To: kabar
Would it not be a good thing to have a brokered convention? Imagine the exposure for GOP candidates, and ideals as the MSM covers the first such race in decades. Queen Hillary would be an afterthought till the MSM (oops, I mean Democrat) convention in the summer
6 posted on
11/17/2007 6:24:45 AM PST by
MCCRon58
(A man unwilling to fight for freedom and liberty, deserve neither. (Ain't much of a man, either))
To: MCCRon58
I agree. We would also get better candidates. In many ways, the smoke filled rooms did a better job of selecting nominees than the democratic open primaries, which are more a function of money than anything else.
8 posted on
11/17/2007 6:26:37 AM PST by
kabar
To: MCCRon58
~”Would it not be a good thing to have a brokered convention?”~
I disagree. We’d have a split in fundraising, and the candidates would be focused on defeating each other rather than attacking Clinton. They wouldn’t be able to start a genuine campaign until after the convention - and that is not enough time to overcome the Clinton machine.
24 posted on
11/17/2007 8:10:16 AM PST by
tantiboh
To: MCCRon58
"Would it not be a good thing to have a brokered convention?" Beat me with a stick, but what is a brokered convention?
44 posted on
11/17/2007 6:25:14 PM PST by
avacado
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson