I feel a need to specifically address statements made by Brent Boger personally, who happens to also be the CCRP Rules Chairman, as they illustrate so well the disingenuous representation of the convention, the results, and the people who participated. It is unconscionable for the establishment to use such tactics of marginalizing groups and pitting one group against another, mis-characterizing people because of the candidate they support or the enthusiasm they garner, and furthering myths about the process. I am going to pull direct quotes from Mr. Boger’s facebook feed and respond to them individually. I’m going to forewarn you – as I read these comments I became quite furious so my replies to them are quite confrontational and lacking the diplomacy they should probably have. But right now I don’t really care – candor is my priority.
So as a Santorum delegate to District 17 and supporter of the “Open Convention Slate”, I hope you will find this illuminating:
“Ron Paul Zealots” – Brent Boger
This comment speaks for itself. A perfect example of marginalizing a well organized, well educated and enthusiastic group of people.
“Ron Paul’s people manipulated the Rules to deny Romney all but a handful of delegates even though he had the highest vote in the caucuses.” –Brent Boger
1) Mr. Boger later defined “manipulated” in a less negative way, but based upon that definition he could have just as easily said: “Ron Paul’s people operated within the rules in an organized fashion to maximize Paul and Santorum delegates and minimize Romney delegates.” So why didn’t he say it that way? Answer: because of the IMPLIED accusation of unfairness and deceit he wanted to convey.
2) Additionally, there was no “vote in the caucuses”. There was only a straw poll, with no visible security, checks or balances, and according to the party rules (remember, he is the Chair of the Rules Committee in the County) this straw poll was MEANINGLESS as to the ultimate delegate count, which was only to be decided at the county and state conventions. This fact was published in the description of the precinct caucuses on the CCRP website! Why would Mr. Boger try to portray the process of voting by the rules at the county convention as somehow unfair because there is some sort of supposed intent for a caucus straw poll to control the results of the convention? It is not the technical accuracy of the statement to which I’m objecting, it is the overtly inaccurate message of unfairness it is designed to convey that I find so offensive.
“Anti-democratic practices Paul campaign leadership engage in to further their objectives” –Brent Boger
Mr. Boger, unless you are intending to simply malign and slander, please specifically back up this claim. Are you referring to the fact that the Paul delegates engaged in VOTING at the county convention? If there were any anti-democratic practices I would think they would be the lack of motivation on the part of the establishment to mitigate the damage they had done through their mis-management of the convention by extending the convention until voting was complete. Instead, they gladly let the convention expire without a completion of the voting, to the cheers of the Romney delegates who were present. I ask you Mr. Boger, which is the “anti-democratic practice” – voting (like Paul and Santorum supporters) or extinguishing the voting process (like the establishment allowed to happen when they in fact were the cause of the “voting crisis”)? Pray tell!!!
“Paul people got more delegates than they should have” –Brent Boger
Mr. Boger – Please tell me – just how many delegates “should” the Paul people have gotten? I suppose the amount they got due to the votes at the convention is somehow incorrect or immoral? If anything, the fact that the voting was not allowed to be completed would be a cause of people not getting the delegates they “should” have, and in that case it was the Santorum and Paul delegates who got FEWER than they should have due to the incompetence of the establishment and then their cavalier/uncaring attitude toward rectifying the problem they had created. After all, why solve the problem if it works to the benefit of the establishment candidate (Romney)? We’ll just tell the Columbian it was the fault of the delegates’ infighting.
And please don’t tell me that there is some moral duty toward proportional representation of a straw poll which is completely contradicted by the rules. We have “winner take all” primary states all around the country and I don’t hear the party establishment lamenting how that is robbing the primary voters of those states of their proportional representation. We have an electoral college that conveys 100% of the winnings of a state to the candidate who won that state. We have a long history of elections where a geographical district passes along 100% of its representation to the majority or even plurality winner of that district. This argument about the fairness of proportional representation needing to mimic some totally informal and insecure straw poll is specious at best and ignorant at worst. If you don’t want the process to be based upon who can prevail at a county convention, then change the rules.
This argument is even more infuriating when you consider that it was the Romney people who initiated a strategy to completely exclude a candidate from receiving any delegates (the attempted exclusion of Paul delegates). For them to attempt this exact strategy against Paul then scream disingenuously when it is turned against them should be an embarrassment to the establishment and to all who support them.
(Santorum’s deal) “was a corrupt bargain” –Brent Boger
Exactly what was corrupt about forming a coalition to consolidate the votes of delegates? This is EXACTLY what the Romney people were attempting to do with their “unity slate” (an Orwellian misnomer if I’ve ever seen one). You have specifically accused the Santorum people of striking a corrupt deal so I expect you to retract the statement and apologize or back it up with specific examples of corruption.
“I have no doubt if the shoe were on the other foot they would have opposed extending the deadline. I can take only so much hypocrisy.” –Brent Boger
Mr. Boger – you SPECULATE that the Santorum and Paul people would have opposed extending the deadline. However, the Romney people ACTUALLY DID oppose extending the deadline. So are you telling me that because you BELIEVE the other side WOULD HAVE taken such a dastardly position that it was justifiable for the establishment to do so? And further toward your accusation of hypocrisy – does it really escape you that the Romney people explicitly announced they were trying to exclude Paul delegates and now that they ended up being the ones excluded they (you) are claiming it is “unfair”, “un-democratic”, and even “corrupt”. JUST WHERE DOES THE HYPOCRISY LAY HERE SIR?
“I was in the bar because I was worn out….” -Brent Boger
Poor guy, the Rules Chairman had to retreat to the bar during a rules crisis. I suppose the delegates were lounging around in their lavish rooms sipping on vodka tonics? No! You don’t think the delegates were worn out? We had rooms without chairs, without PA’s, without tables, standing for hours and hours and hours much to the delight of my chiropractor! What was your responsibility in this matter? Just sit in the bar and let the process collapse around us to the benefit of your establishment candidate? That’s leadership!
“The whole nomination process in place is easily manipulated completely within the Rules. Just because it is within the Rules doesn’t make it right.” –Brent Boger
Exactly what does make it right then? Should we just have skipped the voting all together? Would that make you give the process your moral blessing? Exactly what are you saying here? Does lobbying voters and forming coalitions translate to unfair manipulation of a process? By that standard, neighborhood door knocking is unfair manipulation. We should just allocate votes in the general election based upon Gallup Polls which are about as secure and accurate as the straw polls taken at precinct caucuses. Oh I get it, every candidate deserves their “fair share” and you and the establishment know exactly what it is! Forget redistribution of wealth, what we need is redistribution of votes!
“More than 1/3 of the clark county republican caucus attendees are represented by 7% of the delegates. I guess that doesn’t bother you.”
When a winner take all primary state transmits 100% of its delegates to the national convention in the name of the candidate having not necessarily even a majority, but merely a plurality, have you ever objected to that process? How is this any different? This is about who prevails. If it is so unfair then the rules should be changed. Don’t complain about the result simply because the EXACT SAME STRATEGY your candidate attempted to employ failed and was turned against him. Please refer to your previous objections to hypocrisy.
In his posts Mr. Boger also makes the typical establishment argument of ‘just vote for our guy so we can all unite and move on’. This has come to be intolerable. This attitude among officials needs to be purged from our party. If the attitude cannot be removed, then the people purveying it need to go.
The establishment is hammering the nails in their own coffin — and it is about time.