another candidate, although it still probably won’t be a conservative is what I want.

Now is this Blog accurate. Someone savvy of Texas politics needs to weigh in. However, it would be a joyous moment for me if Santorum were to beat Romney in Texas and get ALL of their votes. It would derail Romney. Then we have a good chance to get a better pick. I would prefer Newt, but I don’t think that probable in an open convention. I don’t think Santorum will win it either. However, I don’t think Romney will win in the open convention scenario. Also, I think Newt or Rick will have a shot at being VP. Question is who would be the person an open convention would pick?

[gogogodzilla]

Changing the rules in midstream isn’t right. We opposed it when Romney and the VAGOP did it in Virginia when they changed the requirements to get on the ballot after all the candidates submissions were sent in.

To support such a thing makes us no better than Romney or Obama.

But then, I had no illusions about Santorum. This is just the sort of hypocrisy I’d expect. All in the name of the Lord, of course.