Comment: pledging to vote for Romney was a requirement....

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Slandering is not helpful (see in situ)

pledging to vote for Romney was a requirement....

All along, everyone involved in the process knew, or should have known, that the winning delegates in the caucuses, no matter who their preferred candidate was, would be voting for Romney in Tampa. The delegates who ran knew that a prerequisite for running was to pledge to Romney. There was obviously a hope for the voters there that Ron Paul would do well enough in other future primaries to gain enough delegates to stop Romney from reaching 1144, thus leading to a 2nd round of voting, in which these MA delegates could vote for Ron Paul. Those who were following the state by state results closely would have known that the chances of the tide of the race changing so dramatically were quite small, but those paying attention would have also known that there is a lot that delegates could do even if Romney eclipsed the threshold (thus plenty of reason to vote for Ron Paul delegates). But if some had the mistaken impression that the caucuses existed as a means of overruling the primary results, they were misinformed.

Don't blame the delegates for following the rules they agreed to (and to which there was not an option of not agreeing). Don't get mad at them because you had a mistaken impression of how the process worked and what their role as delegate would be. And don't pretend that Ron Paul is trying to get delegates to break the rules but that he has lost control of his campaign staff who have sold out to Romney.