Posted on 02/06/2008 7:50:37 AM PST by Congressman Billybob
The first state results to be reported on Super Tuesday came from the Republican Caucus in West Virginia. The result was that Mike Huckabee got all the delegates from that state to the Republican Convention. What makes the story really interesting is, HOW he got those delegates.
From the report I have, here’s how the delegates voted in round one:
* Romney 464 * Huckabee 375 * McCain 176 * Paul 118
Ron Paul, who got the fewest votes, was dropped from the ballot for the next round of voting. The results then became:
* Huckabee 524 * Romney 479 * McCain 11
Anyone who can count to twenty without removing his socks can see what happened. McCain’s operatives saw that they were going nowhere in West Virginia. So they instructed their people to give the state to Huckabee. And most of their delegates obeyed that order.
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ran this title on the story: “Wild and Wonderful Win for Huckabee.” That title is false. This was a “Down and Dirty Win for McCain.” Huckabee is going nowhere. Eventually, at the Republican Convention if not before, Huckabee’s candidacy will fold like a cheap lawn chair. At that point, who will get those West Virginia delegates?
If you guessed Mitt Romney, I’ll allow you another guess. John McCain has just stolen the votes of West Virginia by giving them, temporarily, to his ally in the theft, Mike Huckabee. By the way, national convention delegates must vote as they were pledged when elected, depending on state laws. I understand that none remain bound beyond the third roll-call vote.
As the saying goes, politics ain’t beanbag. What was just done in West Virginia is entirely legal. But it smells as bad as a dumpster full of day-old crab shells behind Phillips Crab House in Ocean City, Maryland, in mid-July. Believe you me, that is REALLY rank.
If the delegates from West Virginia are enough to put McCain over the top, then McCain has just stolen the nomination. Right in front of God and everybody.
Well, has anything similar happening among the Democrats? Just by coincidence, it has.
In order to preserve the special status of the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, the Democratic National Committee required that no other state conduct its Democrat primaries before a certain date in 2008. Democrats in Florida and Michigan decided to move their primaries up in violation of that limit.
The DNC then “stripped” the delegates from both states for the Convention. No delegates were then elected in the “beauty contest primaries” in those two states. Democrat candidates had also pledged not to campaign in those states, and in Michigan, Hillary Clinton was the only major candidate to leave her name on the state ballot.
Well, Hillary Clinton won both of those states. After those non-delegate elections, she wrote a letter to the DNC demanding that delegates for her from those states be seated at the Convention. The rest of this discussion is somewhat obscure, but I guarantee it is correct. I speak as the former Parliamentarian for a national political convention. (The convention was for Ross Perot’s Reform Party. But the principles of operating a convention are the same, regardless of the candidate’s chance of winning the coming election.)
When the Democrats meet in Convention in the summer, initially no delegates from Florida or Michigan will be seated. But let’s say at that point that Hillary Clinton has a majority of the seated delegates, but not the absolute majority of all authorized delegates which is required for nomination. You with me so far?
Who gets to decide whether Hillary Clinton delegates from Florida and Michigan get seated? Why, it’s the delegates who are already seated, that’s who. In that circumstance, Hillary can use her plurality on the floor to steal the delegates from those two states. Having done that, she will have stolen the nomination. Right in front of God and everybody.
In short, there is a possibility that the 2008 presidential election may be unique in American history. Before 2008, nominations have been stolen. Elections have been stolen (recall the Hayes-Tilden race of 1876). But never before have two candidates, both of whom stole their nominations, faced each other in a general election.
If the vote tallies are tight at both the Republican and Democrat national conventions, it is possible we might see that unique circumstance, two election thieves facing each other with one guaranteed to win, between John McCain and Hillary Clinton.
Sorta makes you proud to be an American, don’t it?
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor practiced in the US Supreme Court for 33 years. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu He lives in the 11th Congressional District of North Carolina.
- 30 -
But, he is against abortion so stop your whining about the $50 copay for abortions.
__________________________
I wonder what he’d do if he were for abortion? Drop the copay to $25 maybe?
Ah, but you trust McCain.
Which proves you know nothing about what he has done to conservatives over the years.
“In case you were not aware of McCain’s actions which have caused many Republicans to refuse to support him for President:
McCain’s the candidate of amnesty for illegal aliens.
McCain is against drilling in Anwar.
McCain supports embryonic stem-cell research.
McCain has said “I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade”.
McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts, and refuses to sign the “No New Taxes” pledge.
McCain supports legislation that would increase taxes on energy.
McCain was the ring-leader of the Senate “Gang of 14”, which kept the then Senate Republican leadership from ending the ability of Democrats to filibuster Bush’s judicial nominees.
McCain supports legislation to grant due-process rights to terrorists.
McCain sponsored the legislation which restricts free-speech rights of those involved in the political process, (the McCain/Feingold bill), the first attack against free speech by the congress.
McCain is the guy who called evangelical-conservatives an “evil influence” on the Republican Party.
McCain was a member of the Keating 5 that caused a bipartisan scandal during the S&L meltdown.
McCain had a recall election ran against him by the conservatives in Arizona. Unfortunately it failed.
McCain blocked the investigation into whether Viet Nam and the Soviets were still holding over 600 of our missing POWs in 1990.
Posted on FreeRepublic by Mogollan”
Slightly more than Willard he may have allot of positions I disagree with but at least he did not evolve his positions while mulling a white house bid..
You are losing this argument. We have plenty more to worry about than what copay for abortion was given in one of the most liberal states in America.
We had 3 choices - Romney, Huckabee, McCain.
Huckabee will be weak on the war and knows nothing about what we are fighting for in Iraq. Huckabee appears weak to me - more willing to cave to political advantage rather than stand on principle - especially where the war is concerned.
And, as I said, when he took the cheap shot at Bush and joined the Bush haters - he lost me right there.
Bush and his strength and moral values are what I am looking for and I do not see that in Huckabee or McCain (McCain is not even on my radar for president).
It’s amazing that Romney has been given such a free pass on his politically expedient flip-flops by those who would anoint him “true conservative.”
_________________________________
I’ve been amazed to see the denial of reality by so many that consider themselves conservatives in these primaries. It’s almost a personal compulsion or a need to believe. I’m not trusting man for my salvation anyway so I’m ok with not having the greatest nominee. Also, when I was posting that conservatives needed another champion in case Thompson stumbled I got flamed on these boards. It’s not like you couldn’t objectively look at the candidates from the first debate and know that Hunter and Tancredo were the only conservatives and they were both long shots.
Where were the “big name” conservatives when the primary contenders were being recruited? The movement is off track.
Money bought him a lot of negative ads against the other candidates early on. Payback is a . . .
Contrast ads are part of politics. Running ads on issues is part of politics. Did Romney, or any candidate for that matter, ever attack Huck on his religion, his family, his profession, his ability to make or not make money? No. Discussing his performance in office or the positions he has taken is what happens in campaigns. Scrutiny is part of the process.
Huck thinks he’s sitting in the cat bird seat. Maybe he is. Maybe he isn’t. I have a feeling he is not going to be happy after the sausage is made at the national convention.
Excellent article. While some defend the actions of Huckabee, back room deals do not speak well for a persons character. Deals made, debts owed. Just the kind of things that make politics more about who you know and who you owe than how this country can best be served. Wasn’t surprised by either man in their mutual love fest because that is just what I’d expect from McCain and confirms my intuition about Huckabee He exudes the same vibes as Bill Clinton.
They lied about what they were doing. That is dishonorable.
We just see different things in Huck. As far as Romney goes though, you are ignoring his record and substituting your preferences for the hard facts of what Romney has done and said instead . . . you can believe his pandering. I don’t.
It’s the whack job Huckster fan again.
Why don’t you go peddle your grotesque hodgepodge of Christianpolitics somewhere else, like in the middle of Sunday Service.
In response to your previous post, there’s no doubt in my mind that the media plays a major role in bashing conservative candidates. No argument there. I thought Hunter and Thompson were the best candidates. The media never gave the former any opportunity. They did nothing but unjustifiably criticize the latter.
As for Romney’s negative campaigning, I stand by that comment. Especially early on, he was too focused on trying to define his opponents rather than himself. As a result, the field of candidates despises him. That’s his own fault, and they’re not doing him any favors now. And the voters? A lot of them still don’t know who Mitt Romney is, but they sure do know his opinions of his opponents. Again, that’s his own fault for being too focused on attacking his opponents, rather than focusing on giving voters a reason to actually vote FOR him.
‘Republicans for Choice’ Endorses McCain
“(McCain) is (pro-life), but it’s not at the top of his agenda, not like Huckabee or the born-again Romney,” Stone said. “He’s shown his willingness to reach across the party, and we look forward to those discussions.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200802/CUL20080206a.html
One does wonder if they have spoken to McCain prior to givig this endorsement and were happy with the answers he has provided.
A serious well read!
Thanks for laying that out so clearly. Sadly all that is clear is that we’ve taken being dishonest from the back room to the front parlor!
I agree. I don’t think Huck thinks he’s in the catbirds seat either. It’s just that he lived to fight another day. I’m hoping that McCain’s momentum drops in the next round of primaries. If he doesn’t win any of the next three states it could get interesting. I don’t know if Romney can win Washington but I think Huck can win LA, and Huck or Romney can win Kansas.
How did they lie? They were voters at a state caucus.
Always nice to hear from you. I appreciate your insightful analysis and irenic style.
ahh, but did they? Or were they asked to go along with a scheme?
Ron Paul’s group already admitted they TRADED delegate votes.
That’s not right.
What did the Ron Paul delegates trade for? Buffalo wings after the caucus?
Good point.
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.