jct74
07-11-2012, 09:22 AM
here is the meat of it but you should read whole article, some quality journalism from GQ:
When I asked the Romney campaign why the 17 delegates had been rejected, they referred me to the Massachusetts Republican Party. But the party, in a statement from the Allocation Committee chairman, says it was the Romney campaign's decision to bounce the 17 Paul supporters:
"Governor Romney's campaign, through its representative on the Allocation Committee, made the decision not to certify certain delegates and alternate delegates who were unwilling to sign and return on time the affidavit sent out by the Allocation Committee affirming that they would cast their vote for Governor Romney at the National Convention in Tampa," the statement reads. It concludes with the committee's agreement that the dispute over affidavits constituted "'just cause' for not being certified as national delegates."
The state party spokesman would not address the fact that the affidavit requirement had come out of nowhere, and weeks late. Nor would he explain, on the record, how the decision been made to force those 35 delegates, already pledged to Romney, to make yet another commitment. The most I could glean was some dark hinting about the Liberty delegates' online histories—Facebook and blog posts—as proof that they couldn't be trusted to vote for Romney, despite their verbal pledge at the caucuses. I didn't find much, but I also didn't look very hard. After all, it's hard to imagine a comment that should be disqualifying, short of a counter-pledge not to support Romney, or a death threat. (Not that this has been so much fun for the Mass GOP brass, either. "People have called me 'Hitler' and 'Nazi,'" one exasperated party official told me. Others, he said, have endured harassment in the parking lot and all-hours phone calls.) The Romney campaign, for its part, refused to respond at all.
All of us who follow politics accept that the national conventions are a little bit dirty. They're occasions for favor-trading and donor-stroking and choreographed tributes to the candidates. No doubt the Romney campaign would like the to avoid the embarrassment of any Ron Paul flare-ups at the big show. And I'm sure they wanted Romney's pals from Massachusetts to be able to join him there. But shouldn't the guys who won these no-glamour contests at least be allowed to go? Doesn't the 18-year-old who's participating in the process for the first time deserve a better explanation? After all, in 2008 Hillary Clinton didn't release her delegates until she was standing onstage at the Democratic National Convention, and even then PUMAs in the crowd were demanding a roll-call vote for the nomination.
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/blogs/death-race/2012/07/whos-afraid-of-these-ron-paul-delegates.html
Who's Afraid of These Ron Paul Delegates? (Mitt Romney, Evidently.)
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/blogs/death-race/Paul%20Delegates%20White%20Full.jpg
When I asked the Romney campaign why the 17 delegates had been rejected, they referred me to the Massachusetts Republican Party. But the party, in a statement from the Allocation Committee chairman, says it was the Romney campaign's decision to bounce the 17 Paul supporters:
"Governor Romney's campaign, through its representative on the Allocation Committee, made the decision not to certify certain delegates and alternate delegates who were unwilling to sign and return on time the affidavit sent out by the Allocation Committee affirming that they would cast their vote for Governor Romney at the National Convention in Tampa," the statement reads. It concludes with the committee's agreement that the dispute over affidavits constituted "'just cause' for not being certified as national delegates."
The state party spokesman would not address the fact that the affidavit requirement had come out of nowhere, and weeks late. Nor would he explain, on the record, how the decision been made to force those 35 delegates, already pledged to Romney, to make yet another commitment. The most I could glean was some dark hinting about the Liberty delegates' online histories—Facebook and blog posts—as proof that they couldn't be trusted to vote for Romney, despite their verbal pledge at the caucuses. I didn't find much, but I also didn't look very hard. After all, it's hard to imagine a comment that should be disqualifying, short of a counter-pledge not to support Romney, or a death threat. (Not that this has been so much fun for the Mass GOP brass, either. "People have called me 'Hitler' and 'Nazi,'" one exasperated party official told me. Others, he said, have endured harassment in the parking lot and all-hours phone calls.) The Romney campaign, for its part, refused to respond at all.
All of us who follow politics accept that the national conventions are a little bit dirty. They're occasions for favor-trading and donor-stroking and choreographed tributes to the candidates. No doubt the Romney campaign would like the to avoid the embarrassment of any Ron Paul flare-ups at the big show. And I'm sure they wanted Romney's pals from Massachusetts to be able to join him there. But shouldn't the guys who won these no-glamour contests at least be allowed to go? Doesn't the 18-year-old who's participating in the process for the first time deserve a better explanation? After all, in 2008 Hillary Clinton didn't release her delegates until she was standing onstage at the Democratic National Convention, and even then PUMAs in the crowd were demanding a roll-call vote for the nomination.
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/blogs/death-race/2012/07/whos-afraid-of-these-ron-paul-delegates.html
Who's Afraid of These Ron Paul Delegates? (Mitt Romney, Evidently.)
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/blogs/death-race/Paul%20Delegates%20White%20Full.jpg