Skip to comments.Divided GOP may have to throw away the convention script
Posted on 03/18/2012 2:23:05 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
For the first time in a generation, Republicans are preparing for the possibility that their presidential nomination could be decided at their national convention rather than on the campaign trail, a prospect that would upend one of the rituals of modern politics.
.....as Romney struggles to win the hearts of conservative voters and hold off a challenge from Rick Santorum, party leaders, activists and the campaigns are for the first time taking seriously the possibility that neither he nor anyone else will get to that total.
In that case, the nomination would be decided by the more than 2,200 delegates -- from obscure local officials and activists to national figures...
..campaign and party lawyers are dusting off their party rulebooks, running through decades-old procedural arcana,....
Party officials also are bracing for the possibility of a prenomination clash between the party's establishment and members of the Tea Party movement,...
"It's more likely than anything since '76, there's no question," ....
..Gingrich's team is expected to hold...-- if only to keep Romney from reaching a majority.
...RepublicanNationalCommittee has alerted the Committee on Contests to be ready for action, preparing for the possibility of courtroom-like hearings run by lawyers who could decide whether the nomination is settled before party members take their seats in the Tampa Bay Times Forum.
Yet the question of whether the race spills over into the convention has opened a new battleground among campaigns in the complicated system of allocating delegates in state and county party gatherings that follow the primaries and caucuses.
....The burden of avoiding a convention fight largely rests on whether Romney can overcome his rivals in the pending contests.
..."They may be planning on a contested convention, but it's irrelevant because we're going to get to 1,144," said the Romney campaign's chief counsel,..
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Parties are made of people. Many of the Repubs are wimpy, get-along-go-along, will-you-like-me people. They must be either changed or tossed.
Newt Gingrich supported Rockefeller against Goldwater in 1964. He really wasn't a Reaganite in 1980. Many of his delegates and supporters are going to be old line party people who are supporting him because of his years of party service. I realize that none of his foaming at the mouth supporters can accept this fact because they think the whole world revolves around their little echo chambers online, but much of Dr. Gingrich's support will be made of people who would rather accept someone like Mitt Romney who has has been through the primary process than to have an ugly fight at the convention in order to satisfy the mindless screamers.
The other factor will be whether the Ron Paul delegates are the kind that we find on forums spouting irrational rhetoric or whether they will be more experienced political activists who know when to accept a compromise in order to prepare for the general election. If a good number of Ron Paul's delegates are activists who put the country ahead of their vanity, they will support other candidates when they realize that Dr. Paul cannot win the nomination.
If we have a brokered convention, we may find that about half of the Newt Gingrich and half of the Ron Paul delegates are willing to support Mitt Romney in order to avoid a long fight that accomplishes nothing beyond further dividing the party. The Missouri caucuses showed that Ron Paul's people are willing to cooperate with Mitt Romney's people. Newt Gingrich may ask for some reward, but he's not likely to watch the convention go through dozens of ballots that only make the party look schizophrenic.
Finally, Sarah Palin is not going to be on the ticket. In many ways, I like her, but she's become damaged goods politically. She couldn't deliver Alaska for Joe Miller in 2010 or Newt Gingrich a few weeks ago. To most Americans, she's a joke. That perception is unfair, but crying that the perception is unfair won't change the perception.
Former Democrats moved en masse into the Republican party and shifted it to the left. These are the so-called moderate Republicans, who support Mitt Romney. RINO lapdogs should fight to take the (Democrat) party back from the Socialists and nominate Romney to challenge Obama as a Democrat where he belongs!
You know, thee comes a point where mentioning a third party run might make sense. The GOPE will never allow a conservative candidate.
In case of that sad event, we need a third party, it might take years to establish it as a force in politics but the republican party will be officially dead if Mitt is nominated.
" Sarah Palin is calling for an end to the lies she charges are being told about Newt Gingrichs history with Ronald Reagan.
Enough was enough when I started seeing rewritten history about Newt Gingrichs relationship with Ronald Reagan and the Reagan revolution in the 70s and in the 80s, she told Sean Hannity of Fox News Monday evening.
The former Alaska governor, who has not officially endorsed a candidate but has urged voters to vote for Gingrich, defended the lessons the former House speaker learned from Reagan, including on balancing the budget, reforming welfare, cutting taxes and downsizing the government.
When I saw that rewritten by some in the establishment, I said, you know, for what its worth, Im going to voice my opposition to that false narrative being rewritten, Palin said. That doesnt mean Im out there only boosting one candidate. Im going to continue to say good things about every GOP candidate because anybody is going to be better than Obama, but enough was enough about lies being told about Newt Gingrich and his relationship with Ronald Reagan and within the Reagan Revolution.
Earlier in the interview, the ex-vice presidential candidates suggested that the lies against Gingrich were largely coming from Mitt Romneys camp, saying the battle between the two candidates has gotten vicious.
Whether it is a PAC that is producing false narratives in ads or whether its false accusing another candidate themselves, they need to be called out. That is the politics of personal destruction, she said. Its not a bad thing to ask for fairness, fairness means just telling the truth and debating relevant ideas, relevant solutions. Not all this personal stuff. [end text]
The big question is, will we have a Reaganesque compromise with the establishment, a la George H. W. Bush as VP, or will we have what we've always gotten with a losing ticket, with the plodding, leaden establishment pick headlining?
I don't know, but this may be our last, best shot at righting things.
Newt Gingrich is part of the establishment. That's his history. That's who he is. Being part of the establishment isn't always horrible. He had to work across all parts of the party to accomplish anything, particularly the 1994 election victories. As a lobbyist for the past ten years, he's had to work with all sorts of groups that are in power. (Claiming that he's a historian/consultant doesn't change the fact that he's essentially been a lobbyist. Either way, he's an insider.) He may be the choice of some people who rage against Mitt Romney because they are blinded by vanity, but they don't represent most of his support. Many of his people will go with the plurality winner rather than see the GOP dragged through dozens of ballots at the convention.
Romney is finished.
Sadly, it is Newt’s bold plans I worry about. Newt seemed pretty hostile to the only kind of “Bold Plan” I would favor, Ryan’s Medicare reform for example, and pretty supportive of the kind of bold plan that has gotten us into this mess, Moon colonies and giant space mirrors for example.
Only one point I disagree with. Reagan was damaged goods as well. The reason that the left can successfully run a candidate with close ties to terrorists, racists, anti Semitics, and proud marxists, is because they could not care less what the right calls their candidate. On the other-hand, if the left makes any attempt to demonize, or marginalize one of our candidates that they actually fear, we are quick to throw in the towel and say, “He / She is un=electable now” Palin could energize the base and that is what wins elections. Romney can’t even energize his own family as his son’s praise of Obama demonstrates and yet nobody is suggesting he is unelectable.
Does Ryan Now Agree with Gingrich? [And now, here's the rest of the story] "There is a perception lingering about NewtGingrich that he was a critic of PaulRyan's budget plan and therefore a critic of conservative fiscal policy in the House of Representatives. Is that conclusion true? Or is it an oversimplification? Like many misconceptions floating around during a heated political season, it is not true. Let's examine the facts.
On April 5, 2011, Representative PaulRyan, the HouseBudgetCommittee chairman, introduced the Republican budget for 2012. Included in that budget was a premium support model for Medicare. This budget was based on a similar plan previously laid out by Ryan called TheRoadmapforAmerica'sFuture. That document had been a RepublicanParty policy call to change the budget and put it on sound fiscal grounds compared to the Democrats' unwillingness to budget at all and tax and spend into infinity. The Harry Reid-run Senate has not passed a budget for over three years, even though they are required to by law.
Gingrich praised the Ryan plan in an article in Human Events on April 13. He called it the most serious attempt by an elected official to rethink our public finances and the modern welfare state in a generation. That is quite a compliment from a former speaker of the House to a current committee chairman. Using a golfing metaphor, Gingrich celebrated the plan, calling it a Ryan "eagle." Is that comparison a negative critique, or is it commendation? One week later, on April 20, Gingrich in the same space heaped more praise on the plan. He compared PaulRyan to PaulRevere, one of our nation's great heroes, and compared the Ryan Medicare plan with his own previous welfare reform. Why would he disparage something he would compare to one of his greatest achievements? Gingrich later said he would have voted for the plan if he had had the opportunity......"
.. and pretty supportive of the kind of bold plan that has gotten us into this mess, Moon colonies and giant space mirrors for example.
You don't know what you're talking about when you discuss this, and if you do and continue to characterize it as such, using Democratic talking points, you are no friend of national and economic security.
And you’ve made the second sane comment on this thread so far.
Finally, Sarah Palin is not going to be on the ticket. In many ways, I like her, but she’s become damaged goods politically. She couldn’t deliver Alaska for Joe Miller in 2010 or Newt Gingrich a few weeks ago. To most Americans, she’s a joke. That perception is unfair, but crying that the perception is unfair won’t change the perception.
Ahem, Joe didn’t win because Murkowski ran as an indie in the general and siphoned off just enough of the R’s (and perhaps a few D’s) to win. Murkowski is STILL a powerhouse name in Alaska politics with lots of GOP-e support and money. Joe was on a shoe-string budget and would of won if it was a traditional R-vs-D fight.
Palin is “damaged goods” to most Americans? Hmmmm....remember when they said that about Reagan and others in the past. I guess if your clientele are RINOS and liberal democrats, I guess so.
By the way, WTF-R, does it get tired reading the same old MSM talking points or have the zombie cells augmented your critical thinking areas?
IMHO this could absolutely help Republicans in November.
Swing voters probably don't pay attention until after Labor Day.
Hang in there Newt.
AK267 is correct, the talking points on Palin are getting old and outdated.
WTF-R....LOL!!!! Spot on!
How will they keep the House and take the Senate if the base is dismissed and insulted at every turn?
EXACTLY. Great summary of the situation.