Posted on 04/07/2012 10:27:04 AM PDT by publius321
Edited on 04/07/2012 11:01:53 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
An effort to shake up the GOP primary race is underway in the Lone Star State. The outcome could set the course for a brokered convention by keeping front-runner Mitt Romney from securing enough delegates to win the presidential nomination outright.
David Bellow, a member of the State Republican Executive Committee, told The Daily Caller that he believes there is enough support among committee members to call an emergency SREC meeting to vote on changing the state’s delegate allocation from a proportional to winner-take-all system.
>>Santorum can’t beat Romeny in Texas either.<<
It’s obvious you don’t live in Texas.
You've just become an honorary Texan.
Trust me, Texans are mad as hell at what has happened during the last few election cycles.
Our primary came under attack this year and had our P-election pushed out to the end of May/first of June due to frivolous lawsuits by the liberals.
Romney won't win Texas.
One of the issues is whether the Justice Department will allow this. Texas has to pre-clear all changes in election rules with the Justice department under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and its extensions. This will be interesting; my SREC Committeeman is black, and my SREC Committeewoman is Hispanic. Do you really think the Justice Department really cares what their opinions are?
And Florida lost half their delegates because they moved their primary up. Florida was always a winner take all state, the states just sent their numbers to the RNC, Florida awarded 50 delegates to Romney. Florida originally had 99 delegates.
I am not an expert on the Voting Rights Act and how it works today in actual practice, as opposed to theory. It simply hasn't been an issue I've had to deal with.
I picked up from the Texas Tribune article when posted originally that the federal DOJ may have to clear changes in voting rules. Does this apply only to state law or also to political party delegate selection processes? In other words, does Barack Obama’s attorney general get a veto right over decisions of the Texas Republican Party on how their presidential preferences will be expressed?
If it does, a decision by Herman Cain to publicly attack Mitt Romney and declare that he supports a change in the Texas rules could put President Obama and AG Holder into a very difficult position if they decide to interfere.
I've said before that something very big is going to be necessary to break Mitt Romney's momentum at this late date. It may already be impossible. But some sort of alliance between Gingrich and Romney, plus the support of Cain, Perry and Bachmann, could make very clear that basically the entire Republican presidential field opposes Mitt Romney despite the differences they all have with each other. That could send a very, very powerful message that the base is revolting against Mitt Romney, and Texas could be the perfect state to make that stand against the Republican elites.
I haven’t been aware of this but it sure looks interesting...will read the rest of the thread to see what’s happening....hummm-mmmm..very interesting indeed.
Thanks for the ping darrell...very much.
cw
Apparently the Voting Rights Act of 1965 applies to all political processes. After a recent county Republican club meeting my SREC Committeeman was talking about the problems of coming up with new rules for conducting the county/senate district conventions. Normally they would be held after the primary and precinct conventions and open only to people who voted in the Republican primary. Due to the DOJ lawsuits against the state of Texas, the primary will be held after the county/senate district conventions. The SREC decided to cancel the precinct conventions and open up the county convention to anyone who would sign an oath stating that he or she is a Republican and would vote in the Republican primary in May. All these changes forced on the Texas Republican party due to the DOJ, had to be approved by the DOJ.
The Department of Justice changed the rules in the middle of the game. They forced Texas to delay its primary from it's original date in March on Super Tuesday to the end of May. Since RNC rules state that states that hold their primaries on or after April 1 can have winner-take-all primaries, the Texas SREC is excercising that option.
I believe Texas provides an opportunity — quite possibly the last one — to turn this campaign around. A decision by Rick Perry to use Texas as a battering ram to stop a Romney victory could easily be a game-changer, and if successful will affect several following states.
I think given the history of problems between Perry and the Bush family, Perry may have his own motives for doing something like that. The question is how the Bush wing of the Texas GOP will respond — my guess is they'll stay quiet if it's obvious they'll lose, but do everything they can behind the scenes to keep Texas as a proportional state up until the point they think they'll lose an actual vote, and then acquiesce quietly to the rule change and turn to trying to win Texas for Romney. But I'm no expert on Texas politics and others here can say much better than me what may happen.
Romney is a horrible candidate. Most conservative Republicans know that, whether they're social issues conservatives, national defense conservatives or even (in many cases) economic conservatives. Most elite Republicans know they need conservative Republicans as the foot soldiers to win elections, even if they don't like us very much.
The problem is that conservative Republicans have been systematically destroying each other, one by one, aided and abetted by Mitt Romney's money, and now we're going to be stuck with Mitt Romney as the last candidate left if we don't do something **RIGHT NOW** to stop him.
Gingrich's problem is he's deeply in debt and Romney can fix that for him. I'm not going to bash Gingrich if he believes he has no choice but to put his own financial house in order — I'm a business owner and I've made decisions I didn't like when I had no choice — but I sure hope he decides to work something out with the conservative insurgents rather than with Mitt Romney.
If he decides otherwise, however, I'm not going to hold it against him. Gingrich has a decades-long history of fighting for the conservative movement and deserves respect for that, especially his career in the House of Representatives where he did what virtually everyone thought was impossible, namely, taking the House to the point it had a Republican majority and becoming Speaker. There comes a time when people have to decide whether fighting political battles is worth bankrupting themselves, I can't make that decision for Gingrich, and it's his call what he does next.
Love the faint “s” pluralizing “world”!
Better we bail Newt out with small contributions than to have Mitt Gantry bail him out with his sleaze funds.
http://youtu.be/az4R3eUOgaM
“The Math is insurmountable but Newt's Role is IMPORTANT”
We can all send Newt a few dollars to help him stay in the game but for goodness sakes just don't send him your votes. Voting for him at this point is 100% a vote for Romney and at $4.15 per gallon one would be better off wiring Newt the gas money it takes to go to the polls if you are going to vote for someone for whom it is mathematically impossible to win. God help us to defeat this imposter.
Anything we can do to stop Romney is worth trying.
This is JUST like 2008.
GOTTA get dirty if your gonna fight in the trenches.
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.
