Reader comments
GOP central committee to meet about Romney delegates
26 comments | Read story
Get today's headlines via email
Good morning edition
Deseret News Family Deals
In News
Across Site
- Colliding causes: Gay rights and...
- Woman charged in Rasmussen death...
- Photos: Salt Lake Main Library...
- Powells, Coxes put differences aside...
- Amendments to gutted sex education...
- Requests to alter online news...
- Salt Lake City celebrates 2002...
- 'Wicked' tickets on sale May 11
- Sweethearts in real life also share...
- Despite data, Lyme disease sufferers...
In News
Across Site
- Powells, Coxes put differences aside...
- Colliding causes: Gay rights and...
- View live stream of services for...
- Focus returns to Powell children today
- Battling misconceptions: Faced with...
- Father-in-law dragged deeper into...
- Committee will explore new '22...
- Josh Powell had 'incestuous' images...
- LDS bishop ordered to stand trial for...
- Romney's 'Horrible Tuesday' signals...
In News
Across Site
- Prop. 8 declared unconstitutional
181 - LDS Church, others respond to Prop 8
88 - Gay rights and religious liberty
59 - Families at odds over Powell's actions
54 - LDS bishop ordered to stand trial
41 - Utah House blocks Sandstrom bill
39 - Powell call:'I'm afraid for their lives'
33 - Photos: Year of the Dragon
26 - Bill would cut auto safety checks
24 - Should SLC bid again for Olympics?
23







What does it matter if a delegate represents Romney or if a delegate represents McCain. They are both liberal and both served as nails in the coffin for the Party of Barry Goldwater.
McCain equals Obama.
I must vote for Bob Barr.
If they get 180 votes from the party central committee now, or at least 120, I would be OK with it.
This sets a bad precedent. Perhaps we should vote Lockhart out next year.
But perhaps that's what this is all about isn't it, future Ambassador Lockhart?
I'm still waiting for him explain what he meant when he told KSL-TV: "God hasn't spoken to man since Moses."
Was he suggesting Joseph Smith was a liar?
'Ya Think? That was the understatement of the day.
Utah's Republican voters, on February 5th, voted overwhelmingly to bind their national delegation to vote for Mitt Romney. Their state delegates, despite opposition from party leaders, seemed clearly in favor of keeping it this way at their state convention. But these party leaders seem to be determined to get Utah's GOP to deliver the outcomes that they want, despite our wishes. It's as if we exist to serve their interests, and not the other way 'round. It's despicable!
As a lifelong Republican, I want a party ruled by law (or rules, in this case) and not by men. And one whose leaders serve grassroots Utah Republicans rather than powerful national elites. If Mitt and/or others feel "embarrassed" by their lack of dictatorial control over Utah's GOP, as evidenced by an undesired Romney vote during McCain's coronation, then so be it.
The fact that Romney has asked for the votes to be given to McCain and the convention proposal wasn't accepted, creates a problem.
If getting the 180 votes from the committee since we are not meeting again as delegates until next year, was possible, it would have some credibility. If Lockhart tries to do this without 2/3 of the 180 votes, he not only will be tossed next year, there is a good chance that all of Utah's National delegates will be tossed, making the primary election void. That would be a nightmare for everyone. Lockhart should leave it alone.
Repeat: Lockhart better let everything alone.
It is real simple:
"Utah Congratulates Senator John McCain for the National party nomination for the Next President of the United States. Based on State Party Rules and according to the results of State Primary, the Delegates Of Utah support Mitt Romney for president. Gov. Mitt Romney has asked that these votes be counted toward Senator John McCain for any future voting. We agree."
The effect of that sentence depends on the meaning of the word "candidate." Is it inclusive of all those who were candidates at the time of the Primary or is it only those who are candidates "on the first ballot" at the convention? That is a legitimate question. Romney was a primary election candidate but is not a convention candidate, since he has withdrawn.
I can be argued that the tense of the verb "has received" places the question of candidacy at the time of the convention, not the primary. If it were written, "had received," the candidacy would be of the time of the primary, not the convention. (Editor, help us out here.)
The State Central Committee is being asked to render an interpretation of that ambiguity, which is its duty according to Roberts Rules of Order, page 570. The GOP takes its rules seriously, and the committee will do its duty.
Sorry Utah repubs, you're just not impressive anymore and have forgotten the people of this fine state. For Lockhart and the others, its all about keeping the party line and screw the people of this state.
PS: Lockarts new GOP billboards state that "I can" meaning Lockhart can do anything!