Another classic Romney situation

Mitt Romney complained mightily about Rick Santorum’s robo-calls to Democrats prior to the Michigan primary. But, as Michelle Malkin reports, in 1992 Romney, then an Independent, voted in the open Massachusetts Democratic primary for Sen. Paul Tsongas. Why? He now tells George Stephanapolous: “When there was no real contest in the Republican primary, I’d vote in the Democrat primary, vote for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for the Republican.” In other words, he exploited the open primary system to sabotage a party to which he didn’t belong and which he wanted to help defeat. Just as the Democrats who voted for Santorum were doing in Michigan.

- end of initial entry -

March 1

James N. writes:

For the purposes of the nomination process, I think it is incorrect to characterize Romney’s (or any other candidate’s) pluralities as “winning.”

In an election which, by design, chooses the officeholder AND which allows plurality victory (not, IMO, a good idea) there is a “winner.”

The ridiculous Republican primaries are a rolling deliberative process whose “last word” is in the end of August, in Tampa. Nobody is “winning.”

I go further and contend that nobody SHOULD be “winning.” The circumstances which govern who would be the best choice to defeat Obama may be very, very different in August (especially THIS August) than they are in early March.

The body of delegates have, or should have, the power to determine that at the time. If they are incompetent to the task (probable) we need better delegates, or a new party/new system.

Choosing delegates by having anybody who is breathing show up and ask to vote is absurd. It is only slightly less absurd to have delegates chosen by anybody who shows up breathing and has previously filled out a card with a check in a box that says “Republican.” Most “registered Republicans” have no special loyalty to the party or the platform, and are completely unqualified to discern who would be the best candidate.

For the final election in November, we are wedded to a system where all the idiots get to have their say. Since most of the people ruled by the ensuing government are idiots, I suppose there is some sense or even some justice to that method of choosing.

But idiots, even “Republican” idiots, should not be choosing WHO would make the best President. There has to be a better way.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 29, 2012 10:53 PM | Send