Comment: Shazad's post is spot on

(See in situ)

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

Shazad's post is spot on

It's very simple: When you pledge to a caucus, before they vote, that you will vote for Romney on the first ballot (assuming he's on that ballot), then you are lying and cheating if you do otherwise. I think there is an implied reasonable assumption that the delegate could be excused from not voting for the candidate he is pledged to if new and devastating unknown information is revealed (the candidate has a cocaine addiction, etc.). But otherwise, people expect you to vote for the guy.

Just because you are "following your conscience" doesn't mean you're not lying and cheating.

Some of the the Mass delegates/alternates originally refused to sign the "affidavit" but they all made a pledge at the caucus - explicitly or implicitly - to vote for Romney on the first ballot. If they were at the caucus and allowed their name to be placed into nomination (not withdrawing it) or if they were not at the caucus but later accepted the election, then the pledge is implied.

It's not enough for them to say "I never made any verbal pledge. I just sat there silently while nominations were made, gave my speech without pledging, and won." If they want to claim they haven't made a pledge, then they either had to have explicitly said I am not pledging to vote for Romney before the caucus voted or they must decline the nomination/election win. Otherwise, they are deceiving the caucus voters.

The phone script used to get the voters out to the caucus was clear that the strategy was to get Paul supporers in place to increase Paul's chances of winning the nomination in the event of a second ballot.

That was the honest message given them and you know what? That could still happen. There still could be a second ballot. It's very unlikely, but it's possible.

Furthermore, there are other benefits to having (sane) liberty-minded delegates going to the convention. If you don't understand that, then you shouldn't be criticizing people on this topic.

Have you seen the videos of your nut-job lawyer yet? How do you feel now about endorsing this man and his plan? I made it clear to you from the beginning that the guy is unethical, unprofessional, and incompetent. Are you willing to admit what a huge mistake it was for you to be associated with him?