Oh, I think the Main Republican State Committee has made their preference pretty clear. That's OK with me though, because I really don't want to be hearing Santorum's papal bull for the next nine months.

Thank you.

I have been curious about what happened and absolutely no one reported this last night or today except Maddowblog. Not even Chris Hayes -- unless I missed that part of his show as I go to CBS' Sunday Morning after the his first hour

First was Iowa then Maine and could Michigan be next. Mitt Romney wins and you can vote later. The Republican convention is going to be a circus. Their nominee for president may be a person who has not been on any ballot yet.

It's interesting to watch how desperate they are. They've given up on the complicated process of actually rigging the vote and have skipped right to declaring the outcome they want and hoping no one actually counts the votes.

If one subject should be a hot button topic, any signs of inhibiting US elections should be it.

How can you be an American citizen and even dare to mess with free elections the tiniest bit?

How can you be an American citizen and stand by as someone else messes with your free elections?

The importance of keeping our elections, even the primaries and caucuses, free of corruption and undue influence is not even a lesson from disregarded history, people in countries TODAY all around the globe are losing their lives fighting for democracy and open elections. Here we go again, a supposed beacon of liberty, standing by as repeated instances of questionable electoral process ruin the confidence in our own elections. Will Maine investigate and possibly prosecute the individuals responsible for this impression, or are the individuals too Republican to spank for such "little indiscretions" as possibly undermining their own state caucus?

I feel anyone who inhibits any US election for any reason, EVEN to gain a win for the GOP, should be prosecuted for treason to the fullest, and anyone who has knowledge of such individuals and fails to report them should also be prosecuted for same. If we let this kind of garbage continue, it will not cure itself. What will happen is the incidents will become more common and more insidious until We The People will have to have nothing short of an American Spring to get our liberties and free elections back.

Or maybe these cases aren't really that important? Maybe corrupted elections will work out better for us than they have for those other countries. Maybe the winners-by-corruption will be a nice government and be fair to the little guy, raining benevolence, social safety nets, and decent wages over us all like a corrupt tooth fairy.

Or maybe everyone in this nation needs to speak out very loudly to those in authority over our elections, just how much a betrayal of one's state and nation undermining free elections really are.

If there are irregularities with the Michigan primaries, then people are going to wonder about the integrity of the process.

While congress plays partisan-ball, the citizens of Texas join together - tea party supporters, independents, Democrats, Republicans and even Occupy Dallas protesters - to protest the Keystone XL pipeline.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/02/19/428692/protesters-to-keystone-xl-pipeline-dont-mess-with-texas/

For those politicians trying to drive a wedge between people, this is really a "Big F'n Deal" to see people on Every Single Side gathering together to protest this. You can't get more nonpartisan than this group of people and I applaud them.

Bill Wolff & Rachel Maddow

You really want to look at this (your next BIG series of discussions):

by Eric Byler

Could it be that the Montana Supreme Court has given the United States
Supreme Court the opportunity to reconsider the "Citizens United" decision? The
Montana ruling on Dec. 30, 2011 defied the highest court in the land by upholding
Montana's ban on corporate spending in state elections, prompting a very
interesting response from Washington DC.

John C. Bonifaz, Director of Free
Speech For People explains:

In an unusual statement, US Supreme Court Justices Ruth
Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer have called for a reconsideration of the
Court’s January 2010 Citizens United ruling. The Supreme Court this evening
issued a stay of the Montana Supreme Court's December 30, 2011 ruling which had
upheld the state's century-old law banning corporate money in elections. The US
Supreme Court's stay order means that, for the first time in 100 years,
corporations may make unlimited expenditures in the state's elections.
But, Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Breyer, issued a concurring
statement making clear that this case is “an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates' allegiance,
Citizens United should continue to hold sway.”

The Court is likely to accept review of the Montana case.
The main question now is whether it will issue a reversal of the state supreme
court ruling without a full argument on the merits or whether it will allow that
full argument. Either way, this will push even further to the forefront the
impact of the Citizens United ruling on our democracy.

Jeff Clements, author of Corporations Are Not People, writes:

The Montana Supreme Court had cited the state’s
demonstration of corruption caused by corporate spending in elections, and the
effect of Montana law in preventing that corruption, as a reason to distinguish
the state’s law from the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act struck down in
Citizens United.

And:

In taking the action based on its decision in Citizens
United v. FEC, the Supreme Court did not examine the substantial factual record
in the Montana case or give the State a hearing. Nevertheless, the Court will
decide whether to allow a petition for certiorari and may consider the case
further.

Ginsburg and Breyer's statement references a claim made by Justice Anthony
Kennedy in the majority opinion for the "Citizens United" case, speculating that
the impact of unlimited and undisclosed election spending by corporations and
other special interests would not create the appearance of corruption. Ginsburg
writes:

Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere since this Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. _— (2010), make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” Id., at _— (slip op., at 42. A petition for certiorari will give the Court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.

According to the customary "Rule of Four," it would require two more Justices on the Supreme Court to grant a writ of certiorari to hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of Montana's law.

American Tradition Partnership (ATP), formerly known as Western Tradition Partnership, is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization that fights against environmental regulation and laws that oversee corporate spending to influence elections. To that end, ATP filed suit to challenge a Montana law passed in 1912 called Corrupt Practices Act, after the "Citizens United" decree.

Montana's Attorney General, Steve Bullock, defended the state of Montana's century-old law before the Montana Supreme Court, arguing that political corruption made the Corrupt Practices Act necessary in 1912, that the law had been successful in protecting Montana's democratic process from corruption for 100 years, and that the possibility of corruption requires its continuation despite of the Supreme Court's decree. The Montana Supreme Court ruled in the state's favor on Dec. 30, 2011.

ATP then asked the US Supreme Court for three things: (1) a stay on the Corrupt Practices Act, (2) a review of the Montana Court's decision, and (3) a summary reversal. The Supreme Court's reply on Feb. 17, 2012 granted the stay, which means that the Corrupt Practices Act is no longer being enforced as Montana approaches its June 16 primary election. ATP would have preferred that the Supreme Court quietly grant the summary reversal without hearing oral arguments which could attract the attention of the public. But the Court's response implies that this request may not be granted.

Due to Ginsburg and Breyer's striking statement, the public scrutiny ATP had hoped to avoid may be inevitable. The issue plays into a dominant narrative of the 2012 GOP primary race, which has been flooded by Super-PAC money, drawing complaints from across the political spectrum. Less than 24 hours after the statement, there is already talk of a rally at the US Supreme Court to allow the People to weigh in on whether or not anonymous and unlimited campaign donations creates the appearance of corruption (sign up for details). The Court may decide to hear the Montana case as a way of revisiting "Citizens United" with new information to consider.

Update: ​Bonifaz explains:

American Tradition Partnership (ATP), the corporation challenging the Montana law, has until March 29 to file its petition for review before the Supreme Court. It may decide to file it much earlier than that. Under the normal rules, the State of Montana will then have 30 days to file its response, and ATP will then have 10 days to file its reply. However, the Court could possibly order the response and reply briefs on an expedited
schedule.

It is very likely the Court will accept review of this case, given the claim that the Montana Supreme Court ruling defies the US Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. The main question is whether the Court will reverse the Montana ruling without allowing full argument on the merits. If it does that, we could see a decision very soon after the briefing on the petition for review has been submitted. If it allows for full argument, there will be merits briefing and then oral argument. That oral argument could happen this spring or it could be scheduled for the fall (the start of the next term for the Court).

Last fall, Bullock announced his candidacy to succeed Brian Schweitzer as Montana's governor.

Read the Supreme Court's Feb. 17, 2012 order

A response to Citizens United:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YFZAmTUbPEo

Ayuh, this is just the Down Easters way of telling the GOP "you cahn't get theyah from heeah!" (there's something in the chowdah...)

I'm surprised the Paulbots haven't been bombing this website w/ support of Paul and how happy they are that TRMS is giving the Paul campaign good coverage. Everyone remember this post for the next time Rachel says something or the TRMS staff posts something even remotely negative about Paul.

.

Here's the link to the vote tallies that the BDN posted, if you're interested.

http://bangordailynews.com/2012/02/18/politics/votes-in-the-2012-maine-gop-presidential-nominee-preference-poll/?ref=relatedSidebar

Plus, an article of the PPH about the recount that happened before Saturday's vote. Believe me, just reading that article doesn't even begin to end this whole debacle.

http://www.pressherald.com/news/Recount-doesnt-change-vote-totals-Maine-GOP-says.html

I hope to see it overturned. Corporations are not people. They are big business that want to sway are politicians with their money, and I say sway lightly. I am against big business running this country. Look what Koch Brothers have done so far.

The most interesting dynamic in the GOP race is Ron Paul.

Almost everyone under 50 favor cannabis decriminalization, and that is almost guaranteed if Ron Paul is nominated.

Do the math.

Every cannabis farmer in the US is going to donate to Revolution Pac if Paul is nominated.

Ron Paul will not win, but this issue is guaranteed to be on national TV election campaign advertising for months if Paul is nominated.

Over 50% of the US favors decriminalizing cannabis and this is rising every year.

About $1 trillion of our federal deficit has been spent to control less than 10% of drug traffic. Prohibition has driven the price up to $3,000/pound, which is irresistible for poor that lack education and social support necessary for housing and food. About $5 billion is spent on electricity every year for indoor growing to satisfy the financial needs of the poor.

The US crime rate is the highest in the world. Prison populations are dominated by functionally illiterate who cannot earn a living in a world dominated by high technology. Our country is the most dangerous in the world because of drug and education policies.

This whole situation is obviously stupid.

Paul introduced legislation to decriminalize cannabis on more than one occasion that is the first legislation introduced during my lifetime that is guaranteed to reduce crime.

That is the reason Republicans are willing to break any law necessary to keep Ron Paul from being nominated. GOP leadership cannot stand the idea of cannabis reform advertising on national television as part of a presidential campaign and they are going to break laws to prevent that.

In addition to the cities that voted on Saturday, weren't there a whole bunch of other towns whose votes were recorded as zeros during the initial round of voting? It seems as though these cities' votes are going to have to be added in at some point. That might make Paul the actual caucus vote winner.

Rick Santorum do you really think when you are talking. To be a Steward of the Earth, you would also have to take care of it and not keep taking and taking from it as you would leave nothing left but a crap hole. And as far as your ideas on what to do with Iran, I would prefer to trust President Obama, he knows more about it than what your nonsense would dictate on what to do.

In Ron Paul's defense at least has not been trying to force religion into politics.

He is the most reasonable candidate they have and they don't like him?