Blogs 4 Brownback

October 23, 2007

Mitt Romney and Ballot-Box Stuffing

Ballot BoxJanet Folger continues her great coverage of the race for the GOP nomination. Apparently Mitt Romney is attempting to buy his way to victory. This is not very surprising since I’ve heard the rumors about him buying the CPAC, Ames and other straw polls. He does have the money to do it, after all. And if he is taking such dishonest shortcuts it does tend to cast a bad light on his character, or rather lack of it.

With that in mind, here’s a bit of Janet Folger’s latest column about Mitt’s latest “victory:”

There are now two major polls that put Gov. Mike Huckabee in a 5-to-1 lead among values voters: the Values Voter Presidential Debate and the Values Voter Summit.

Among summit attendees, who paid the registration, airfare and accommodations, and actually heard the candidates’ speeches, Gov. Huckabee won more votes than all the other candidates combined – including Mitt Romney. Huckabee earned 51 percent of the vote compared to Romney’s 10 percent, Fred Thompson’s 8 percent and Tom Tancredo’s 7 percent.

Isn’t that interesting? But isn’t Huck, like former candidate Sam Brownback, a longshot who can’t win? Hmmm.

Efforts to try and skew the results of the Internet poll, such as the e-mail sent by Mark DeMoss (now on the Romney campaign), complete with a link and instructions to stack it, gained Romney a .5 percent edge for his prominently announced “win.” By the way, when that announcement was made following fanfare, including a drum roll, the audience (who were 5-to-1 Huckabee supporters) sat stunned. Had they announced the results of the real grass-roots activists who actually attended the event, we would have heard explosive applause instead of the sound of crickets and the clapping of a few Romney shills.

Romney GloveThat sound is the Republican party being flushed down the toilet. Sad, isn’t it? Something is awfully fishy about this process. Buy a few votes here and there and squeak out “victories” over the candidates that actual honest grass-roots activists prefer. People were right, Mitt’s a slick businessman. But is this good for our democracy? Is it good for the Republican party? Is this good for America? I’m not sure I like where it’s headed.

More people need to get involved at the grass-roots and take charge of the process, otherwise astroturf wins. And that means we all lose.

— Psycheout

7 Comments »

  1. I don’t care to hear about Catcher’s Mitt Rommulan butt stuffing. I want to know why Sam is rejecting the word of our Lord and abandoning the race.

    I feel sick. Like I am seeing red! RED TIDE!

    OH Loard hear our plea. Please do vile things to all the republican candidates so they have to drop out of the race and SAM can be president.

    Dear Lord, for this we pray. You have more than enough reason to smite that tranvestite harliquin Jewliani and the pedophile aetheist Rommney and the traitor McCain.

    Please Lord hear our Prayer.

    Comment by UN-Happy Clam — October 24, 2007 @ 7:38 am | Reply

  2. To be fair Romney’s campaign advised attendees to vote online beforehand. Without the knowledge that the results would be posted separately.

    Comment by dlddustin — October 24, 2007 @ 8:36 am | Reply

  3. Whatever. The polls were closed after Romney’s speech, so his supporters voted online (even though they were THERE). Sure, Huck did well…but, a win is still a win.

    GO ROMNEY!

    Comment by Ann Marie Curling — October 24, 2007 @ 9:55 am | Reply

  4. I have studied the votes and reduced the results to what actually happened.
    Two out of three people present did not vote using the ballots on site. Two out of three people voting for Huckabee voted by computer on the web. One out of ten people of the total vote cast their ballot before the conference began. For each voter that was actually on site there was a voter that did not attend the meeting. On site polling was closed during and after the time Mitt Romney spoke, so they could not cast ballots for that day. Ron Paul’s ratio of on line to local votes was 35 to one. No candidate had any opportunity to buy votes. Any wins were a combination of the candidates’ popularity, position on the speaking roster, technical savy of the voters and voter organization. Romney did not cheat. He and his supporters are just smarter and more capable of doing difficult things. Yes, the voting was close, but votes are votes and that is how you win elections.

    This copied from the EFM site:
    I guess by now you’ve seen the news, as well as inevitable spin by the losing candidates. I was at the Press Conference held by Tony Perkins, and I wanted to clear up some points.
    1. The fact that FRC members could vote online was on their website.
    2. It was on this website.
    3. It was disclosed to all candidates in August.
    Six hundred people who were here in attendance voted online to avoid the looooong voting lines. For example, I voted online several days ago — and I know many Gov. Romney fans present here did as well.
    I heard some grumbling from disappointed Huckabee fans, who complained they weren’t advised of the online voting. I think the bottom line is this: Mitt Romney has a great organization, and he delivers results. Who would’ve thought a year ago that a Mormon Massachusetts Governor would win the Values Voter Conference?
    Let’s face it. If Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee can’t win this crowd, he can’t win in a general election. Kudos to Gov. Romney and a great speech delivered well… and thanks to Evangelicals for Mitt readers who supported him!
    CHARLES adds: I voted online too, Nancy.

    Comment by Boise Leon — October 24, 2007 @ 10:27 am | Reply

  5. Well, we still have the honorable Rudy. Go Rudy. He can save us from the terrorists.

    Comment by larry — October 24, 2007 @ 10:42 am | Reply

  6. He can even do it in a dress.

    Comment by larry — October 24, 2007 @ 10:42 am | Reply

  7. jewliani is the answer (how MANY MORE BILLIONS does the israeli controlled oligarch owned-us media have to spend to gain control of your damned ”nation”)…

    just not the right answer…look closely and you can even see the strings.

    Comment by freedom isnt free — October 25, 2007 @ 11:25 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: