Saturday, July 14, 2012

An Inconvenient Election

Recent developments in the Republican Party in Massachusetts demonstrate an underlying philosophy that is fundamentally anti-democratic.

At the Republican State Convention held in April, delegates were elected to the Republican National Convention in August.

Much to the dismay of party leaders, 17 of the 27 delegates elected were not among the favored elite of the party. 

In response the party hierarchy sent out letters informing them that they would be stripped of their delegate status if they did not sign an affidavit stating that they committed themselves to support Mitt Romney on all ballots under penalty of perjury, even though the party rules only obligated them to do so on the first ballot.

Subsequently all 17 were disqualified, even those who did return the affidavits. In those cases they were informed that they had not returned the affidavits quickly enough.

But you needn’t take my word for it. My friend Iconoclast, who writes his own blog, was one of those to whom this happened. You can read his experience at  Interesting Way to Choose Republican Convention Delegates.

CORRECTION: The letter on Iconoclast's blog was a reproduction from another individual to whom this happened, Carol Claros, writing a letter in the Worcester Telegram. I apologize for the unintentional error.


  1. It didn't happen to me personally. I'm reprinting someone else's letter. My days of being a member of the Republican Party ended in 2004.

    1. Thank you. I've noted the correction.

  2. I am not sure what is more depressing, watching the political BS at home or at the Federal level? Seems Obama wants to attack Romney for "sending jobs overseas" and not showing paperwork requested by the Dems. Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the Democratic Party (Clinton) give that luxury away when they signed NAFTA one of the truly (and after Monica) the only really boneheaded things he did? I loved Clinton, and say what you will about the guy, I would vote for him again tomorrow. Having said that, it would seem that Obama was no better at showing ANY paperwork when assertions to his residency were being thrown at him. For the record, I am not a birther, but what was all that all about? Show the birth certificate for Christ sakes and move on. Same with Romney. Show the damn tax returns. Why is it in this country if you are really successful and made a boatload of money you have to apologize for it? I mean, I will bet this bastard even FIRED people at his firm and laid people of from their jobs! Imagine that just like a real boss, and just like I have done in my business I had to let people go for various reasons. It is called being a business owner and making the hard decisions. It also means doing what is best for your family and your company, and that runs divergent for what is best for others at times, but welcome to owning a business in America. You get to make the hard (and not always right) decisions. But you make them and move on. Gosh who knew a guy running for president might just be loaded and GASP! sent jobs overseas with his old company? In 1996 NAFTA was voted in and it became the downturn of America for a lot of folks who live and work here. Let’s stop acting like Romney as a business owner did anything different than any other business owner. And can we please stop acting like either candidate is exemplary? They had enough money and backing to get voted in and neither are saints, yet folks from both sides of the aisle to get the job whether they were qualified or not, and for my money neither one of these nitwits are qualified. We need to stop acting like this is not about the money because at the end of the day the most money wins and we lose. It mattered so much that the US Olympic Committee forgot to check out who was making Ralph Lauren's clothes, proving once again, it is about the money. Once again hypocrisy reigns, and attacking Obama over Obama Care is ridiculous since Romney voted this in for us in Massachusetts. Does anybody think before they open their mouths? I may just write Ron Paul in since from the start he was the one guy who has made any sense. He wants to NOT give other nations BRIBE money to be our allies and friends in the form of "foreign aid" and has been consistent in his opinion of smaller government, but hell, he’s not sexy and that’s how we vote. And here I thought possibly voting for the most qualified guy who anyone thought was doing a good job as currently president (not my opinion) or a guy who actually had served more than 3 years in a political office, or a guy who ran an actual company might actually be qualified. But it won't come down to anything substantial, simply who is the "sexy" candidate. Oh yea, that has worked for us over the last four years, and neither of these fools seem like presidential material to me. Just my opinion

  3. Thank you for blogging about this!! Check out today's article by golocalworcester

    Carol C


All comments subject to moderation. All commenters must use their own name or a screen name. No comments labelled as "Anonymous" will be published. To use your name or a screen name select "Name/URL" from the drop down menu. Insert you name in the "Name" space and leave the "URL" space blank.