Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Divided GOP may have to throw away the convention script
Minneapolis Star-Tribune ^ | JEFF ZELENY and JIM RUTENBERG

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," ....

[snip]

..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.

[snip]

..."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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: brokeredconvention; delegates; floorfight; gopconvention; gope; gopprimary; notinevitable; nottromney; slimandnone
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-81 last
To: hal ogen

True. Very true. Our country is in the state it’s in primarily because of voters.


51 posted on 03/18/2012 1:10:08 PM PDT by Jagdgewehr (It will take blood)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ak267
You really come across as pathetic when you miss all of the points of my post and then attack my intelligence.

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.

52 posted on 03/18/2012 1:10:57 PM PDT by WFTR (Liberty isn't for cowards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Kolath

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.


53 posted on 03/18/2012 1:13:43 PM PDT by WFTR (Liberty isn't for cowards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Optimus Maximus
While I disagree with your assertions, I appreciate that you stated your views intelligently. Thank you for that.

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.

54 posted on 03/18/2012 1:34:09 PM PDT by WFTR (Liberty isn't for cowards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: conservativejoy
I'm supporting Mitt Romney. I like the idea of having a candidate with real executive experience. I like having a candidate with real experience outside of government and government consulting. None of them is a conservative purist, and if I can't have purity, I'd like competence.

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.

55 posted on 03/18/2012 1:42:26 PM PDT by WFTR (Liberty isn't for cowards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

Grow up loser.


56 posted on 03/18/2012 1:43:45 PM PDT by WFTR (Liberty isn't for cowards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: WFTR

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.


57 posted on 03/18/2012 2:05:42 PM PDT by conservativejoy ("Where there is no vision, the people perish." Proverbs 29:18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: WFTR

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.


58 posted on 03/18/2012 2:06:47 PM PDT by ak267
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: WFTR

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.


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.


59 posted on 03/18/2012 2:17:21 PM PDT by Kolath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

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.


60 posted on 03/18/2012 2:24:08 PM PDT by Kolath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: WFTR

WFTR,

Some good things happened during that time, but Newt Gingrich doesn’t deserve as much credit as he sometimes claims.
************************************************************
Really? Name one of those “good things” that was not proposed in the Contract with America, a Gringrich design, and was not pushed through by the majorities Gingrich was responsible for getting elected.

On the other side, can you cite ONE conservative advance proposed and supported by Romney?

Newt has continued to work through his American Solutions project to identify other conservative ideals that poll in the 70% support and above range from ALL voters. That is the way to move the ball forward toward reversing decades of constitutional encroachment. That is the mark of a leader.

He does have lots of ideas, and some not so good. To me, that’s a much better approach than no ideas maintenance of the status quo. Take his latest energy observations. Has anyone else pointed out the reduction in the national debt possible from the royalties that would be realized if domestic energy production by the private sector was unleashed? When coupled with the jobs and the reduction in oil prices, these are the types of practical solutions that catch the imagination of the average voter and propel them to the voting booth.
************************************************************
Newt Gingrich was forced from his leadership position by his own bad character.

Surely you know that is a meda/lib/progressive talking point and is patently untrue. As I said previously, he was “Palinized” before Palin made a splash on the national scene. I think that’s why she supports him. He was cleared of ALL charges, which were simply used to smear his name by the MSM/Liberal/Progressive cabal because they wanted to stop him. As usual, the mushy moderate GOP-E would NOT engage to defend one of our own. He resigned of his own volition because the repubs lost seats in the mid-term elections of 1998, the GOP-E was tired of the negative MSM onslaught against him, and he felt they would no longer support him, based on their non-support in the ethics slander against him. If that’s resigning in disgrace, we need a lot more politicians that act that way. Please do not continue making such a historically inaccurate slanderous charge. Support whomever you choose, but do it based on honesty and ideas, not falsehoods, please.

Once elected, to be effective in implementing conservative principles, we will need either a conservative majority in both houses, or a conservative POTUS that can go over the head of the MSM/Lib/progressive misrepresentation of those ideas a la Reagan. I do not see either Romney or Santorum capable of pulling off either of those requirements.

I fear for our future, and the time for half-measures is long past.


61 posted on 03/18/2012 3:02:38 PM PDT by Optimus Maximus (The criterion of truth is that it works even if nobody is prepared to acknowledge it -L von Mises)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/05/16/newt-gingrich-calls-the-ryan-plan-right-wing-social-engineering/

You conveniently failed to mention the part about Newt describing Ryan’s plan as “radical right-wing social engineering” Oh and if being opposed to Newt’s plan to put giant mirrors in space to combat non-existent global warming or being opposed to spending trillions on a moon base at a time when almost 1/2 of every dollar the government spends is borrowed, makes me “no friend of economic or national security” then your support of those things makes you no friend of sanity.


62 posted on 03/18/2012 5:42:31 PM PDT by NavVet ("You Lie!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: NavVet

Come on...

If we can’t have an honest debate on FR, we are in bad shape.

The response Newt made about “right wing social engineering” was not a critique of Ryan’s plan. He had previously complimented Ryan on his plan on not one, but two national MSM appearances. On a third (or fourth) appearance, he was asked how a mandate by Republicans was different from a mandate by the libs/progressives. Ryan’s plan, as I understand it was NOT a mandate. Gingrich’s response was that “right wing social engineering is just as bad as left wing social engineering” (think Romney care).

As usual, the lib/progressive media cabal took his comment out of context, and claimed it was a direct critique of Ryan’s plan. It wasn’t. Same “Palinization” template the media has consistently applied to Newt throughout his career.

Proving once again that “a lie can go ‘round the world before the truth can get it’s pants on.”

Get a accurate argument, please.


63 posted on 03/18/2012 5:59:20 PM PDT by Optimus Maximus (The criterion of truth is that it works even if nobody is prepared to acknowledge it -L von Mises)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: WFTR
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.

Not so. Joe Miller sunk his own battleship with Sarah Palin when he said in a Fox interview that he didn't know if Sarah was qualified to be President. Within hours Joe Miller received a rather scathing email from Todd Palin. From that point on, the Palins had nothing to do with supporting Joe's campaign.

64 posted on 03/18/2012 7:09:17 PM PDT by lonevoice (Klepto Baracka Marxo, impeach we much.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Optimus Maximus

So when Paul Ryan told Mark Levin that Newt had called him and apologized, what was Newt apologizing for.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265390/gingrich-distances-himself-ryan-plan-katrina-trinko


65 posted on 03/18/2012 7:39:59 PM PDT by NavVet ("You Lie!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

The NE liberal Reagan selected as his running mate in 1976 was Richard Schweiker.


66 posted on 03/18/2012 8:32:51 PM PDT by kevinw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: NavVet

Newt was apologizing for not being more specific, which allowed the liberal/progressive media to take his words completely out of context, and run with the lie that he was criticizing both Ryan and Ryan’s plan.

Surely most of us are now familiar with the template the liberal/progressive/media uses to smear conservatives.

Wise up, please.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57343676-503544/newt-gingrich-new-ryan-wyden-medicare-plan-a-breakthrough/


67 posted on 03/18/2012 8:47:03 PM PDT by Optimus Maximus (The criterion of truth is that it works even if nobody is prepared to acknowledge it -L von Mises)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Optimus Maximus
Really? Name one of those “good things” that was not proposed in the Contract with America, a Gringrich design, and was not pushed through by the majorities Gingrich was responsible for getting elected.

You took one line from my post out of context and have created a straw man argument. I clearly said that Newt Gingrich deserved a great deal of credit, but he's claiming more than he deserves.

Welfare reform had huge popular support. If I remember correctly, welfare reform had about 80% popular support. While this legislation was good, pushing through a bill with 80% support should not be that hard to do. In the mood of the country at that time, refusing welfare reform was considered the one thing that Democrats could have done to repeat their losses of 1994.

Dr. Gingrich also claims credit for balancing the budget. He should receive credit for creating the GOP majority that made balancing the budget possible, but his handling of the whole process as speaker was not that strong. He lost the shutdown battles and had to give in to Clinton. Much of the spending cuts at that time came from cutting the military. He did some good things, but for him to claim that he engineered everything good that happened in the mid-90's is untrue.

On the other side, can you cite ONE conservative advance proposed and supported by Romney?

As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney looked at student performance as a function of class size and found that the popular idea of smaller classes producing better performance is false. The teachers' unions wanted to tie all education improvements to more government spending and spending on initiatives that would lead to more teaching jobs and union dues instead of better student performance. That kind of focus on finding the real issues and working on them to reduce spending or get better benefit per dollar spent is what I consider a conservative step forward.

Mitt Romney faced an 85% Democrat legislature in Massachusetts. He wasn't in a position to propose major conservative reforms, particularly on social issues. He made the best of the situation that he was given and made small but real progress in some areas. For instance, he changed the procedures for gun owners to receive their licenses in a way that benefited the gun owners. I would prefer that the Second Amendment be our only license, but that wasn't going to happen in Massachusetts. I admire someone who can stand against the odds and accomplish anything as much as I admire someone who coasts on the currents and makes pretty speeches. Many of our so-called conservatives today have spend much of their careers coasting on the currents.

As I said previously, he was “Palinized” before Palin made a splash on the national scene.

When I referred to Newt Gingrich being forced from leadership by his own bad character, I was not referring to the ethics charges. His own affair with Callista became public in the run-up to the 1998 election. That affair in light of the steps taken against Bill Clinton gave the Democrats another talking point and another chance to distract people from the issues. That distraction is part of why the GOP lost seats that year. His problems were not just with Democrats. Many Republican House members wanted him to step aside as Speaker because he made too many issues about him and created more distractions. Newt Gingrich has never shown that he has the right stuff to be in charge of anything.

68 posted on 03/18/2012 10:27:54 PM PDT by WFTR (Liberty isn't for cowards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: conservativejoy
I’m not convinced that being a CEO translates, necessarily, to the Presidency.

I don't believe that the translation is perfect either. The job that most resembles the presidency is being the governor of a state. We're down to only one GOP candidate who has been a governor. If Newt Gingrich had run for governor of Georgia and had even one successful term, the race would have been completely different.

Mr. Romney has the executive experience in business, as CEO of the Olympics, and as governor of Massachusetts. He has been successful in all three. Those successes show that he's most qualified for the basic duties of being president. Obviously, you don't like him on ideological or maybe religious grounds, but he has shown that he understands the job better than any other candidate does.

The accusation of being "vicious" and "without regard for the truth" is just more mudslinging. His opponents have attacked him viciously and inaccurately. Maybe you don't see that because you believe all of the accusations against him and won't see any of the flaws in other candidates. I think they all have flaws and at times have hit one another harder than I would have liked.

I also wish that you shared my view of Mr. Romney. I wouldn't care whether you preferred another candidate as long as you let go the ridiculous anti-Romney lies that so many are trying to spread. I don't like Rick Santorum, but with a good GOP Congress behind him, he wouldn't be that bad a president. I like Newt Gingrich, but I don't think he has the right stuff to be president. I don't look at either of them with the blind hatred that so many feel towards Mr. Romney.

69 posted on 03/18/2012 10:40:11 PM PDT by WFTR (Liberty isn't for cowards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Optimus Maximus

Newt tried to backpeddle pretty fast, but his original intent was clear, but maybe, Paul Ryan, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Forbes Magazine and NRO all just misunderstood Newt, because they are all idiots and assumed Newt actually meant what he said.

I suggest that you take the blinders off and wise up yourself.


70 posted on 03/19/2012 1:03:43 AM PDT by NavVet ("You Lie!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: God-fear-republican

31 posted on Sunday, March 18, 2012 7:46:45 AM by God-fear-republican: “Romney is finished.”

I wish I could agree.

I’m afraid he’s going to be the nominee unless something changes quickly.


71 posted on 03/19/2012 4:05:39 AM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina

He is damaged, foolish to nominate him, Santorum now has to deal with natural born US citizen question, otherwise he is liar as he promises to uphold Consttution.

I still believe our delegates will wise up to pick a good leader who might be Newt.

Let’s pray.


72 posted on 03/19/2012 4:26:22 AM PDT by God-fear-republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: WFTR

You took one line from my post out of context and have created a straw man argument. I clearly said that Newt Gingrich deserved a great deal of credit, but he’s claiming more than he deserves.

Welfare reform had huge popular support. If I remember correctly, welfare reform had about 80% popular support. While this legislation was good, pushing through a bill with 80% support should not be that hard to do
****************************************************

My point was not a straw man argument. My point was that Newt’s attraction is that he is capable of identifying those common sense issues with that range of support, “nationalizing” those issues, and getting them implemented.

Do you think developing our own national energy resources does not have a similar level of support?

Who’s pushing for implementing them? Newt & Sarah.

What about reigning in the liberal judiciary? Is that not at a 70-80% level of support?

Lots of common sense issues have that level of support, but relatively few are acted upon in D.C., and even fewer are implemented.

You need a DRIVER that will not let go of the issue in face of the dem/progressive/media onslaught to get even an 80% support issue implemented.

I don’t see Romney as that guy.

********************************************
As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney looked at student performance as a function of class size and found that the popular idea of smaller classes producing better performance is false. The teachers’ unions wanted to tie all education improvements to more government spending and spending on initiatives that would lead to more teaching jobs and union dues instead of better student performance. That kind of focus on finding the real issues and working on them to reduce spending or get better benefit per dollar spent is what I consider a conservative step forward.

*****************************************************

Thanks for making my point.

Do you think these sorts of small potatoes issue will put our nation back on the path of fiscal sanity?

Or put us back on the path to constitutionally limited government?

The biggest problem Mitt has in the nomination process is exactly his dearth of elucidating ANY big conservative idea he would push for if elected. He simply promises to manage the government more efficiently. We need the government pulled out by its roots in many areas, not managed.

It’s all about Romney’s resume. His resume is impressive, but most of us are not convinced he has core conservative prinicples for which he would fight.

Romneycare takes a huge personal liberty issue off the table in any debate he would have with Obama.

Romneycare is bankrupting Massachusetts as Obamacare will do to an ALREADY bankrupt USA.

Herbert Hoover was an accomplished private sector executive, and I don’t think you can say his administration turned out to have handled the great depression so well.

So, give us some ideas Romney will support, get behind, and not mush out when the media comes down on him for supporting those issues.

He certainly ridiculed Newt’s suggestion that the judiciary has to be brought back into constitutional compliance. If you don’t believe, with Newt, THAT is a problem worth addressing, you are no conservative, and are not paying attention. This is a price example of where Newt is out front leading on a 70-80% level of support issue, and is basically alone taking the slings & arrows of the liberal/progressive/media/GOP-E mushes for pushing it, and where’s Mitt? On the wrong side.

****************************************************
When I referred to Newt Gingrich being forced from leadership by his own bad character, I was not referring to the ethics charges. His own affair with Callista became public in the run-up to the 1998 election. That affair in light of the steps taken against Bill Clinton gave the Democrats another talking point and another chance to distract people from the issues. That distraction is part of why the GOP lost seats that year. His problems were not just with Democrats. Many Republican House members wanted him to step aside as Speaker because he made too many issues about him and created more distractions. Newt Gingrich has never shown that he has the right stuff to be in charge of anything.

**************************************************

I will concede there is some validity to your point.

However, again, if you look at what he did accomplish, Romney & Santorum are distant runners-up in accomplishments.

Plus Newt, I believe, has learned from those past mistakes.

I do not think you are giving enough credence to the media onslaught against him at the time, equating his marital infidelities to Bill Clinton’s perjury, and the scalp-hunting he was undergoing at at the hands from the liberal/progressive/medial cabal at the time (remember the Time magazine cover of the Grinch that Stole Christmas? 80 something ethics charges that were later dismissed? the “starving welfare children” because of the welfare reforms?).

At least Newt has proven he will fight the media mischaracterizations, and get the job done. I see no evidence Mitt will take the media on and stick to his guns.

I would like to believe Mitt or Rick would lead a conservative revolution.

I KNOW Newt will, because he has led one since he first came on the national scene. Newt has never stopped identifying those 80-90% issues that would bring the general voters over to our side, trying to get those ideas on center stage, using them to win “nationalized” elections, so that we can get them implemented.

I wish we had a candidate with a spotless conservative AND personal record. We do not.

I’ll take the pitt bull, if I can get him, please.


73 posted on 03/19/2012 7:01:38 AM PDT by Optimus Maximus (The criterion of truth is that it works even if nobody is prepared to acknowledge it -L von Mises)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: WFTR
You are right. I wish people would get this. A brokered convention with A. Romney having by far the most delegates and B. pressure on the delegates from the media AND the party to go with Romney means Romney gets it!

The. Only. Way. For a non-Romney to get the nomination is the Hail Mary, only possible NOW, of Santorum somehow getting enough delegates. Or getting damn close.

Only possible if from NOW ON, including Tuesday in IL, if people do not vote for Newt. Mathematically this is the only way to beat mitt and Obama. Please understand that no matter how great Gingrich is, he doesn't help stop Romney. He helps Romney win more delegates than Santorum.

74 posted on 03/19/2012 7:19:17 AM PDT by Yaelle (Santorum 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ak267

True about Sarah Palin. She is not popular among non conservatives. She will not be huge at the convention either, and she is now so deeply thrown in with newt that I don’t know what good she will do. The delegates are not all going to go for Gingrich. I am a huge Palin f an, but for some reason she has decided to pen herself in. And she won’t be on the ticket either.


75 posted on 03/19/2012 7:24:45 AM PDT by Yaelle (Santorum 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: WFTR
"She [Palin] couldn't deliver Alaska for Joe Miller in 2010 or Newt Gingrich a few weeks ago. <

Miller? Only God Himself could have delivered Alaska for Joe Miller, he had more baggage than the Queen Mary. And she never attempted to deliver Alaska for Newt, endorsing him tepidly the day before the caucus.

76 posted on 03/19/2012 7:31:36 AM PDT by cookcounty (Newt 2012: ---> Because he got it DONE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

I believe it was 1968 when Gingrich was the Nelson Rockefeller advocate against Nixon and presumably George W. Romney too.


77 posted on 03/19/2012 9:31:33 AM PDT by Theodore R. (Past is prologue: The American people will again let us down in this election cycle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: WFTR
the Mormon religion issues that are the real reason that many people hate Mitt Romney

I think there is some truth in this claim, but there are also Mormon-friendly states like AZ, NV, ID, WY, and possibly IL and to a lesser extent OR, HI, NM, MT, CO, and CA.

78 posted on 03/19/2012 9:38:42 AM PDT by Theodore R. (Past is prologue: The American people will again let us down in this election cycle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Optimus Maximus

“This is a critical skill needed to win independent and moderates over to our side.”

While I appreciate your argument for Newt, the only sentence that really matters is above, his electability. The moderates & indy’s will run the other way (from Newt). The remaining no-nothings will vote Obama. That is what we have, and that is why we can’t count on a large enough “conservative” vote to remove him from office.


79 posted on 03/19/2012 10:37:09 AM PDT by adc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Optimus Maximus

We’re not going to agree on this issue, and with our primary coming up this weekend, I need to spend more time on GOTV efforts for Mr. Romney. I appreciate that you made your arguments respectfully. We still disagree on the relative merits of these candidates, but that’s how things happen sometimes.


80 posted on 03/19/2012 11:14:38 PM PDT by WFTR (Liberty isn't for cowards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
I think there is some truth in this claim, but there are also Mormon-friendly states like AZ, NV, ID, WY, and possibly IL and to a lesser extent OR, HI, NM, MT, CO, and CA.

The LDS issue cuts several ways.

I recently heard a pollster/commentator saying that about 26% of Democrats would never vote for a Mormon. I would guess that most of these are hard-core liberals who hate the Mormons because they support socially conservative positions on issues like homosexuality. These people are unlikely to vote for any Republican candidate, so they don't change much either in the primaries or in the general election. A few of them may be voting in GOP primaries for Rick Santorum in order to stick the GOP with a weaker candidate, but their influence is small.

The same commentator said that about 18% of Republicans say that they will never vote for a Mormon. Many of these are regular voters, and if they follow through on this assertion, their actions could have some impact. How big their impact and in which election remains to be seen.

So far, they aren't having a huge impact in the primaries. They have probably been the difference in Missouri, Colorado, and the southern states. I'm torn between amusement and disgust to see fundamentalists who call Roman Catholics "Mary worshipers" suddenly flock to Rick Santorum in an effort to derail Mitt Romney. Apparently, the LDS faith is below Catholicism in the hierarchy of religious bigotry. Even so, their influence alone will probably not be able to prevent Mitt Romney from winning the nomination prior to the convention.

In the general election, Republicans who refuse to support a Mormon may or may not give the election to Obama. As you mentioned, Mr. Romney's LDS faith may help him in a few states. Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana shouldn't really be swing states, and any GOP candidate should win. If Mr. Romney gets a little higher or little lower percentage because of religious identification, the result will be the same. Arizona is another state that should be safely Republican, but if Mr. Romney's faith will help matters, I'm glad for the help. Nevada is a swing state even though the state has only three electoral votes. Getting back those votes is important. In addition to help from LDS voters, Mr. Romney should do well because he has campaigned there frequently for the past two or three years. I can't see Illinois, Hawaii, or California being swing states under any conditions, so the issue is moot there. Oregon and New Mexico are states where Obama may have some vulnerability. In both states, his approval has been around 45% for a while. If his approval stays low, Mr. Romney runs a good campaign, and LDS voters turn out more heavily for him this time, maybe we can swing one of those states. Colorado is another important swing state. Mr. Romney has campaigned there quite a bit, and I'd be thrilled if a strong LDS turnout helped him. The problem in Colorado is that the big evangelical businesses around Colorado Springs may have some of those Republicans who refuse to vote for a Mormon. If they fumble Colorado for us, the GOP will have a hard time winning. I worry somewhat about North Carolina and Virginia. These are important swing states, and some fundamentalists in these states may refuse to vote for Mr. Romney. If they fumble the election in those states, we'll have a hard time replacing those electoral votes.

81 posted on 03/19/2012 11:39:29 PM PDT by WFTR (Liberty isn't for cowards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-81 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson