There are several issues to clear-up regarding the now much-discussed Washington State GOP caucuses and the consequent objections from the Huckabee campaign. I'll cover the problems in Snohomish County in a later post.
1) The myth that the Washington State Republican Party (WSRP) "stopped counting votes" is hogwash. It has nonetheless been ensconced in a number of media stories, thanks in part to the rhetorical repetition of the Huckabee campaign.
The WSRP bears some responsibility for not clearly stating in their press release Saturday night that a) they were projecting a "winner," not declaring one, b) all results would be still be tallied, but c) results from some rural caucuses had not yet been submitted so could not be tallied that night anyway.
Either way, reports that "vote" counting was prematurely halted were and are totally erroneous.
2) "Votes" isn't even an accurate term. Results are being expressed in terms of the stated Presidential preferences of the delegates who were elected in each precinct to attend their county GOP conventions this spring. As pudge explained yesterday, the process of electing precinct delegates is not directly correlated to the preferences of all caucus attendees. There is no assurance that the preferences of the precinct delegates will be in the same proportion as the caucus attendees (though an aggressive and well-organized campaign can obviously improve their own lot by ensuring their preferred delegates are elected).
3) The confusion about the details of our caucus system belies the fact that the ten other states holding GOP caucuses prior to our own this year used largely similar formats (one can view a good summary of the details of each state's process by clicking on the appropriate state at this page and scrolling down to the "Details of the Nominating Process" section).
In short, almost every GOP caucus in other states has been similar to ours. Only the results of the initial caucuses in Montana and North Dakota created a binding result actually allocating national convention delegates. The perhaps under-reported story is that most GOP caucuses thus far have allowed for some sort of tabulation of Presidential preferences (either by attendees or elected delegates), but have not created a binding result that obligates the distribution of delegates to respective Presidential candidates at the national convention.
Even much-watched Iowa falls in this category, at least on the GOP side. The idea that there have been sure winners in most caucus states isn't really true, even if the initial results do receive a lot of attention.
In Washington, GOP precinct caucuses elected delegates to the county conventions. The county conventions will elect delegates to the state convention. The state convention will elect the actual delegates attending the national convention (which is the subject of the delegate counts discussed now in the press). If a campaign does well in electing delegates at the first stage they increase their ultimate chances of a favorable result at the state convention, but there is no guarantee.
Long story short: the results of the GOP precinct caucuses are interesting but not binding. This is similar to GOP caucuses in many other states, though it contrasts starkly with how the Democrats appear to run their party caucuses in most cases. The WSRP could also have been more clear about that issue in the Caucus Night release.
4) Thus, the logical conclusion to all this is that Mike Huckabee's campaign is making a mountain out of a mole-hill, probably for PR purposes. More on that later.
UPDATE: It's worth mentioning some readers will inevitably read descriptions of the caucus system and say, "hey, that's not very democratic." True. Caucuses are essentially one big, diffuse, intra-party meeting. You want democratic? Hold a primary. And in this case, be glad the GOP is actually allocating half its delegates via our Feb. 19th primary, rather than the state Democrats decision to allocate delegates based solely on the caucus.
UPDATE II: As noted in the post on Snohomish County, the WSRP has released updated results and an open letter from Luke Esser covering a number of issues discussed above.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 11, 2008 07:07 PM | Email ThisTo blame Huckabee is just awesome. Did Esser give you that?
Same advice I give to you Eric that I gave to pudge: keep trying to defend a broken system, and you'll lose voters across the board.
Posted by: barely awake on February 11, 2008 07:19 PMOne big difference worth noting is that we only record the preference of the delegates on the way in, on the sign-in sheet, which makes it even less interesting than most.
Posted by: pudge on February 11, 2008 07:37 PM"PR purposes" are important in the primary season -- the bandwagon gets rolling based on what appears to be happening.
Esser made it appear that McCain was victorious. There is no other way to construe the state party's announcement.
Huckabee has to counter that false impression however he can.
It would be nice if the state GOP would correct it, but they have not.
Next time (assuming the party exists in 2012) change this rule to require a report from the caucuses that lists alongside each delegate's name the presidential preference of the delegate or the fact that the delegate is uncommitted:
RULE 18 -- Caucus Results
The precinct committee officer or the elected permanent chairman of each caucus or �pooled� caucus shall cause to be postmarked or delivered to the place designated for return no later than February 16, 2008 the following results:
1. Registration Form and List of Participants at Precinct Caucus
2. Report of Precinct Caucus, showing the elected delegates and alternates to the county convention.
JR Dieckmann
Any and all conservative candidates were driven out of the race before the vast majority of Republicans even had a chance to vote for them.
To prevent this from happening again, all primaries, or at least the vast majority of them must be held on the same day, as the candidates campaign to the nation instead of individual states. This would prevent back room deals played by McCain and Huckabee in WV. No more open primaries. Only Registered Republicans should have a say in who is selected to represent their party. Primary voters should be pre-registered before a given deadline, not simply sign up on election day.
You just don't let the stockholders of Ford vote for the CEO of General Motors, or the stockholder of Sylvania vote for the CEO of G.E. This current policy is simply ludicrous, and now we see the results.
Posted by: Linda on February 11, 2008 07:49 PMI'm glad we got half our delegates tied to a primary where good old Republican votes do count.
Posted by: Doug on February 11, 2008 07:55 PMWould it have been that difficult for the Party to have provided a conclusive final sheet where each precinct could indicate the ultimate Presidential preference of its selected delegate? We were all looking through our packets for such a document.
"Meaningless" though it might be it would have made counting "votes" more accurate and a lot easier.
Why does it have to be so hard?
I have to respectfully disagree with your poo-pooing of how big a deal this is to the Huckabee campaign.
The lack of explanation by the party to the national media, and even the mistake made in the headline of the press release (the rest of the release was fine, just the headline was misleading) was a momentum-killer on an otherwise great weekend for Huckabee.
If not for PR and the momentum that it brings, three of the top four candidates for President would not even be discussed right now. Obama is a PR creation, Huckabee was nothing before the Colbert bump and Chuck Norris, and last fall McCain was as dead politically as he appears in his campaign speeches.
It's all about impressions and the momentum achieved from accumulating small victories.
In other words, PR is everything right now.
I also think this whole issue is a tempest in a teapot, but not for the same reasons you do. I think the whole concept of a caucus "winner" is ridiculous. If we're going to announce a "winner" of the straw poll then that's how it needs to be reported. It wasn't.
And look at it from the Huckabee point of view. There were still 1,500 "votes" left out there, if the remaining precincts performed like the average. The total was just over 200 apart. While I absolutely agree that the margin was too great to be overturned, it still was too close to call it. But it was called nonetheless.
And since when did the people counting "call" a race? I've not seen it yet. Everywhere else they just report the numbers and let the media and others do the projecting and "calling."
That said, this mistake was just that. There was nothing sinister involved...just an old-fashioned Homeresque DOH!
But even though there was nothing sinister, it still really hurt the Huckabee campaign.
If they would have waited until Monday to announce the results, then Huckabee would have had very positive press all weekend, and could have fanned that flame on all the Sunday talk shows. Instead, he got a 2 for 1 weekend which was much less zesty.
If I'm a Huckabee strategist (I'm not), I have to say "go after them" because it helps to seize back some of the momentum I might have otherwise had. He'll be in the news a little more pointing out that McCain really didn't win it and that Washington is still possibly his, then he'll ignore us and move on to the next state.
We can't take any of this personally. It was us who created the mess by our press release and our lack of follow-up in clarifying it when it was misrepresented by the media.
Now we just have to deal with the inevitable PR shrapnel. There should be no blame cast on anyone, Esser and Huckabee included.
Posted by: Chad Minnick on February 11, 2008 08:17 PMSo why in the world did we have a caucus if the results were largely pre-determined by the Presidential preference of the ultimate delegate on the sign-up sheet?
"the process of electing precinct delegates is not directly correlated to the preferences of all caucus attendees."
Then why the hell did we even bother to show up?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 11, 2008 08:29 PMIf I ever write stuff like that please just take me out and shoot me.
Have I, in the past, mentioned the issue of incompetence?
There was only one proper course of action here: if a press release of any kind was needed, it shouldn't have said anything more than "Too close to call, we'll release the results when we have them." ANYTHING ELSE WAS UNACCEPTABLE.
Unfortunately, given Esser's relationship with avowed McCain supporter Rob McKenna, the early and incorrect call of the caucus, with the now self-imposed requirement of McCain winning, becomes grist for the mills of a whole host of people that wish us ill.
Esser was properly smacked on FoxNEWS this afternoon, and his actions, AND HIS ACTIONS ALONE; have held the WSRP up to, in this instanced, deserved national ridicule, while leveling any moral authority we had to question any other election results in the future.
Right or wrong, as I have pointed out, the perception is the reality. And the reality here is all bad; Esser's handling of this matter has damaged us for years to come... and he should go... and go now.
At the end of the day, there's only a few things the WSRP can do to gain any national attention... and this one was unnecessarily turned into a disaster. And as long as he stays, he stays as a symbol of incompetence and mishandling of a situation that SHOULD have been Poli Sci 101.
Posted by: Hinton on February 11, 2008 08:40 PMThe Caucus system used by the WSRP was not crafted to select a "winner." The attempts to do so, now, after the fact, are misleading and harmful to the process of electing our President.
Chair Luke Esser continues to misrepresent the results of the Feb. 9th Republican Caucus.
Finally, there's really no "solution" to this dilemma. There's no way to recount or count differently that will turn this into a fair calculation of a winner, because, again, this was not organized in a manner that would allow for meaningful confidence in the final outcome.
The ONLY solution is to hold a new caucus with a different, better structure or disregard the results of Washington State.
Eric, it was a nice attempt to smooth this over, but it can't work, and I'm surprised that you and Pudge continue to try to minimize the issue.
Posted by: Timothy on February 11, 2008 08:42 PMYou folks are so corrupt.
And McCain is equally pathetic.
Posted by: Thomas on February 11, 2008 08:43 PMWith a squirt gun or my Glock nine? I prefer the aquamunition if it's allright with you. Maybe the experience would encourage logical thinking and you won't ask such uninformed questions like "why do we bother to show up?" :)
Posted by: Chad Minnick on February 11, 2008 08:55 PMThe Republican party needs to run a primary because their "caucus" is a complete mess and essentially meaningless because of it.
Posted by: Daniel K on February 11, 2008 08:56 PMThat said, I don't think anything nefarious was going on. Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by error.
Posted by: Poindexter on February 11, 2008 09:01 PM2) To have input into our platform and other issues having to do with the state Republican Party.
Posted by: Chad Minnick on February 11, 2008 09:02 PMThis is life as a conservative. Not only do you have to do all of the usual campaigning, caucusing and other technical details of running an election, but you have to do them perfectly lest you provide even a toehold for the neocons, or the left leaning press and left leaning blogs to scream at as a means to the end of conservatives.
And then you get fakes like Huckabee that are supposedly on your team. Of course he's not, he's shown himself to be a liberal in bible thumper clothing, but he claims to be on the conservative team.
The reality, as many, including JeffersonPaine on the SP public blog pointed out, is that there are many who claim to be conservative. Pro-life religious nuts, Ronulans, Neocons, etc. But conservative values are not in the trumped up "three legs of the conservative coalition." Conservative values are simple. And they are a short list like the Bill or Rights. The are about property rights, free speech, protecting sovereignty and foreign threats, the sanctity of the individual, limited government, less taxation, integrity, accountability, responsibility, and the right to be left alone to practice religion.
If you start thinking about all the things you want to make sure that the federal government protects for you like pork for your local project, ethanol subsidies, your union job, Terry Schiavo, etc. then you are not a conservative, even if you vote Republican.
You show me a pro-lifer, and I'll show you someone who wants to use the federal government to enforce what should be state laws. Not a conservative. You show me an isolationist who wants to pull out the troops, and I'll show you someone who is not willing to protect our freedom. Not a conservative. You show me a neocon, and I'll show you someone who has given in to statism and increased federal bureaucracy. Not a conservative. It's not the Republic of America. It's the United States of America.
The caucuses went just fine. And obviously many don't understand them, and many more exploited that misunderstanding.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 11, 2008 09:03 PMThe caucuses should be straightforward enough that you don't have to have a degree in gobblydegook to understand them.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 11, 2008 09:12 PMI agree with you on the lack of merit in declaring a "winner" for the caucuses in not only our system but in anything close to it.
And yes, I generally agree in the merits - from the standpoint of the Huckabee campaign - of using this issue to stir up their base before Virginia's contest tomorrow.
But, I don't have much sympathy for their campaign's obnoxious insistence they can win the nomination. They are to the point now where they need to win something like 90% of the remaining delegates. Good luck with that.
If it was just a function of saying "we'll stay in the race until McCain hits the magic number" that's more than fair. And there are ways to wink-wink through that rationale. But that's not the approach they're taking. Thus, they loose a lot of potential sympathy in my book.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 11, 2008 09:13 PMAnd, if he does every say he's reconnecting with the party platform I'll bet he's singing kumbaya too.
Posted by: BA on February 11, 2008 09:18 PMAnd, if he does every say he's reconnecting with the party platform I'll bet he's singing kumbaya too."
Sheesh, have another drink.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 11, 2008 09:27 PMTo defend life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a foundational principle of our founders. What's more conservative than that?
What a statement to make.
Eric: why can't Huckabee stay in until the nomination is secured? He's raising money so he can afford it. He's on television all day long. He's having a lot of fun doing it. And, oh yeah, McCain still doesn't have 1,191 delegates yet.
McCainiacs should just leave the guy alone. Go out and campaign for your candidate, winning the remaining delegates. Then you don't have to worry about it anymore.
Did we not learn anything from the last few months? Weren't we supposed to be looking at a Gulianni nominee? Did we really think that Huckabee would end up in second place with the number of delegates? (He will before it's over)
He's not attacking McCain and the contest is keeping Republican politics on the minds of the nation, so it's healthy. If McCain was all by himself, we'd only be hearing about the Democrats because the GOP would be creating no news.
You may find his campaign's insistence "obnoxious" but I assure you that they believe. And why shouldn't they? The fact that we're even having this conversation and using the word "Huckabee" is miraculous enough!
Posted by: Chad Minnick on February 11, 2008 09:28 PMSomebody's drinking Karl Rove's kool-aid.
So then McCain has it wrapped up with only 10% of the remaining delegates?
Didn't think so. Huckabee doesn't need 90% of the rest of the delegates, he only needs 59% of the remaining delegates (assuming Paul and the others don't get any more). He needs those 59% and a lot of horse-trading with Romney and Paul to get their delegates.
So excuse him if he doesn't buy into Karl Rove's math.
Posted by: Doug on February 11, 2008 09:32 PMYou didn't pick a winner, your caucus wasn't structured to do so, and it's disingenuous of Party Chair Esser to continue to pretend that you did. This is not a matter of getting the count right or completing the count, because at the end of this so-called count, you'll still have meaningless results.
Posted by: Timothy on February 11, 2008 09:32 PMReally, calling liberals and democrats communists is so comical.
I love watching you guys implode.
Posted by: Danny Guam on February 11, 2008 09:48 PMWell, we sort of know that, Chad. That hardly excuses the flawed way the caucuses are run, and the phony vote totals declaring that any one candidate has "won" the caucus.
Your second point, "2) To have input into our platform and other issues having to do with the state Republican Party.
I do agree. However the survey we had to fill out was one of the worst I've ever seen. Many of the questions asked left me wanting to mark "all of the above" but we were left to pick only one issue.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 11, 2008 09:51 PMI'm pretty sure they are as follows: if a candidate does not recieve a majority vote on the first ballot, the bottom vote-getter is dropped and a second vote is taken. This process continues until a winner recieves a majority.
This is the process we've always used here in Washington State for all manner of voting, but I'm not sure that's how the National Convention works.
Now tell me if I'm right that all the candidates who are "bound" to a candidate are free once the first ballot is cast? I'm pretty sure that's the case. So McCain, Romney, and Paul's delegates would all be free to vote for whomever they want if it went to a second ballot.
If this is the case, as I understand it to be, then Huckabee's strategy is really quite simple: keep McCain away from the 1,191 mark. If he does not recieve a majority on the first ballot, then all bets are off...ala West Virginia.
If I was the Huckabee campaign I would be excited to rely on my candidate's oratorical skills to jazz up the crowd over the remaining two candidates. He's by far the most eloquent candidate we've had since Buchanan or Keyes, and much more likeable.
And don't think that the current delegate count you see on CBS or CNN is accurate. Remember everything we're talking about regarding our caucuses here in Washington State? There are other states who do not bind their delegates as well. If Huckabee picked off a few of those from McCain...
That's why they believe it's possible. And if it's not, then there's no harm done, eh?
Posted by: Chad Minnick on February 11, 2008 09:51 PMA lot of people think in the big counties they will elect these at the COUNTY convention. Not so. In the counties with multiple Legislative Districts, there has to be Legislative Conventions to elect the delegates and alternates, and the County Conventions are held to adopt county platforms..
Be aware if this difference if you intend to go to vote for delegates.
Ruth Gibbs
That does not mean that the delegates elected to National have to support the Presidential Candidates elected in the Primary. They only have to sign a paper that they pledge to vote for that candidate on first ballot at National.
Therefore, it is conceivable that one of the candidates could get the most people elected to the State Convention, and could take most of the delegates and alternates to National even if they have to vote for another candidate on first ballot. Remember people, THESE delegates decide our National Platform!!! The delegates we elect to State Convention decide our State Platform.
In other words, think hard before you elect state and National delegates.
Ruth Gibbs
I don't have a problem with him staying in the race. Sure as heck doesn't bother me to see McCain bleed a little as the front-runner, though at this point I wouldn't mind watching McCain beat Huckabee soundly in the next few primaries.
What I do object to is some of the rhetoric the Huckabee campaign is using at this point. Though to be fair, some of the least realistic arguments are coming from some of his supporters and his campaign can't be held responsible for that.
And yes, you're right, if it gets to a second ballot at the national convention all bets are off.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 11, 2008 10:08 PMFunny thing is that we in Franklin County did exactly what we were required to do.....gather at a precinct level and have a pooled caucus. And you know what happened? We have delegates! Wow!
And we also had a straw poll of the elected delegates (which were most, but not everybody that came) and had an open counting and display of the results...and Wow....we even put them on our website! http://www.fcrcc.org/2008_caucus_results.htm
To think we completed the required task AND did a straw poll to boot. We must have all been on crack I guess compared to the whiners here.
Posted by: Matty on February 11, 2008 10:19 PMRon Paul will speak at the GOP national convention. He probably won't win the nomination, but he will strengthen the limited government wing of the GOP and pave the way for the next Reagan, just as Barry Goldwater paved the way for the gipper.
Until then, expect a Carter-like experience. Stag-flation. Buy gold and real estate now, while they are cheap.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 11, 2008 10:31 PMThis, as has been explained by many, including Pudge, is not accurate. There's no reliable metric that can result from the structure of the caucuses as organized by the WSRP. Any claim of a "winner" is dishonest.
Frankly, I'm a bit disappointed at the integrity being displayed by the Republican party of Washington State. The honest thing to do at this point would be to withdraw any statement of a "winner" and reiterate that there will be no "winner" until much later in the process.
Posted by: Timothy on February 11, 2008 10:48 PMYes, it's irresponsible for someone who loses an imperfect election to use excessive rhetoric, isn't it? Thank God Stefan would never allow such a thing here.
Posted by: Bruce on February 11, 2008 10:49 PMWhen James Garfield was nominated, he was not even running. The convention had three candidates, he was the campaign manager for one of the candidates, and the convention could not roll call a majority. Finally, on the 34th ballot, one of the states decided enough was enough and cast 17 votes for Garfield. Garfield jumped up and loudly protested that he was not running. On the 35th ballot, another state joined the first and Garfield got 50 more votes. On the 36th roll call, over half the convention selected Garfield. He went on to become the President.
How exciting to have a three way race in these modern times with the National News showing the whole thing! The powers that be keep trying to force Huckabee to resign. Why? Think of all the incredible free publicity the Republicans will get if it ends up with no clear front runner they keep civil to each other and just vote and vote. The whole country will get to see true democracy in action, not in back rooms and deal cutting meetings. After all, Romney still controls his votes. McCain controls his, Huckabee controls his, Ron Paul has gained a few. Why is everyone so obsessed with this 'come now, let us reason together saith the Republican Party' rhetoric?
Let the games continue until there is a winner. It's an exciting game to watch.
Me personally? Go Huckabee. Since when did a man who has been married to one woman for over 30 years, who wants a marriage amendment and a right to life amendment, who supports 2nd amendment rights, who has Governed a state for 10 1/2 years that was one of the poorest in the nation with masses of people sitting on their rear ends on welfare and he turned it around, got them to get off welfare and go to work, need I go on,when did this become a Bible thumping liberal? Say whaat?
Come on!!!
As for the math - Karl Rove has no clue. I can do math better than he can. He is basing his math on the assumption that McCain can stay in this marathon race physically long enough to get the delegates needed. But Huckabee refuses to drop out, so McCain just has to keep running and running full bore day and night.
Huckabee is 18 years younger and full of energy and in excellent health. He is running day and night constantly. McCain has to keep up or get trounced. I McCain him on National TV this AM at Anapolis speaking. He was blinking constantly, his shoulders were slumped, he was leaning on the lectern, and his voice was slow and listless. Huckabee is bright eyed and bushy tailed. I saw him playing his bass guitar with a band yesterday and thoroughly enjoying what he was doing. Let's see who can go the distance. My bet is on Huckabee. And don't forget everyone - Obama is young too, and we had better have a nominee who can run like a house on fire day and night for the next almost 9 months. Running for office is not a sprint, it is an exhausting, gruelling marathon!
Ruth Gibbs
When James Garfield was nominated, he was not even running. The convention had three candidates, he was the campaign manager for one of the candidates, and the convention could not roll call a majority. Finally, on the 34th ballot, one of the states decided enough was enough and cast 17 votes for Garfield. Garfield jumped up and loudly protested that he was not running. On the 35th ballot, another state joined the first and Garfield got 50 more votes. On the 36th roll call, over half the convention selected Garfield. He went on to become the President.
How exciting to have a three way race in these modern times with the National News showing the whole thing! The powers that be keep trying to force Huckabee to resign. Why? Think of all the incredible free publicity the Republicans will get if it ends up with no clear front runner they keep civil to each other and just vote and vote. The whole country will get to see true democracy in action, not in back rooms and deal cutting meetings. After all, Romney still controls his votes. McCain controls his, Huckabee controls his, Ron Paul has gained a few. Why is everyone so obsessed with this 'come now, let us reason together saith the Republican Party' rhetoric?
Let the games continue until there is a winner. It's an exciting game to watch.
Me personally? Go Huckabee. Since when did a man who has been married to one woman for over 30 years, who wants a marriage amendment and a right to life amendment, who supports 2nd amendment rights, who has Governed a state for 10 1/2 years that was one of the poorest in the nation with masses of people sitting on their rear ends on welfare and he turned it around, got them to get off welfare and go to work, need I go on,when did this become a Bible thumping liberal? Say whaat?
Come on!!!
As for the math - Karl Rove has no clue. I can do math better than he can. He is basing his math on the assumption that McCain can stay in this marathon race physically long enough to get the delegates needed. But Huckabee refuses to drop out, so McCain just has to keep running and running full bore day and night.
Huckabee is 18 years younger and full of energy and in excellent health. He is running day and night constantly. McCain has to keep up or get trounced. I McCain him on National TV this AM at Anapolis speaking. He was blinking constantly, his shoulders were slumped, he was leaning on the lectern, and his voice was slow and listless. Huckabee is bright eyed and bushy tailed. I saw him playing his bass guitar with a band yesterday and thoroughly enjoying what he was doing. Let's see who can go the distance. My bet is on Huckabee. And don't forget everyone - Obama is young too, and we had better have a nominee who can run like a house on fire day and night for the next almost 9 months. Running for office is not a sprint, it is an exhausting, gruelling marathon!
Ruth Gibbs
Yes, it's irresponsible for someone who loses an imperfect election to use excessive rhetoric, isn't it? Thank God Stefan would never allow such a thing here.
I am a strong conservative, but let's face it: abortion is essentially infanticide. I cannot support it. (I certainly do not understand how the constitution can be tortured into making it a 'right' -- The practice is every bit as gruesome as Swift's "Modest Proposal".)
I have been acquainted over the years with several women who have had abortions. I know only one who actually thought it was no big deal, the rest regret their decision.
Posted by: mark on February 11, 2008 11:26 PMTrue. But so is the WSRP, more like a mountain out of a perceived mole-hill, in declairing McCain the "winner". There is no winner yet, and there will not be until May (for Washington State) and September for the nomination.
Now that the field is narrowed, we should have some more debates between the last three candidates. I remember many of you were wishing there would be fewer candidates in the debates.
Posted by: Michelle on February 11, 2008 11:43 PMNo, let's face it, abortion is not infanticide, because it doesn't involve an infant.
You are welcome to believe that a fetus's life should not be ended, that a fetus is morally equivalent to an infant, etc. But when you redefine a word that has a specific immoral meaning to mean something different, and then claim that therefore the something different is also immoral, you'll convince no one of anything except your faulty logic.
Posted by: Bruce on February 11, 2008 11:45 PMI never said I didn't agree with a a right to life. But I don't agree with a constitutional amendment to deal with what should be applied at the state and local level. If WA citizens want to pass a law against abortion, that would be the appropriate jurisdiction. I personally don't care for abortion, but I also don't see how an anti-abortion amendment or law would be enforceable since the advent of mifiprestone.
And I don't think true conservatives look to the President to deal with state or local issues, personal ethics, policing bedrooms, etc. The US is pretty far down on the list of per capita abortions compared to other nations, because of our generally conservative ideology that ascribes responsibility to individuals and not the state. We are better off using conservative principles to advocate for more responsibility and less government intervention, than we are in building safety nets to protect us from every local evil.
Less government is more, and that's not what we are getting from the remaining Republican candidates. I am not a Ron Paul supporter, but Bruce Guthrie is right. Although Ron Paul won't be elected, he does serve to illustrate that there is a sizable limited government conservative wing.
I am a strong conservative, but let's face it: abortion is essentially infanticide. I cannot support it. (I certainly do not understand how the constitution can be tortured into making it a 'right' -- The practice is every bit as gruesome as Swift's "Modest Proposal".)
I have been acquainted over the years with several women who have had abortions. I know only one who actually thought it was no big deal, the rest regret their decision.
Posted by: mark on February 12, 2008 12:23 AMYou flatter, I invent nothing here. But, if I assert a moral or practical equivalence, is my argument specious?
And to all, I apologize for the extra posting above.
Posted by: mark on February 12, 2008 12:39 AMI hate McCain, but that Clintonesqe Arkansas snake Huckabee is really swaying me towards voting McCain in the primary. If the ticket is McCain-Huckabee, I gurantee I won't vote for it.
Posted by: AP on February 12, 2008 01:31 AMThe damage is done and it's irreversible. McCain may not have won anything according to the rules, but WSRP has ceded him Washington just by telling people no one else has a chance because he already won.
Seems to be a theme here for the Republican party this year.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on February 12, 2008 07:18 AMJust laying the cards on the table here ...
Posted by: pudge on February 12, 2008 07:50 AMPudge, it is a bigger deal, albeit nominally, than you are trying to defend. Since you took ownership in the process by being an official part of the process, you will defend it more than you ought to (see my previous arguement on why we need to invite democrats to vote in the Republican Primary - building ownership in a decision is key to gaining support). The mess that occurred, in the time frame that it occurred, on the stage it occurred, had a great enough impact that it would be reasonable to assume that the WSRP would need to seriously reconsider how it handles the caucuses and the results from those caucuses.
Posted by: Doug on February 12, 2008 08:11 AMNope. That is not how I am wired.
The mess that occurred, in the time frame that it occurred, on the stage it occurred, had a great enough impact that it would be reasonable to assume that the WSRP would need to seriously reconsider how it handles the caucuses and the results from those caucuses.
I agree entirely that it should be reconsidered and changed. I do not factor external factors about how we are viewed into that conclusion. I only care about well-representing what actually happened.
Posted by: pudge on February 12, 2008 08:36 AMAlso, one does not have to be a delegate elected from the precinct caucus level to be a delegate to the State Convention. Nor does one have to be a delegate to the State Convention to be elected as a delegate to the National Convention.
Posted by: Chad Minnick on February 12, 2008 02:13 PMThanks for the clarification. That's true but you need to be elected as a delegate by the District Caucus and the State Convention. In other words, delegates at any level can nominate and elect anybody to the next stage.
Posted by: RBW on February 12, 2008 03:06 PMHey, it beats no elections at all. But the thing that makes America the "best" is our constitution/bill of rights/liberty. Where are we on that, patriots?
Posted by: David on February 13, 2008 05:57 AMHey, it beats no elections at all. But the thing that makes America the "best" is our constitution/bill of rights/liberty. Where are we on that, patriots?
Posted by: David on February 13, 2008 05:58 AMYep, and I stated my preference for that candidate at the caucus:
Fred Thompson.
Socialism uses the many to rob the few every time. So it becomes like a game of RISK. The political version of survivor. This may well describe the Republican election process in Washington state after the primary, as opposed to representative government.
Hm? How do you figure? The caucus process IS representative government.
Posted by: pudge on February 13, 2008 07:18 AM