The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

North Dakota GOP Screws Over Santorum

Posted on | April 9, 2012 | 75 Comments

I’d heard some talk about this: Evidently, the pro-Romney leadership of the North Dakota Republican Party rigged their state convention so that, despite the fact that Mitt Romney came in third in the March 6 caucuses, he got most of the delegates. The Right Scoop has this video:

(Hat-tip: Richard McEnroe on Twitter.) The amazing thing about this is how GOP “leaders” flagrantly screw over their own rank-and-file like this — and “leaders” in the Republican Party do this all the time — and then wonder why it’s so hard to generate grassroots enthusiasm for their hand-picked candidates.

Short of tar-and-feathering the corrupt bastards, what can you do?

Category: Mitt Romney, North Dakota, Republicans, Rick Santorum

Comments

75 Responses to “North Dakota GOP Screws Over Santorum”

  1. Blacque Jacques Shellacque
    April 9th, 2012 @ 4:16 pm

    “Short of tar-and-feathering the corrupt bastards, what can you do?”

    Don’t vote for their candidate in the general.

  2. Tennwriter
    April 9th, 2012 @ 4:49 pm

    Sure, if Rick loses, he loses, but some victories are pyrhric victories.But you’re dodging the main point.  He’s been very unlikely so far, and it takes less unlikelyness for him to get the nomination than he has used so far.
    So no, its not even over.  Its still on.I understand that you will support him.  Do you undertstand that a huge chunk of what we call the base won’t?

  3. ThePaganTemple
    April 9th, 2012 @ 5:22 pm

     So who’s being denied the results of their votes, Richard? Who would be denied the results of their votes at a brokered convention? Somebody has got to lose, and its not like the people who voted in the first ND primary were lied to and told that their votes counted.

  4. ThePaganTemple
    April 9th, 2012 @ 5:35 pm

     @beddd0ebf1f1d7f0c1561106bdcdfb31:disqus

    Yeah I get that. I guess that means we just have to work that much harder and reach out to conservative Democrats and Independent Moderates who realize the most important thing is getting rid of Obama.

    Where SocCons fuck up is assuming elections absolutely cannot be won without them. The reality is, they can. If SocCons, back then called the Moral Majority, had set out the 1980 election, Reagan still would have won handily without them. Granted, by nowhere near as much, but he still would have won.

    Hell, he might have won by one or two percent even if the SocCons had actually voted for Carter.

    Bottom line, if you’re going to stomp off, then there’s nothing me or anyone else can do about that. We’ll just have to soldier on without you.

  5. ThePaganTemple
    April 9th, 2012 @ 5:42 pm

     It’s not like the ND voters were lied to. They knew the result of their primary was non-binding going into it. The voters didn’t have their votes “stolen”, they didn’t have anything to steal.

    It was the same situation in Missouri, which Stacy even talked about at the time, though he was complaining about Fox News pointing out the results were non-binding as an example of how Fox and some others were trying to minimize Rick’s victory.

    Of course, there’s always the chance they were just reporting the news.

  6. Under the Fedora: Baseball’s Closers, Reps, and the Law of Unintended Consequences
    April 9th, 2012 @ 7:47 pm

    […] There are some very interesting things going on with the selection of GOP Presidential delegates in some states: I’d heard some talk about this: Evidently, the pro-Romney leadership of the North Dakota […]

  7. richard mcenroe
    April 9th, 2012 @ 8:01 pm

     Pagan, I’ve watched good men and women work at the state and local level.  I’ve watched them sacrifice their time, friendships, employment, money to serve as or support GOP candidates,

    And then I’ve watched the national leadership come into town and shit all over them.   I will not be a party to that again.

  8. richard mcenroe
    April 9th, 2012 @ 8:06 pm

     ” So who’s being denied the results of their votes, Richard?”

    Did you really ask that question with a straight face?  How about the 40% of North Dakotans who actually got off their asses and took part in the process, only to be told by their GOPly betters their opinion didn’t mean shit?

    How about the voters in those MO districts where Santorum won the popular vote who had their choice negated by LOSERS who jumped in at the finish line like Rosie Ruiz in the Boston Marathon to claim a bogus victory?

    Adjoran may say this was within the rules; I say you ought to be indignant those rules were ever permitted to be drawn, because I guarandamntee you the GOP voters were never consulted before they were implemented. 

    And you would think these so-called GOP leaders would be ashamed to face their voters after that.  If not, the Republican party is already a walking corpse.

  9. richard mcenroe
    April 9th, 2012 @ 8:11 pm

     “Who would be denied the results of their votes at a brokered convention?”

    NO ONE.  If it comes to a brokered convention, that means Romney didn’t get his majority.  Which means, lucky him, he gets to defend his positions openly and out in front of the delegates, not hiding behind a screen of handlers, PAC commercials and press releases.

    I’d be comfortable seeing Santorum in that setting.  Would you be comfortable with Romney like that, or would you be worried he’d grab his blue state talking point notes by mistake?

  10. richard mcenroe
    April 9th, 2012 @ 8:13 pm

     ” its not like the people who voted in the first ND primary were lied to and told that their votes counted.”

    The sheer breathtaking cynicism of that… how we can trust any candidate supported by someone who can take that position?

    And where the hell did you get the notion Romney supports states’ rights?  Was it when he was talking about whatever it was he would replace Ocare with at the Federal level?

  11. richard mcenroe
    April 9th, 2012 @ 8:17 pm

     If there’s anyone on this site farther from a ‘socon’ than I am, I don’t want to meet him without a cattle-prod and cage.

    Keep telling yourself it’s only the socons who think the RNC is screwing them over.  It’s any one believes the GOP should be a party of the Republican people, not the ward heelers and hangers-on.

  12. richard mcenroe
    April 9th, 2012 @ 8:18 pm

     That was NOT his record in MA.  Cutting a worker’s paycheck is a whole different matter from pulling an earmark out of a Democrat’s teeth…

  13. richard mcenroe
    April 9th, 2012 @ 8:20 pm

     But we’ll be terrible people for not cooperating in our own co-option.

  14. Adobe_Walls
    April 9th, 2012 @ 8:52 pm

    So he didn’t say “we don’t need smaller government we need smarter government”, that was Tina Fey or somebody else on SNL?

  15. Adobe_Walls
    April 9th, 2012 @ 8:55 pm

    If it destroys the GOP I’m for it.

  16. Publius13
    April 9th, 2012 @ 9:07 pm

    The Romney people sure picked the wrong state to pull this massive, intentional and wilful theft of Santorum delegates. At least in Iowa or CO they would be able to pull this off without a story.

  17. Publius13
    April 9th, 2012 @ 9:16 pm

    Usually the RNC does, except Romney only has 536 hard delegates, well short of the 1,144 needed to nominate.

    Plus, ND is not a non-binding state as Iowa. The rules state that the national delegates should apportion according to the results of the caucus. They are officially unbound but to push them towards Romney violates the spirit of the ND GOP rules. Most outlets consider ND a proportional caucus similar to AK.

    Although legal the actions of the ND GOP and the Romney campaign are a staggering display of hubris, greed and disdain for the spirit of their own rules.

    I cannot blame anyone for writing in Santorum’s name come November.

  18. richard mcenroe
    April 9th, 2012 @ 10:17 pm

     That’s what he said, and he’s wrong.  We need less government because “smarter” government has never been found.

  19. RichFader
    April 9th, 2012 @ 10:31 pm

    Okay, technically the cauci are non-binding. Fine. I get that. I’d suggest, though, that unless the winning candidate violates Delta House’s Dorfman Rule (i.e., is obviously for one or more reasons a real closet case), it’s probably best to treat them as if they were binding. I have concerns about Rick Santorum’s ability to prosecute this thing to a win. Not enough, however, that it’s the same thing. If it were, I’d have to say we have an entire field of closet cases at this point.

  20. ThePaganTemple
    April 9th, 2012 @ 10:52 pm

     You’re going to have to be a bit more specific than that. In what way precisely did they shit on them? I’m not saying I don’t believe you, in fact I am genuinely interested in this. This kind of thing tends to be a systemic problem within large, powerful organizations, and sunlight can be a very powerful disinfectant.

  21. ThePaganTemple
    April 9th, 2012 @ 10:56 pm

    Sooner or later, Rick’s going to have to give a concession speech. I wonder if he’s going to include anything in it about “taking one for the team” hahahaha

  22. ThePaganTemple
    April 9th, 2012 @ 10:58 pm

     It was basically a straw poll, a “beauty contest”. The results were clearly identified as “non-binding”.

    I didn’t do it.

  23. ThePaganTemple
    April 9th, 2012 @ 11:14 pm

     Romney was never my first choice. For that matter, he was never my second or third choice. My point in all this is he is going to be the nominee whether I like it or not. I recognize that, and the most important thing to me is getting rid of that fucking leftist prick Obama.

    I might vote for somebody else in the primary, more than likely Sarah Palin if I can write her name in. But when push comes to shove, and Romney gets the nomination, I’m supporting him in the general.

    All this other stuff, while troubling, is a systemic problem within the party that needs to be addressed. But like I keep saying, its going to take time and hard work by people at all levels to change things. It’s not going to happen because a handful of people make a speech or write a blog post, or a few ranting comments on a blog post. Its going to have to be a long-running, determined effort.

  24. Charles
    April 10th, 2012 @ 12:24 am

    If North Dakota wanted to allocate delegates proportionally, they could hold a primary. This is what holding a caucus to select delegates to a convention means. After all, a lot more has happened and been said by the candidates since the March 6 caucus.

  25. Under the Fedora: Closers, Reps and the Law of Unintended Consequences | The Minority Report Blog
    April 10th, 2012 @ 11:23 am

    […] all sewed up there are some very interesting things going on with the selection of delegates in some states: I’d heard some talk about this: Evidently, the pro-Romney leadership of the North Dakota […]