Skip to comments.Why the ‘Strategists’ Are Wrong About a Brokered Convention.
Posted on 03/17/2012 8:34:10 PM PDT by true believer forever
Along with the realization that Conservatives can win in a Conservative-leaning country, comes the ugly truth that the establishment Republican apparatus is just like the Chicago politician more concerned with maintaining power and selecting candidates than doing the hard work of administering to a bottom-up organization such as the Republican Party was chartered to be.
Todays Republican establishment is, for all practical purposes, a mirror (or converse) image of the Democrat Party; an organization structured from the top-down. This power-hoarding of the hierarchy is evidenced by the ridiculous move to award convention delegates proportionately, a move more in line with the abolition of the Electoral College than with the preservation of the Republic.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Oh, wow. sometimes I overflow with Newt, too! You are just making me grin and grin... God bless you! God bless America! God bless Newt!
I agree with both of you!
This is a safe link. This is for Newt supporters and common sense thinkers who want America back like she was.
But what category would a primary challenge to a republican president in 2016 fall into? Would it be a 3rd party or a movement in the GOP? that is what's not clear to me..
Mark Levin said Reagan did this, but I didn't hear what President he went up against...
Some polls say that nearly a third of the “TEA Party” are Romney-bots. Maybe the TEA Party doesn’t really know where it stands —lacks basic knowledge.
August 27-30. I am sure most of the hotel rooms are gone by now, and everything is extremely overpriced. Most people don't know, but if you call a college campus, especially one that is not having a lot of summer sessions, they will rent you an empty dorm room for really reasonable prices. You can even buy a temporary meal card and eat some of their awful food rather than the high-priced restaurants(Shh.)
Bob Dole blocked Pat Buchanan from speaking, and Newton Gingrich was a Dole-man from the start.
I will also add...and I am not advocating because I don’t pretend to have all the answers...that years ago there was some success at moving the Conservatives to the right (although they are still far to the left of me). They had pretty much gone the way your Republicans are going now....they ran to the middle to try and splinter the left/appease the left whatever you want to call it. They were even called the Progressive Conservative party at one time. They were dreadful. Big government. Very liberal on social issues. Some years back the Reform Party (which arose out of the Social Credit Party) made big gains out west. They were grassroots conservative reformers. They eventually merged with the Progressive Conservatives to form the Conservative Party. It’s not what you or I would consider conservative, but it is more conservative than the old Progressive Conservative Party (a party which still exists to some extent btw).
I don't... but I do think people will be certainly far more serious about what side they do come down on just in the fact it's going to convention...not to mention how the delegates 'now' are looking at their role. It's going to get more than dicy in that respect.
Look already in Missouri, where one of the county's actually had to shut down the appointment of delegates..police were envolved!..... because Romney's people and Paulites were causing such a rucus....two Paulbites were arrested...and the Paulites actually stated thier goal/agenda was to "take charge" of these events..... In other words stack the deck with their delegates, even though the decisions had already been determined....and if not raise a rucus.....and they actually shut the process down! So now the appointment of delegates is more critical for every state and we'll hear of more fighting on that front......and the candidates know that's coming all too well.
Nothing is clear to me right now. It’s late. I’m tired and I can’t think right now. I’m drinking tea trying to catch a second wind.
Are you ready for a showdown?
I’m down for it. Heck; I’m down for a Revolution.
I’m not sure what to make of that. I guess it’s confusing at times because the movement is decentralized. Some Tea Party people go one way. Some seem to go the other. I am upset when I hear that politicians that got Tea Party backing have basically sold out. It also upsets me to hear Romney etc. are using money to gain influence within the movement.
Matt...things are going to get very interesting as this moves along now....Louisanna is a halfway mark....and then all will break loose for the mad dash to convention...course I could be wrong but Romneys cash is dwindling fighting this thing....and I just chuckle how Newt got him to spend his money in Florida opposing him...hahahaha! Millions down the tube now!!
It’s awful hard not to imagine Newt and Santorum are playing hand in glove on this Primary.
I have this on MP3 and listen to it often. Zamzar.com is an online conversion site, which means no software. You put in any URL, they download and convert it for you, and notify you by email when it's ready for you to download. The quality is maybe 2 steps below really really good quality. but with good speakers or headphones, it is really good. It goes right into my Itunes.
Thanks very much. The establishment needs to to be shut down here. They’re in control. This primary is proving that much. Sarah Palin got no support and Newt Gingrich hasn’t either.
Reagan, to my knowledge (I was quite young), ran within the Republican Party. He wasn’t from the establishment wing. He belonged to the Goldwater anti establishment wing. I don’t think he ever ran a true third party campaign (as in outside the two main parties).
Yes, just from my little bit of experience, the moral conservatives are just that, interested only in moral issues, which is where Santorum captures them.
As for me, if there is a President in DC taking care of the economy, realigning this country with its original purposes and ideals, including religious liberty, which I think is different from individual morality, that should free a lot of people up to take care of the moral issues, church to community, heart to heart...
Santorum and his supporters are blind to these 2 things, which other Freepers taught me: if you open the door of govt to religious influence, that door swings both ways. And Santorum is going to divide this country with his moral issues, the same way barack did with racial issues. The divide is something we don't need. This battlefield is the human heart. Santorum is such a schmuck.
And that’s the downside of running an anti establishment campaign within the party. Money. Organization. A party apparatus that makes rules to make it difficult (in fact they even change the rules when it looks like they may lose).
So, is there some historic reference where this was accomplished some time ago? Or I am thinking it has likely never been done before...
I don’t want to cast aspersions on people, or make this a conversation about Rick Santorum. I am a social conservative, but for me the ultimate family values are putting food on the table for my family, putting a roof over their heads, and clothes on their backs.
I want to hear other people`s opinions about 3rd parties, or running within the existing Republican Party, or..............
Mr. Newt is already calling on Romney and Santorum to stop the negative ads and concentrate on their own positive visions. Mr. Newt is the leading voice in this strategy and I would urge your candidate of choice to do the same. Show us your visions for America and past achievements in which accomplish those visions. Stop the ridicule of each other and focus only on defeating Obama.
Mr. Newt is already being called a whiner for suggesting that Romney and Santorum stop the negative ads. Mr. Newt is already working toward this very strategy. The Tea Party could make all the difference, but they too are split. How they could be supporting Romney is beyond me. When push comes to shove, I think they will support a Gingrich/Palin candidacy and that would indeed be a gift to WE THE PEOPLE. GOD help us achieve this goal!
“Are you ready for a showdown? You betcha!”
I feel that this showdown must come this year, or this party will collapse under its own defeat!
GINGRICH/PALIN 2012...IT MUST BE!
A historic reference for what?
I’m right with you.
For flipping the party without leaving it...from the inside or by effective successful pressure from the outside.
I am starting to see how this is all so much like when Newt was in the House, and why he made so many enemies.
By historic, I also meant, something like this I got from a friend of mine - Newt often talks in dog whistles for conservatives, and I am just learning to hear them:
My most recent email to my state volunteers:
Many of you may have heard Newt mention Leonard Wood and the 1920 Republican Convention, the last one to really be "brokered", but more specifically because he cited Romney as the weakest front runner since Leonard Wood. Who was Wood? He was the Army Chief of Staff, and Physician and Graduate of Harvard Medical School. (Interesting coincidence? He died in 1927 in Boston.) A football star and coach at Georgia Tech, and winner of the Medal of Honor.
Pretty impressive, huh?
Going in to the convention, Wood was unquestionably the favorite, particularly after winning the New Hampshire primaries. But in irony of ironies, he never got above about 31% of the delegate votes.
He topped out in the middle rounds, 6, 7 and 8 but then in the 9th and 10th ballots, a winner emerged. That winner received only about 6% of the vote until the 8th ballot when finally his numbers rose.
On the 10th ballot, the GOP nominated Warren Harding.
Some of you may not know Harding, others may remember him for The Teapot Dome scandal.
However, that is not what I know Harding for. He was not responsible for Tea Pot Dome, but what he unquestionably WAS responsible for was ending the Depression of 1920.
I have to believe Newt knew the parallels of his reference, but to give you some brief information.
Woodrow Wilson, who President Obama most closely resembles, despised the Constitution, felt that the US should subjugate itself to his newly created League of Nations, and worse, passed the 16th Amendment, the income tax amendment.
Wilson's Progressive policies put us in a Depression that led to almost 12% unemployment. His income tax rates combined with the Tariff Bills of 1913 stifled the economy. Worse, the government grew exponentially under his watch.
So, what did the wild underdog in the GOP convention do when he became President? He slashed the income tax!!! The result? A huge increase in revenue for the government.
More importantly however, he gave his cabinet clear orders. Cut your departments - cut, not slow the growth of - by 25% this year, and another 25% next year.
Harding slashed government by almost 50% and led us right into the roaring '20's and an unprecedented boom. Sadly, he died before he could complete his work, and the next Progressive, Herbert Hoover, helped lead us into the Depression. He raised taxes after the crash and forced government into the private sector and with huge public works projects. Of course, Hoover learned his lesson and later became a major critic of the New Deal. Too bad he had not learned the lessons of his predecessors, Harding, the 10th ballot nominee, and his Vice President "Silent Cal" Calvin Coolidge.
Is any of this sounding like a blueprint?
Maybe THIS is why you support Newt. Or maybe he didn't' remember this when he mentioned Leonard Wood and I have just picked up on the strange connections?
But, the parallels are almost eery.
Romney had TWO piles of money to start with- donated money, and his own personal wealth, in the hundreds of millions. IIRC, Romney did get into self-financing his 2008 run- but I don't know if he is spending his personal stash this time (yet). I often wonder how significant LDS money is in this process.
- > I have this on MP3 and listen to it often. Zamzar.com is an online conversion site, which means no software.
Thank you, true believer forever...
okay, I'm sorry. I brought him up in terms of the moral candidate, whom the Tparty is following, and taking their eyes off the original impetus of their movement, fiscal conservatism.. the fact remains the TParty is losing its way if they are supporting Santorum as a fiscal conservative...
Pray for it!
Heads up if you haven’t noted matthew:
Obama signed order today.... gives the Executive Branch the power to control and allocate... energy,.. production,... transportation,... food,... and even water resources... by decree... under the auspices of national defense and national security. The order is not limited to wartime implementation, as one of the order’s functions.... “includes” the command and control of resources in “peacetime determinations”.
There’s a thread up about this...I am livid!
And half of the rest is ready and willing to sell their freedom to the government in return for more regulations, more restrictions, and more *CONTROL*.
They eagerly salivate for the opportunity to give up their freedoms.
(I never thought I live to see so many conservatives want to bum-rush themselves into slavery.)
It depends what you mean by success. Barry Goldwater had some success shaking up the Republican Party. He got the nomination, but was soundly defeated in the general. His biggest contributions were to the movement. He showed a new path, and inspired a new generation of leaders. Ronald Reagan defeated the establishment in 1980, and won the general. He advanced the movement through words and deeds (but wasn’t very successful at rolling back government for a variety of reasons) Newt’s revolution began in 1994. Again some victories some setbacks. Overall the government grew (like under Reagan)
It should be noted that under your system of government only so much change can be affected. For instance, Reagan couldn’t just reform entitlements by waving a wand.
No apology necessary. I just want to hear what other people think about third parties etc...
I think this is what mark levin was talking about, Reagan taking on a sitting President..
The 1976 National Convention of the Republican Party of the United States met at Kemper Arena in Kansas City, Missouri, from August 16 to August 19, 1976. The convention nominated incumbent Gerald Ford for President, but only after narrowly defeating a strong challenge from former California governor Ronald Reagan. The convention also nominated Kansas Senator Robert J. Dole for Vice President. The keynote address was delivered by Tennessee Senator Howard Baker.
Although Ford had won more primary delegates than Reagan, as well as plurality in popular vote, he did not have enough to secure the nomination, and as the convention opened both candidates were seen as having a chance to win. Because of this, both Ford and Reagan arrived in Kansas City before the convention opened to woo the remaining uncommitted delegates in an effort to secure the nomination.
Reagan benefited from his highly committed delegates, notably "Reagan's Raiders" of the Texas delegation. They and other conservative Western and Southern delegates particularly faulted the Ford Administration's foreign policy of détente towards the Soviet Union, criticizing his signing of the Helsinki Accords and indirectly blaming him for the April 1975 Fall of Saigon.
The pro-Reagan Texas delegates worked hard to persuade delegates from other states to support Reagan. Ford, meanwhile, used all of the perks and patronage of the Presidency to win over wavering delegates, including trips aboard Air Force One and personal meetings with the President himself.
As then President Richard M Nixon was the previous nominee in 1972, the nomination of President Ford in 1976 meant that a major party had nominated the sitting President for the second time in a row, the first time this has happened since the Democratic Party renominated Franklin D Roosevelt for a third term in 1940.
I read that last nite- maybe early early Sat AM. That EO is very scary, I don’t think anyone knows what it’s about.
Yeah. Reagan challenged Ford from within the party in 1976. He lost, but then won in 1980.
This is amazing. did you write it? Because it could be ghettoed up a little bit and make an amazing rap... could I use it for that?
Bull, the establishment are the delegates, always been that way, horse traders looking for payback..
Just like nationally, the proportional vs. winner-take-all assignment of delegates/electors doesn't make much of a difference. If you calculate all the state wins so far as pure winner-take-all, not much changes and Romney only moves from about 500 to 550 delegates. And if you count his expected wins going forward, under pure winner-take-all rules, he still wouldn't get 1,144 delegates and the nomination until June.
There is also the fact that the states have a mix of rules. About half the delegates are awarded under some form of winner-take-all rules, and about 2/3rds of those are coming up in the next half of the primary, with 1/3rd having already taken place.
Q: You know what’s sadder than the GOP-e taking over the nominating process in a brokered convention?
A: You believing that a brokered convention will turn out otherwise.
Our power is in our votes, not some mythical fight on the convention floor.
Why conservatives failed in this presidential primary is something that has to be looked at. It seems like none of us expected so much of the "conservative" media to be working against us, e.g. Drudge, Coulter, radio hosts like Medved and Hewitt, most of the FOX analysts, National Review, etc. Names need to be named and lists need to be made. We need to remember who we can trust and who we can't.
We also had no way of combatting the false advertising blitz by Mitt Romney. I'm not sure how you do that unless you raise that kind of money on your own and run your own ads. If the Tea Party is nothing but a splintered group of disorganized local groups, they'll never have that kind of power. There should be a stronger, national, central Tea Party structure. Not one that dictates to the local factions, but one that follows their lead. It might be unlikely, but short of something like that I don't see how we play on the big, national level.
Of course, we have some Tea Party people endorsing Romney or Paul. But at least the few larger straw polls done by Tea Parties went for one of the good candidates.
You always have something valuable to offer JJ. As I said I don’t have the answers. I do, however, tend to lean in your direction. I think that a very large grassroots movement (Tea Party) can effect change within the Republican Party. IT NEEDS TO STAY INDEPENDENT THOUGH! We can’t let it be corrupted by the Republican establishment.
Instead of Rush saying I don't have to do anything in life I don't want to, he needs to realize that he is maybe the only one who could do this, finance it, make it happen. He needs to be the godfather of a true conservative TV network, either cable or whatever. But I am not sure Rush is really conservative enough, and I don't think Mark Levin has the money. and I doubt that any of them are really interested. It would take the heart of a patriot. And willingness to leave their comfort zone.
That is such a great idea. TeaPartyTV.
I figure somebody will say it is really stupid and naive. But it would take money, and someone like Breitbart, but with a conservative bent... And the TParty grassroots could remain just as independent as they now are, but like any media endeavor, a Tea Party TV could certainly give its imprimatur to certain candidates, certain causes, and, most importantly set the agenda, which others could follow, to whatever degree they wanted.
Hardly stupid. We need to be setting the agenda.
Between Mark Sean and rush, there are probably others, that I don’t know about... that would probably pretty much cover most of the conservative base. They could dittocam their radio shows that’s 9 hours of programming right there...
There’s all kinds of possibilities. There is great stuff online like Breitbart etc. There’s all kinds of great stuff on the radio like Rush etc. I’d really like a network devoted to conservatism. Fiscal conservatives. Social conservatives. Foreign affairs.