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 ...
I sent Gingrichs campaign a donation recently so as to encourage him in his attempt to force a brokered convention. I dont usually donate but I felt this reasoning (forcing a brokered convention) was important.
I would encourage other Freepers who want a brokered convention to do the same, regardless of their opinion of Gingrich.
Hell will freeze over zillions of times before I’d ever vote for Mit. If he gets the nod, it’s over for the republicans. I’ll just write in Santorum & never vote rep. again. Plenty of other non rat & pubbie choices. The fools running the party from their yachts & DC parlors are cowardly & stupid. This is why the demos will eventually always win. Reps always snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory & will probably do the same this election. Mitt? He’s Obama lite to me. He can go pound sand.
If you look solely at the candidates records, and what each has actually accomplished, Newt is far and away the most conservative of the remaining candidates, and the only one with a proven record of changing the current trajectory.
He worked tirelessly to build a conservative majority in both Houses of Congress, he was the author of the Contract with America, the brains behind nationalizing the election using the Contract as a vehicle for winning majorities in the election in 1994, won Republican control for the first time in 40 years, implemented the Contract as promised, balanced the budget with those majorities, implemented welfare reform, built the Republican party into a majority in Georgia which had been Democratic-run since the Civil War, worked tirelessly to develop conservative ideas, principles, and for other conservative candidates. His reward? He was “Palinized” by the media, the dem/progressives, and abandoned by the GOP-E to twist in the wind.
Neither Romney nor Santorum have done a tenth as much as Newt to bring conservative ideas into the mainstream consciousness and national discussions. As a result, the dem/progressive/liberal/media alliance developed a template to destroy Newt they subsequently used on Palin, Cain, and any others they deem to be a conservative threat to the establishment and their power.
The worst thing, which I absolutely abhor, is that Romney and the GOP-E have now adopted the template used to destroy Newt in the mid-90s by the lib/progressives/media in this 2012 Republican Primary to destroy Romney’s conservative opposition. I will be completely disgusted if they are rewarded for their efforts by Romney winning the nomination.
We should be better than that.
Ideas matter. Accomplishments matter. G_d help us if all it now takes to win a Republican nomination is the money to buy five or six or ten to one media ads against your conservative opposition, that tell half-truths, outright lies, and include endorsements of the mushy moderates that sat on their hands while we got into this mess, by going along with the ridiculous spending and expansion of the federal government into every aspect of our lives, in direct contravention with the constitution.
To ignore Newts accomplishments, while ignoring the absolute dearth of those types of accomplishments in Romney, is akin to sticking your head into a hole in the ground. You believe what never was and will never be accomplished.
Romney will court media approval and re-election to the exclusion of all else IF he is elected.
Better than Obama? Sure. Change the trajectory of our non-constitutional massive deficit spending congressional path? Not so much, judging by his past actions in that regard.
I had rather go down with someone who will make a difference, if elected, than vote for another mushy moderate that will simply slow the speed with which we approach the cliff.
Newt has demonstrated he can change the direction, and change Washington’s go-along-to-get-along power elite operating mode.
I am simply stunned that more good people, who know what we need to do to get back to constitutional limited government, one that lives within its means, cannot see that Newt’s determination to change Washington, and upset the power elite’s cushy status quo, fuels most of the negative ads and resistance to his candidacy.
Newt has no equal in succinctly and powerfully presenting the conservative argument and providing historically documented, practical examples of how those principles benefit us all. This is a critical skill needed to win independent and moderates over to our side.
Vote for whom you wish, but expect no change in direction from a Romney administration, IF he manages to get nominated, and IF he wins the general election.
I say it is high time for a little blood-letting on the convention floor, because the blood that will be spilt is that of the GOP-E. The winners will either be the Tea Party conservatives that are the base of the party, or we will finally form our own political party, where conservative ideas and constitutional principles will be given the respect and allegiance they deserve.
We will get much more media coverage of our ideas, and the dem/liberal/progressive/media alliance will not be able to concentrate their media ads against a single opponent until much later in the game than they would wish.
I had followed politics since '68 but was never passionate like I was, for the first time, in '76.
Of course we didn't have 14 TV networks doing 7x24 coverage back them and no internet. We were reliant upon the evening newscast and the endless flow of newspaper reports.
I bought the SF Chronicle every day as they were closest to the action at the Cow Palace...but I suspect every major paper in the world was there by the final count.
Screaming. Fist-fights in the aisles. Shout-downs. Complete chaos.
Then Reagan announced his VP choice before, I believe, the 3rd ballot. Some NE LIBERAL (Weicker?) and the Mississippi delegation walked out, shortly thereafter announcing their support of Ford and ending the fight.
Millions of us dropped to the floor weeping.
A crushing defeat.
Given Santorums’s history as a lobbyist, who are you supporting?
WHEN Mittens fails to secure the Republican nomination for President of the United States on the first ballot then the Establishment will go with Plan ‘B’.
—George HW Bush
Newt Gingrich was 21 years old in 1964. Stop being an asshole.
Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin
That is the absolute truth, my friend. It's also the only ticket that has the potential and the resolve to reverse the destruction of Obama and the Democrats.
If those two don't wind up being inaugurated in January 2013, America's in for another four years of swirling down the porcelain receptacle. May even be a complete flush by 2016.
The big difference I see between Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin is that he had two successful terms as California governor. In one sense, I don’t blame Sarah Palin for resigning as governor of Alaska. The way the rules in Alaska are written, trying to stay in office would have ruined her family’s financial future in defending against the baseless charges that the left made. On the other hand, justification for her decision doesn’t change the fact that she had only two years as governor. As ugly as things were in the 60’s, Ronald Reagan governed California in a better time, and he took less damage than Sarah Palin did. By 1980, he was an older and more accomplished candidate. Sarah Palin won’t be able to boast the same resume this year.
True. Very true. Our country is in the state it’s in primarily because of voters.
I know very well that Lisa Murkowski is an influential politician in Alaska and ran as an independent. My point was that Sarah Palin's influence in Alaska is weak. If her influence had been that strong, she could have swung those Republicans and independents to Joe Miller. If her influence were that strong, she could have swung the Alaska caucuses to Newt Gingrich. Instead, her candidate finished last by almost a double-digit margin.
As I said in a previous post to a more reasonable poster, Ronald Reagan had two successful terms as governor of California. Two full and successful terms as governor of our largest state means that he can sustain some hits without being damaged goods. An incomplete first term means that Sarah Palin doesn't have the same staying power. The characterizations of her may be inaccurate and unfair, but they stick to her more strongly than anything stuck to Ronald Reagan and they cannot be dismissed as easily.
By the way, I'm speaking from a rational perspective. You are the one deluded by irrational hatred. Maybe you need to get a tinfoil hat that is a size larger and get some more circulation to your brain.
You and AK267 are both deluded. Your inability to do anything beyond throwing insults and whining out your own talking points is evidence that you really don’t have anything important or intelligent to say.
Newt Gingrich should receive credit for putting together the conservative revolution of 1994. He did many things well in Congress, and he showed himself to be an effective legislator. He has many years of faithful party service, and that service has earned him the support of many party stalwarts.
On the other hand, he shouldn't get as much credit for some of the accomplishments as some give him. Welfare reform began to gain support in the late 80's and was supported by a huge majority of the voters in 1995. The balanced budgets of the 1990's came largely from Bill Clinton's deep cuts in the military, the so-called "peace dividend." The late 90's were also a time of increased revenue from the internet explosion. Some good things happened during that time, but Newt Gingrich doesn't deserve as much credit as he sometimes claims.
Against those successes are some failures. Many people in Congress during that time were not happy with his leadership. He was good at creating the revolution. He was no so good at keeping things running smoothly as leader. Unlike Sarah Palin who was forced out of office by false accusations, Newt Gingrich was forced from his leadership position by his own bad character.
Newt Gingrich is a good man and an intelligent man, but he's not the purist conservative that many try to claim. He was an early proponent of individual mandates at the federal level. To me, the individual mandate is the least destructive part of Obamacare, but to claim that Newt Gingrich is so far above and removed from mandates and other policies that we dislike is false. He has supported cap and trade. He chases after a million ideas and some of those ideas end up being bigger government ideas.
He hasn't run his campaign that well, and running a campaign is one way to demonstrate the executive skills that would make a good president. He's had ballot access problems. The vacation immediately after making his announcement was ill-timed. If he'd started focusing on ballot access and other issues at that time, maybe he'd be doing better now. Certainly, he's have appeared to be a more serious candidate.
I don't dislike Newt Gingrich, but I can't see him being a particularly effective president.
The man who would have been the obvious choice to have the GOP nomination in 2012 was Mark Sanford, former governor of South Carolina. His affair ended his chances at higher office (although somehow Newt Gingrich's multiple affairs haven't ended his chances). Mark Sanford would have given us executive experience, business experience, legislative experience and would have avoided the Mormon religion issues that are the real reason that many people hate Mitt Romney. If he had not had that affair, I might have supported him from the beginning. Either way, he'd be close to 700 delegates now and we wouldn't be having this argument.
A weaker choice would have been George Allen of Virginia. His background isn't as strong as some others, but he has executive experience as governor of Virginia. If he hadn't used a racial slur against a member of Jim Webb's staff, maybe he could have pulled out the win in 2006. In that case, he might have been a viable candidate this year.
Grow up loser.
I remember the George Allen hit job by the media. That really was a load of macaca against, by all accounts, a decent man with a lot to offer the nation.
When the media goes after someone that visciously, it is always out of fear and the need to neutralize them politically. I wish that American voters would wise up to that strategy and push back with their votes.
It was a real shame to see someone with the potential of Mark Sanford self destruct the way he did. I wonder, in retrospect, if he believes it was worth it.
I wish I shared your view of Mitt Romney. He has shown himself to be a viscious person without regard for the truth during this campaign. I’m not convinced that being a CEO translates, necessarily, to the Presidency. There is so much to clean up and Undo that the work ahead is going to be a daunting task for anyone.
Dismissive in your comments aren’t you. The cheap, Pavlovian talking points on Palin is what makes YOU pathetic.
You still can’t face facts on the power of the Murkowski machine. It was amazing that Palin won in Alaska on Governor in the first place. But the GOPe machine is something you can’t really come to grips on and your comments show it.
The vote count in the GOP primary was close and Miller DID win the primary and you can thank Palin and her relatives for their efforts. But when Murkowski went indie, she took her DEDICATED voting block with her. The Democrat contingent knew they had no chance of winning in AK and some siphoned off to Murkowski’s side. FACE FACTS. Palin is just one person and Miller had his faults and setbacks on the trail. Believe it or not, it still comes down to the candidate and an endorser can only do so much.
You and AK267 are both deluded. Your inability to do anything beyond throwing insults and whining out your own talking points is evidence that you really dont have anything important or intelligent to say.
You the one who is diluded. AK267 and other defenders of Palin are right. Types such as yourself have been consistantly “pavlovian” and dismissive. Your attitude is getting old.
Palin is not going away and you can keep whining and try to sound like a smart ass but it won’t change a thing. SHE ISN’T GOING AWAY.
And yes, AK267’s points are true about Miller. Miller was an amateur in the game and could not close the deal at the end. Any endorser can only do so much and it’s up to the candidate in the end. Much like 2008, McCain lost it, not Palin.
You strike me as a person who is offended that anyone dare defend Palin. I find your smarmy attitude insulting.
Newt Gingrich supported Rockefeller against Goldwater in 1964...
In 1964, Reagan was put on the GOPe crap list when he spoke for Goldwater with his “Time for Choosing” speech.
In 1968, he was put on “double secret probation” for running in the GOP primaries when it was obviously “not his turn”.
In 1976, the GOPe issued a fatwah on Reagan for daring to challenge Ford and nearly pulling it off.
1980, they threw the kitchen sink yet Reagan managed to win. Suddenly the GOPe played suck-up to get jobs in the administration.....waiting their time regain power and set the rules to foil any future Reagans.