2012: Romney wins Maine, CPAC straw poll

Mitt Romney won the Maine Republican caucuses Saturday, overcoming a strong challenge by Ron Paul that drew national attention to the normally low-key contest,” 39%-36%, the Portland Press Herald writes.

The Bangor Daily News: “The Maine Republican Party declared Mitt Romney the winner of its presidential caucuses on Saturday, but narrow second-place finisher Ron Paul said he wasn’t ready to concede the state until all communities had caucused.”

The Boston Globe: “Mitt Romney pulled out a narrow win in the caucuses in Maine [Saturday], reinforcing his front-runner status after suffering a trio of defeats Tuesday in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri.”

Yet in a message to supporters last night, the Ron Paul campaign suggested at chicanery over Maine's decision to declare Mitt Romney the winner before all the votes were counted, NBC’s Anthony Terrell reports. Campaign Manager John Tate called the Washington County GOP decision to postpone the caucus for snow an "excuse." Tate even mocked the decision after the predicted three to four inches of snow resulted in only a "dusting."

Per the Portland Press Herald, a county party official said he didn’t think the outcome in that county would give Paul the number he would need to make up the difference.

Just 113 people voted in Washington County in 2008, and Paul got just eight votes, according the FrontloadingHQ.

ROMNEY: The Globe’s Johnson writes: "Romney's 2008 presidential campaign was undermined not by weakness in his deep and stellar resume; rather, it was damaged by doubts about the authenticity of a rightward shift -- particularly in his social views -- during the run-up to his first White House bid. In branding himself 'severely conservative' four years later, Romney added fresh currency to the seemingly never-ending doubts about his philosophical core, or whether there is anything he won't say as he tries to win his party's presidential nomination. It's telling that immediately after Romney made his comment, his campaign had to issue a press release outlining proof of his fiscal and social conservatism." (Hat tip: Political Wire.)

Romney tells National Review’s Costa: “I want people to remember that I was on the front lines on conservative social issues, on conservative fiscal issues, and standing up for conservative foreign-policy values. I wanted to reacquaint people with what they remember from four years ago.” (Hat tip: GOP 12.)

Rush Limbaugh panned Romney’s use of the phrase “severely conservative.”

SANTORUM: “Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum today implied that Mitt Romney paid for votes in the Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll on Saturday, where Romney beat Santorum 38 percent to 31 percent,” the Boston Globe writes.

(Um, that’s what always happens at straw polls – you entice your supporters to attend.)

The New York Daily News: “Mitt Romney had a key conservative caucus win over the weekend — but rival Rick Santorum says he bought the victory.”

The Washington Post's Greg Sargent clips a Huffington Post piece noting that Santorum suggests that insurance companies shouldn't cover birth control at all. “This has nothing to do with access,” Santorum said. “This is having someone pay for it, pay for something that shouldn’t be in an insurance plan anyway because it is not, really an insurable item. This is something that is affordable, available. You don’t need insurance for these types of relatively small expenditures. This is simply someone trying to impose their values on somebody else, with the arm of the government doing so. That should offend everybody, people of faith and no faith that the government could get on a roll that is that aggressive.”

Discuss this post

“Mitt Romney pulled out a narrow win in the caucuses in Maine [Saturday],

But I understand he had to cheat to do it; NOT count all the votes the citizens had cast (shades of Florida 2000!)

Should America expect this type behavior in November?

Be forewarned - American citizens are on guard and aware of the shenanigans, and WILL NOT PUT UP WITH IT AGAIN!!!

  • 2 votes
Reply#1 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:25 AM EST
Reply

!

    Reply#2 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:25 AM EST

    Romney won because he figured out words connoting extremism will do the magic like "severe conservatism". Throw them the damn red meat and your in........Bravo Mitt.

    Obama/Biden clearest choice 2012

    • 4 votes
    Reply#3 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:26 AM EST

    Maine's caucus is a beauty contest, as they say, delegates are determined at the state convention, not by caucus results directly.

    My brother was chosen to represent his town, and he supports Ron Paul. So, if you read about one delegate convincing (or browbeating ), the Maine Republican Party into supporting Paul, that will probably be my brother. The guy is fired up and ready to go for Ron Paul.

    Seriously, the results of the caucus by county are interesting. Portland supported Ron Paul with 106 votes to Romney's 90. Yes, the biggest city in Maine only gave Romney 90 votes. Other towns that supported Ron Paul were college towns like Orono, Lewiston and Biddeford. Interestingly, the lower income, rural areas also supported Ron Paul. That's why Washington County not participating sounds suspicious. (and the head of the Washington County Republican Party is a Romney supporter.)

    Romney's support came from the wealthiest enclaves, like Cape Elizabeth, Kennebunkport, and Falmouth. Yes, we have millionaires in Maine, and these towns are where they live.

    http://media.kjonline.com/documents/me_gop_caucus_results.pdf

    • 5 votes
    Reply#4 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:35 AM EST

    I think the Republicans ought to nominate the Maine Girl Scouts. The whole organization. At least they braved the forecasted four inches of Washington County snow.

    Then... we'd really get some business expertise as a nominee. The Girl Scouts will stop at nothing to get you to buy more Samoas.

    Hey, come to think of it, that could be a recipe to reduce the deficit, too.

    • 3 votes
    #4.1 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:20 AM EST

    Oh, yes! The Girld Scouts met, but the Republican caucus was cancelled. Pretty funny. And the Washington County establishment says they didn't realize their votes wouldn't be counted. Something tells me, the delegates the end up sending to the convention will be pretty mad at the Romney contingent.

    • 3 votes
    #4.2 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:04 PM EST
    Reply

    Santorum says "pay for something that shouldn’t be in an insurance plan anyway because it is not, really an insurable item. This is something that is affordable, available." So insurance should pay for your ED medicine, an insurable item, but not family planning medicine? Insurance companies love plans which include contraception since the birth rate is less and saves them $$$$. Not one insurance company has complained about the compromise. Rick, 95% of Catholic women in the US have used contraception in their life time and there are medical, not family planning, reasons for contraception prescriptions. If you want to run for President in 2012, please exit the 1950s.

    • 4 votes
    Reply#5 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:43 AM EST

    romney did not win the maine caucaus- the washington county votes need to be counted or i will consider all you republicans cheaters=this is why i cahanged parties- i only will vote for ron paul if not him obama has my vote -at least he didn't cheat a man whom has stood by his country all his life-go ron paul!

    • 2 votes
    Reply#6 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:08 AM EST

    Friday, January 27th, 2012 | Posted by Eric L. Wattree

    Ron Paul and Libertarian Idiocy

    Ron Paul and Libertarian Idiocy

    BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

    Ron Paul is a typical demagogue. He specializes in combining fact with fiction, and pointing out everything that’s wrong with all of the policies that are contrary to his agenda. Then he claims that his irresponsible solution is a cure for all of our problems, which is an exercise in pure fiction. Paul is quoted as saying the following:“The most basic principle to being a free American is the notion that we as individuals are responsible for our own lives and decisions. We do not have the right to rob our neighbors to make up for our mistakes, neither does our neighbor have any right to tell us how to live, so long as we aren’t infringing on their rights. Freedom to make bad decisions is inherent in the freedom to make good ones. If we are only free to make good decisions, we are not really free.”

    Paul’s entire premise is flawed. Total personal freedom was clearly not the intent of the founding fathers. They had the good sense to recognized that a society, or a civilization, as it were, is defined as a “GROUP of people who have joined together to pursue a common interest or goal,” and they clearly set out their intent in the preamble of the United States Constitution, which reads as follows:

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare [not just make Ron Paul happy] and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    Thus, if Ron Paul doesn’t like the rules we’ve set up to “promote the general welfare,” he has the freedom to move to the wilderness and not live among us. But according Ron Paul’s philosophy, he thinks he should have the right to pee against the wall in the middle of Times Square during rush hour, and the government should be precluded from stopping him. Because you see, according to Paul’s philosophy, and his flawed reading of the United States Constitution, that should be his inalienable right, since he’s not hurting anyone else.

    So in essence, Paul wants to have his cake and eat it to. He wants to take advantage of the benefits of living in an ordered society, while not having to adhere to the rules that make it a society. For example, he contends that the civil rights laws that prevent him from refusing to serve certain groups in his restaurant abridges his right to private ownership. But on the other hand, he has absolutely no problem with the fact that the group that he bans is forced to pay taxes that support “his right to private ownership.” If his business catches on fire, he’s going to expect the banned group’s tax supported fire department to come put it out. And if he’s robbed, he’s going to expect the group’s tax supported police department to come to his aid. But the fact is, he can’t have it both ways. If he’s not willing to adhere to society’s rules, he can’t expect to take advantage of the benefits of living in an ordered society.

    Paul also wants to abolish the Department of Education, which is essential to maintaining a “more perfect union.” His philosophy also dictates that we should simply “trust” corporations not to grind up rats in our ground beef, or pollute our air and water. He says, “Just let the free market handle it.”

    Well, that sounds like a plan, but we saw how the free market handled the Wall Street fiasco, didn’t we? The free market created it, and we paid for it – dearly. The only thing free about the free market is the freedom of ruthless and greedy capitalists to take advantage of a naive and unsuspecting public – and then they tell us we’er un-American if we complain about it.

    Thus, Ron Paul’s philosophy represents the rantings of a selfish, unthinking, greedy, and totally irresponsible lunatic. Therefore, if he wants total personal freedom, it’s well within his grasp. He can vote with his feet and move to the wilderness. Then he can pee against any tree in the forest at will – but he shouldn’t expect us to come to his aid if a snake decides to latch on to his pecker. That’s the price of total freedom.

    Eric L. Wattree

    • 1 vote
    #6.1 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:25 PM EST
    Reply

    Paul won Maine Caucus. Just because mitts buddies in the state party delayed some county caucuses by a week doesn't give you permission to report a fake result that only includes a portion of the votes. 16% of votes uncounted when mitt was ahead by 200 votes and the remaining counties were strongly pro paul mean that Mitt is kidding himself.

    • 3 votes
    Reply#7 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:13 AM EST

    Friday, January 27th, 2012 | Posted by Eric L. Wattree

    Ron Paul and Libertarian Idiocy

    Ron Paul and Libertarian Idiocy

    BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

    Ron Paul is a typical demagogue. He specializes in combining fact with fiction, and pointing out everything that’s wrong with all of the policies that are contrary to his agenda. Then he claims that his irresponsible solution is a cure for all of our problems, which is an exercise in pure fiction. Paul is quoted as saying the following:“The most basic principle to being a free American is the notion that we as individuals are responsible for our own lives and decisions. We do not have the right to rob our neighbors to make up for our mistakes, neither does our neighbor have any right to tell us how to live, so long as we aren’t infringing on their rights. Freedom to make bad decisions is inherent in the freedom to make good ones. If we are only free to make good decisions, we are not really free.”

    Paul’s entire premise is flawed. Total personal freedom was clearly not the intent of the founding fathers. They had the good sense to recognized that a society, or a civilization, as it were, is defined as a “GROUP of people who have joined together to pursue a common interest or goal,” and they clearly set out their intent in the preamble of the United States Constitution, which reads as follows:

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare [not just make Ron Paul happy] and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    Thus, if Ron Paul doesn’t like the rules we’ve set up to “promote the general welfare,” he has the freedom to move to the wilderness and not live among us. But according Ron Paul’s philosophy, he thinks he should have the right to pee against the wall in the middle of Times Square during rush hour, and the government should be precluded from stopping him. Because you see, according to Paul’s philosophy, and his flawed reading of the United States Constitution, that should be his inalienable right, since he’s not hurting anyone else.

    So in essence, Paul wants to have his cake and eat it to. He wants to take advantage of the benefits of living in an ordered society, while not having to adhere to the rules that make it a society. For example, he contends that the civil rights laws that prevent him from refusing to serve certain groups in his restaurant abridges his right to private ownership. But on the other hand, he has absolutely no problem with the fact that the group that he bans is forced to pay taxes that support “his right to private ownership.” If his business catches on fire, he’s going to expect the banned group’s tax supported fire department to come put it out. And if he’s robbed, he’s going to expect the group’s tax supported police department to come to his aid. But the fact is, he can’t have it both ways. If he’s not willing to adhere to society’s rules, he can’t expect to take advantage of the benefits of living in an ordered society.

    Paul also wants to abolish the Department of Education, which is essential to maintaining a “more perfect union.” His philosophy also dictates that we should simply “trust” corporations not to grind up rats in our ground beef, or pollute our air and water. He says, “Just let the free market handle it.”

    Well, that sounds like a plan, but we saw how the free market handled the Wall Street fiasco, didn’t we? The free market created it, and we paid for it – dearly. The only thing free about the free market is the freedom of ruthless and greedy capitalists to take advantage of a naive and unsuspecting public – and then they tell us we’er un-American if we complain about it.

    Thus, Ron Paul’s philosophy represents the rantings of a selfish, unthinking, greedy, and totally irresponsible lunatic. Therefore, if he wants total personal freedom, it’s well within his grasp. He can vote with his feet and move to the wilderness. Then he can pee against any tree in the forest at will – but he shouldn’t expect us to come to his aid if a snake decides to latch on to his pecker. That’s the price of total freedom.

    Eric L. Wattree

      #7.1 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:30 PM EST
      Reply

      Romney wins Maine and CPAC...

      ...and is accused of fraud in both cases by Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Great, great candidate there, GOP. How is he going to win the trust of independents when he isn't even trusted by his own party?

      • 7 votes
      Reply#8 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:29 AM EST

      B-R-O-K-E-R, don't die with Romney

      Roll those dice, Don't think twice

      You might just find a candidate to take you high - high, high, high

      Come along and sing the song made for GOP

      B-R-O-K-E-R, don't die with Romney

      • 3 votes
      Reply#9 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:36 AM EST

      "This is having someone pay for it, pay for something that shouldn't be in an insurance plan anyway because it is not, really an insurable item. This is something that is affordable, available. You don't need insurance for these types of relatively small expenditures..."

      There you have it from one of the GOP candidates who incidentally sat on the board of Universal Health Services.

      Apparently he feels his health care industry lobbying experience qualifies him to craft optimal health insurance policies for women.

      Is it not possible that Ricky Santimonium's opposition to chemical regulation of conception could be expected to result in more unwanted or dangerous pregnancies and therefore more abortions?

      There you have it, Ricky Santimonium supports the concept of increased numbers of abortions.

      • 1 vote
      Reply#10 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:40 PM EST

      So someone from New England wins an election in New England.....stop the presses...this is big, really big....... NOT

        Reply#11 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:15 PM EST

        Not only that, he beat a Texan. How hard can that be in Maine?

          #11.1 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:10 PM EST
          Reply

          Romney Multiple Choice on Abortion

          1994 Debate with Edward Kennedy - He would not impose his abortion beliefs on others.

          1994 Senate Campaign – “abortion should be safe and legal” citing the case of a relative who died after an illegal abortion.

          2002 Governor Campaign – (NYT 2/12/2012) “he sought the endorsement of abortion rights advocates, promising to be a good voice among Republicans"

          2002 Responding to Planned Parenthood questionnaire – reported that he backed “state funding of abortion services” under Medicade.

          2005 Boston Globe – “I am pro-life”

          2007 Presidential Debate to George Stephanopoulos – “I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice” “I changed my mind”

          2012 Romney calls on President Obama to discontinue funding Planned Parenthood “The idea that we’re subsidizing an institution that provides abortion, in my view, is wrong”

          2012 Conservative Political Action Committee speech – “Let me be clear” “Mine will be a pro-life presidency”

          My personal opinion is that abortion is not a legitimate basis for selecting our Political leadership anymore than religious convictions.

          The concern Mitter raises is what the hell does this guy believe on any subject? Will the “Born Again Super Conservative” really say anything to garner votes? Does he have a secret plan to embroil us in another war (see Bolton, John neoconservative member of Team Romney)?

            Reply#12 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:20 PM EST

            Hey, did you catch Sarah's pitch as the closer of the GOP conservatives conclave? She endorses the concept of spirited campaigning and seems to endorse the idea of a brokered GOP convention.

            She avoided the temptation to endorse any candidate, and I didn't hear her ruling out the idea that she would sacrifice herself as the GOP candidate if the convention deadlocked and the party really needed her.

              Reply#13 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:28 PM EST
              You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
              As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.